f13.net

f13.net General Forums => TV => Topic started by: Sky on November 14, 2008, 07:32:29 AM



Title: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Sky on November 14, 2008, 07:32:29 AM
 :drill:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ie9098baec9eb95cdf64383a225032180


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on November 14, 2008, 07:45:41 AM
I think it would be hard to do, but I used to say that no one would ever make a workeable live-action Lord of the Rings, so anything is possible. I think the trick here would be to figure out how to make this look more visually like Ridley Scott's Crusades movie but retain the narrative pop of the Martin. The effects have to NOT be the house-style at WETA or any imitation thereof--you've got to visually reinforce the grittier style and milieu while not just making it a medieval costume-drama, you've got to retain the fantasy elements while giving them a different visual feel and place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sky on November 14, 2008, 07:54:33 AM
I think the most critical thing is the casting. The douche who plays Henry in the Tutors (and also the crappy Anne) ruin it for me completely, despite the great Katherine and cardinal. Martin has such vivid characters that a great actor could really tear into it and have a Swearengen-style run of amazing performances. So much fodder for good actors that could be utterly ruined by poor casting choices.

I don't remember there being much fantastical about it other than some settings. HBO has already shown they can do settings and costuming extremely well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on November 14, 2008, 09:07:06 AM
I don't remember there being much fantastical about it other than some settings. HBO has already shown they can do settings and costuming extremely well.

The first two books, no, not so much.  However, as winter approaches there is more and more fantastic stuff that's getting incorporated.  From Bran's shape-shifting/ dream talking to the savages beyond the wall with their Mammoths and Giants to the Priestess that has Stannos under her swap and Daenery's dragons. 

The next book looks to include even MORE fantasy/ magic as it's going to focus more on the Eastern lands, where magic doesn't seem to have gone away like it did in Westeros.

As soon as I saw this topic I was like "No way they can do this justice.  Martin is so out there on some things with the sex and the violence and the incest that there's no way it'd ever make it to broadcast TV."  Of course, I'd discounted HBO.  Yeah, I think they could pull it off incredibly well. Fuck, I'd even subscribe for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on November 14, 2008, 09:08:22 AM
I think the most critical thing is the casting. The douche who plays Henry in the Tutors (and also the crappy Anne) ruin it for me completely, despite the great Katherine and cardinal. Martin has such vivid characters that a great actor could really tear into it and have a Swearengen-style run of amazing performances. So much fodder for good actors that could be utterly ruined by poor casting choices.

I don't remember there being much fantastical about it other than some settings. HBO has already shown they can do settings and costuming extremely well.

Er...the various rezzes?  Renly's little encounter?  Admittedly, the magic angles have been subtle, but I've also heard that it will start coming faster in the next couple books.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on November 14, 2008, 09:30:26 AM

Er...the various rezzes?  Renly's little encounter?  Admittedly, the magic angles have been subtle, but I've also heard that it will start coming faster in the next couple books.  

Which I expect my grandchildren will enjoy reading when they get published.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on November 14, 2008, 09:38:11 AM
MASSIVE FANBOY ERECTION.

That was all, ladies and gentlemen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brogarn on November 14, 2008, 12:13:11 PM
So is it going to be like 5 years between each episode?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: stray on November 14, 2008, 01:16:15 PM
I think the most critical thing is the casting. The douche who plays Henry in the Tutors (and also the crappy Anne) ruin it for me completely, despite the great Katherine and cardinal.

I don't know anything about Martin, but Rhys-Myers is not a douche! The guy's generally good. I don't get that.. There's a lot of praise for that show (and him). No, he's not the old fat cantankerous Henry VIII, but before his injury, he was considered to be a young, handsome guy. Therefore they cast it that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on November 20, 2008, 11:56:06 AM
Fap fap fap  :drill:

-----

Now, the two producers (David Benioff and Dan Weiss, I think) made an appearance on this forum (http://www.italiamac.it/forum/archive/index.php/t-165061.html) and wrote:

Quote
Ages of younger characters: For practical reasons, we're going to have to age some of the kids up a bit. A lot of it has to do with reasons you guys have mentioned; also, there are limits to the amount of time you can shoot with minors.

Now, I never watched the Sopranos or any other HBO show, but I understand they are not always equipping the Axe of Censorship +5 vs. Filmakers. Let's hope this is going to be the case for "Game of Thrones" as well...

I can understand the decision of upping the age of some characters: oh well, that means Arya, Sansa and Dany will be hot from the start  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on November 20, 2008, 03:23:27 PM
If this was anyone but HBO, I'd say it was sent to die. But as it stands, awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chenghiz on November 21, 2008, 03:55:12 AM
I'm going to pretend I think this will be bad until it releases and proves me wrong by being awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: nurtsi on November 25, 2008, 01:05:10 AM
Quote
... So let's all hope the pilot will kick serious ass.

It should. David Benioff and Dan Weiss did a terrific job with the script. And yes, all of you can relax, it's very faithful. Dan and David will be the executive producers for the pilot and (we hope) the eventual series.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/ (http://grrm.livejournal.com/)

I'm torn between  :ye_gods: and :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sky on November 25, 2008, 07:29:48 AM
The not-blog makes me want to start painting miniatures again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on December 02, 2008, 03:46:53 PM
Ugh.  The blog reminds me that GRR is still writing Wild Cards books.  KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF AND MAKE GoT AWESOME AGAIN, plzk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on February 19, 2009, 03:45:18 PM
http://termopilas.tales-tra.com/users/parsec/Pilot_script.pdf

61 pages. Enjoy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on February 19, 2009, 04:23:03 PM
The casting of Tyrion Lannister and Jon Snow will make it or break it for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on February 19, 2009, 04:40:14 PM
Tyrion will have to be special effects and makeup.  There's no fucking way you just stumble onto an actor with Tyrion's proportions that can pull off that character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on February 19, 2009, 05:05:02 PM
Tyrion will have to be special effects and makeup.  There's no fucking way you just stumble onto an actor with Tyrion's proportions that can pull off that character.

You never know. Some of the little people in SAG might be Olivier caliber actors but the dearth of parts written for them prevents you from ever seeing it. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on February 19, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
If there were he would have taken Warwick Davis' job.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on February 20, 2009, 04:58:43 AM
One thing to note about the wildcards stuff he does write some stuff for them but mostly he is the editor they are compliation novels for the most part and while he is the cat wrangler he does not do the majority of the writing in most of them.


But yes please work on game of thrones faster george if you die before you finish the series I swear to god I will perform an unholy rite to raise you from the fucking dead to finish them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on February 20, 2009, 05:42:31 AM
What I've seen going around so far is Peter Dinklage is in talks to be Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on April 23, 2009, 06:50:57 PM
Glad to see A Game of Thrones is still moving forward:

http://www.airlockalpha.com/news426283.html

Quote
A HBO pilot of author George R.R. Martin's fantasy novel "A Game Of Thrones" is set to begin filming in Northern Ireland this October.

Martin announced the development in a LiveJournel post Tuesday following the news breaking on Northern Ireland's government Web site.

"Yes, I'm thrilled. Ireland should be a great place to film," Martin said. "And the facility we'll be using, the Paint Hall, is amazing as well. Before it was a film studio, the Paint Hall was part of Belfast's famous Harland & Wolff Shipyards, where the Titanic and many other ships were constructed. The facility is pretty titanic as well. Of course, all of us connected with 'A Game Of Thrones' are hoping we'll fare somewhat better on our own maiden voyage."

"A Game Of Thrones" follows a tragic struggle between several royal families for control of Westeros, a land similar to England during the Wars of the Roses. Other threats bear down on its population, including a supernatural invasion from the icy north, an exiled dragon queen seeking to reclaim her family's dynasty, and a winter that will last for years.

Behind these events, dangerous men and women embrace treachery in a bid to secure ultimate power.

After its 1996 debut, "A Game Of Thrones" won the Locus Award for Best Fantasy Novel and captured nominations for the Nebula and World Fantasy awards. More awards followed for subsequent books in the series.

Seven novels are planned, with the fifth volume, "A Dance With Dragons," scheduled for release later this year.

The series' location scouting included sites in Spain and the Czech Republic, but ultimately Northern Ireland pushed hard to secure the HBO deal.

"HBO has been responsible for some of the most dynamic and successful TV series ever broadcast, and we are absolutely delighted to welcome the HBO team here," said Richard Williams, chief executive officer of Northern Ireland Screen, which coordinated production finance for the pilot. "We are really looking forward to working with them on such an exciting project. This is a real coup for Northern Ireland and further cements our reputation as a leading centre for film and television production ..."

"There's lots of other exciting news on the pilot as well, but nothing I can share," Martin said. "Sorry, lips are sealed. You'll have to wait for Mr. Benioff and Mr. Weiss ... and HBO."

Martin indicated in past posts that the show would span a novel's worth of material per season. If renewed, the second season would cover the events of "A Clash Of Kings."

David Benioff ("Troy," "The Kite Runner") and D.B. Weiss will write and executive produce. Martin, a television writing veteran ("Beauty and the Beast," "The Twilight Zone"), plans to co-executive produce and write at least one episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: FatuousTwat on April 23, 2009, 09:44:42 PM
Glad to see A Game of Thrones is still moving forward:

I'm not. It's gonna be fucking terrible.

And I'm not just trying to shit on every ones parade, I want a TV series to do epic fantasy well, but it's just not gonna happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: stray on April 23, 2009, 09:50:40 PM
i've never finished the first book, but "hear" they are quite good.  :awesome_for_real:

i just can't get into most fantasy stuff when i'm reading, i guess. i like some of it once it's cinematic though. not all, but some. so they're doing people like me a favor here.

anyhow, it's lame to shit on parades that don't even exist yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on April 23, 2009, 09:54:29 PM
The first book is pretty much completely void of any fantastical elements. While i think it will be hard to pull off if anyone can do it HBO can. They have earned a degree of trust. Of course they will cancel the series in the middle of the 2nd book. Still pissed about Carnivale.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 23, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
I expect it will suck too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: FatuousTwat on April 23, 2009, 09:57:45 PM
Ugh, same. That show was great. I still can't believe the bullshit they pulled when they said they thought the show had some to a good conclusion... Yeah on a fucking cliffhanger.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: stray on April 23, 2009, 10:05:57 PM
HBO doesn't really make a habit out of canceling.. They're not Fox or anything. Just some shows were unfortunately less popular than they should have been. But they've got a lot of shows that were like 5 seasons or more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 24, 2009, 12:05:49 AM
They need to tell Martin he's not allowed to play with any TV projects for the series until he gets his lazy ass in gear and FINISHES THE FUCKING SERIES.

Seriously, if he keeps writing at the pace he's going, he's going to be dead loooooooong before any conclusion.  It will be much worst than Robert Jordan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brogarn on April 24, 2009, 05:10:25 AM
They need to tell Martin he's not allowed to play with any TV projects for the series until he gets his lazy ass in gear and FINISHES THE FUCKING SERIES.

Seriously, if he keeps writing at the pace he's going, he's going to be dead loooooooong before any conclusion.  It will be much worst than Robert Jordan.

I completely agree with this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on April 24, 2009, 05:21:45 AM
I also have to agree.  I wish he'd quit dicking around with all that other stuff he's writing and at least just finish A Dance of Dragons.  He's been all but done with it for over a year.  WTF mate?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2009, 06:05:47 AM
Longer than that,  Dance of dragons is the 2nd half of the last book.  His publisher had him split them up when he was writing Feast for Crows because it was already too long a tome to bind.  he's fleshed a bit more out and added some, but my understanding was the majority was written 3 years ago.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 24, 2009, 08:14:50 AM
Yeah, he read the first chapter to us at Comicon 3 years ago....

I have no idea WTF he's doing.  Maybe he's been secretly writting the next three novels all this time, and is just going to suprise us by announcing them all at once!

 :awesome_for_real:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on April 24, 2009, 08:17:01 AM
Longer than that,  Dance of dragons is the 2nd half of the last book.  His publisher had him split them up when he was writing Feast for Crows because it was already too long a tome to bind.  he's fleshed a bit more out and added some, but my understanding was the majority was written 3 years ago.

Not really.  

It's been reported in a few places that after the books were split up,  Martin junked or rewrote virtually all of the surviving material that was supposed to be Dance.  The "already mostly written" story was put out there either by Martin or his publisher,  and is one of the reasons you can find increasingly angry Martin fans grumbling on message boards about the delays in publicaion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on April 24, 2009, 08:26:56 AM
He has released chapters from the book on a inconstant basis. Kinda hard to rewrite shit that you have already released. Personally i have stopped following the progress it brings Robert Jordon flashbacks. I will never do that again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Engels on April 24, 2009, 08:29:33 AM
I listened to an audio book of him reading many of his short stories and telling stories of his own life, both personal and professional. To be honest, considering he's pretty much sexually incontinent and a raging hippy, I'm amazed he managed to write the Game of Thrones novels thusfar, but I'm not surprised he's dragging his feet with the remainder. He's probably bored to death of the entire thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on April 24, 2009, 09:16:20 AM
He has released chapters from the book on a inconstant basis. Kinda hard to rewrite shit that you have already released.

The story went from "mostly written" to "50% written" to Martin is rewriting some more....  oh, and some character POVs are being cut to go into the book after Dance.

This is from Pat's Fantasy Hotlist, where the blogger interviewed an editor at Random House in July of 2007:  http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2007/07/nyc-recap-and-that-little-grrm-tidbit.html

Quote
Many fans have been wondering why it should take this long for the author to write this new book, what with 50% of it having been completed already. Rumors have been circulating that GRRM did scrap some portions of what he had when they decided to publish AFfC in its current format. Well, unfortunately that's not hearsay. It appears that GRRM did cut some chunks out of the original manuscript and has been tinkering with a few things. Hence, he didn't truly have 50% of it done with and ready to go. Which explains the slower than expected progress for A Dance with Dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on April 24, 2009, 09:31:03 AM
Which i don't really believe as a cause for the delay. I would attribute him writing the prequel novels and all the other bullshit as far more a factor in the 5 year delay (or however long it has been). No way all that side stuff is not directly extending the lag.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2009, 11:27:37 AM
I listened to an audio book of him reading many of his short stories and telling stories of his own life, both personal and professional. To be honest, considering he's pretty much sexually incontinent and a raging hippy, I'm amazed he managed to write the Game of Thrones novels thusfar, but I'm not surprised he's dragging his feet with the remainder. He's probably bored to death of the entire thing.

That seems to fit most with what I've read about him from the few trips to his blog.  One of the problems with setting out to write an epic series, I imagine. Everyone wants you to write only that series and finish it out long, long after you're bored of it.   Most fantasy novelists would be better served planning & writing 3-4 novels, then returning as the mood struck them instead of thinking "Ohh, I've got this EPIC idea for a 7 novel series!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on April 24, 2009, 12:03:58 PM
I believe ASoIAF was supposed to only be 3 books originally but i could be mistaken.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sky on April 24, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
He has released chapters from the book on a inconstant basis. Kinda hard to rewrite shit that you have already released.
So he's somehow beholden to release the chapters in the book the same way he pre-released them? They'll come out in whatever form their in when he sends them to the publisher, who cares what the pre-release stuff is? It'll show up in some later novel as bonus content or something. Look at Elric, ffs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on April 24, 2009, 12:21:15 PM
Beholden to do so? No, but it shows that a substantial amount of the work was fit to be shown to the public 3+ years ago. Not familiar with Elric. Elric the white wolf guy?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sky on April 24, 2009, 01:15:19 PM
Entire books rewritten after they'd been released.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 24, 2009, 02:29:24 PM
HBO doesn't really make a habit out of canceling.. They're not Fox or anything.

The troubling cancelation I'd be looking at here is Rome.  Rome cost a ton.  I imagine this show won't be cheap due to the set, costume, and staffing costs (lot of extras for battles).  They may end up just balking at the cost after a while. 

However, I imagine HBO is really looking for a flagship, standout show at the moment.  All they really have is Entourage, Big Love, and the new No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency.  Crap, polygamy and African girl power.  :awesome_for_real: They have a worse line up than AMC.   

This all makes me want to re-read the books. I'll try to hold out until it's closer to the next book is released.

edit: Forgot True Blood.  Good show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on April 24, 2009, 03:07:28 PM
Rome and Carnivale canceled for the same reasons. Insanely expensive to produce. True Blood is a good show. But good lord i tried to read the novels and they are especially bad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on April 24, 2009, 04:15:09 PM
Unfortunately, Rome is also the closest comp for how the show will be directed, set, and wardrobed, since it's got the same epic royal melee with swords thing going on.

That means it'll be fantastic, expensive, and short.  And one of the main actors will get a role on Gray's Anatomy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 25, 2009, 07:27:34 PM
And the other one will end up being the 5th actor to portray the Punisher?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: stray on April 25, 2009, 10:33:04 PM
Rome was a joint BBC production, I think. Or something British. Not entirely up to HBO. Also, the source material didn't lend itself to much more than what they did... Unless you wanted to completely change the cast or something and fast forward almost 100 years. After Octavian got rid of Antony and sealed his position, there wasn't much drama in Roman history (boredom is a byproduct of "Pax Romana"), or even in Tiberius' reign until Caligula came along. So at least a Game of Thrones television series has a wealth of source material to play with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on May 06, 2009, 05:58:45 AM
Dinklage confirmed as Tyrion.    Tom McCarthy will be directing.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i30b29365238b3652295a5a9e328518de



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sky on May 06, 2009, 06:26:17 AM
Ooh, he's an angry elf.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brogarn on May 06, 2009, 10:10:16 AM
Ooh, he's an angry elf.

Perv.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 06, 2009, 12:36:40 PM
http://termopilas.tales-tra.com/users/parsec/Pilot_script.pdf

61 pages. Enjoy.

That wasn't half-bad, really. Glimmer of hope...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on June 02, 2009, 05:56:21 AM
More casting.   Piper is Catelyn.     :why_so_serious:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001061/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 02, 2009, 07:13:24 AM
Ugh, I hate everything she does. Nice casting assholes. You picked a brown-eyed brunette to play a blue-eyed redhead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brogarn on June 02, 2009, 07:18:19 AM
More casting.   Piper is Catelyn.     :why_so_serious:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001061/

My prediction that this series is going to be shit just became a bit more solid.

On a semi-related note... finish the next book, you procrastinating asshole.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on June 02, 2009, 07:28:46 AM
Ugh, I hate everything she does. Nice casting assholes. You picked a brown-eyed brunette to play a blue-eyed redhead blonde.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 02, 2009, 08:49:08 AM
Auburn hair is not blonde.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on June 02, 2009, 08:57:44 AM
Auburn hair is not blonde.

Sorry, I was thinking of Cersei, I forgot Catelyn was ever a major enough character to be worth bitching about.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 02, 2009, 09:02:55 AM
Auburn hair is not blonde.

Sorry, I was thinking of Cersei, I forgot Catelyn was ever a major enough character to be worth bitching about.

Heh, being possibly the biggest dupe in the entire series is noteworthy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 02, 2009, 09:05:33 AM
More casting.   Piper is Catelyn.     :why_so_serious:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001061/
Fucker - you had me thinking they had cast Piper Perabo.

Holly the Angsty Witch? Meh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on June 02, 2009, 11:20:12 AM
Piper the Ugly Witch. Not a fan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 02, 2009, 11:28:04 AM
Maybe slightly young to play Catelyn, given that they're aging the kids some.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on June 02, 2009, 02:08:22 PM
Unfortunately, Rome is also the closest comp for how the show will be directed, set, and wardrobed, since it's got the same epic royal melee with swords thing going on.

That means it'll be fantastic, expensive, and short.  And one of the main actors will get a role on Gray's Anatomy.

The guy that played Anthony is starring in a film adaption of Solomon Kane.  Fuck yes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 03, 2009, 11:56:17 AM
Ugh, I hate everything she does. Nice casting assholes. You picked a brown-eyed brunette to play a blue-eyed redhead.

Especially since a recurring theme in the books is how children of different mothers or fathers look quite distinct.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 03, 2009, 12:08:39 PM
Yes the identifiable bastard theme runs through the novels in a lot of places.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on June 08, 2009, 06:13:25 AM
George or a fan has found the south park character generator

http://grrm.livejournal.com/90493.html

House Stark
(http://pics.livejournal.com/grrm/pic/00053dck/s320x240)

The rest on site



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on June 08, 2009, 08:44:06 PM
I had no idea Rome was canceled; I thought the ending was fine. Where else could they have gone?


Also, BOOOO on the casting of the ugly witch from Charmed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 08, 2009, 10:06:29 PM
Not only was she the ugly one, she was the most annoying one on top of that. I mean come on!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on June 08, 2009, 10:10:22 PM
Rome had its third season cancelled before the filming of season 2 had started. Thus it got a tidy ending.

Quote from: Bruno Heller
I discovered halfway through writing the second season the show was going to end. The second was going to end with the death of Brutus. Third and fourth season would be set in Egypt. Fifth was going to be the rise of the messiah in Palestine. But because we got the heads-up that the second season would be it, I telescoped the third and fourth season into the second one, which accounts for the blazing speed we go through history near the end. There's certainly more than enough history to go around.

Completely unlike, say, Deadwood. HBO you cunts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on June 09, 2009, 08:30:45 AM
Not only was she the ugly one, she was the most annoying one on top of that. I mean come on!

You cannot blame that on the actress, though. The writers made her the "mom" of the three sisters.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 09, 2009, 10:53:00 AM
I completely blame her for being ugly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 09, 2009, 11:35:11 AM
I blame both her and the writers for her work on that show. She was the oldest one so she had to be the "leader" but she didn't have to sound annoying and condescending with every line she uttered. Never once did I find the character sympathic, likable, or remotely agreeable, and that falls entirely on the actress consdering she's one of the heroines.

And yeah, she's not great to look at either. There are a thousand other ways to go with actresses that can actually act, would look like the actual character, and weren't already type-cast due to 8 seasons on the same TV show. It won't be Holly Combs playing Catelyn Stark. It will be Piper running around the world of Westeros, pissing me off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on June 09, 2009, 11:56:46 AM
If it makes you feel better you can always look forward to the part where they kill her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mazakiel on June 09, 2009, 12:20:24 PM
And yeah, she's not great to look at either. There are a thousand other ways to go with actresses that can actually act, would look like the actual character, and weren't already type-cast due to 8 seasons on the same TV show. It won't be Holly Combs playing Catelyn Stark. It will be Piper running around the world of Westeros, pissing me off.


Personally, Catelyn tended to piss me off, so maybe she's perfect for the role.  To be fair though, she's no Cersei.  God I wish she'd die already. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 09, 2009, 12:23:49 PM
The don't off Catelyn until the third book. I don't think they'll make it that far with the show, personally.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 09, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
And then they didn't actually off her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 09, 2009, 12:49:11 PM
SPOILERS!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 09, 2009, 12:57:44 PM
SPOILERS!

Meh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brogarn on June 09, 2009, 01:17:21 PM
To be fair though, she's no Cersei.  God I wish she'd die already. 

I hope that George has a violent and humiliating end in line for that bitch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 09, 2009, 05:40:24 PM
After what he's done to every good character I like, if he doesn't end up having every bastard character come to some horrible degrading end, I will track him down and light him on fire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on June 09, 2009, 07:27:21 PM
I'm sure your grandchildren will be able to report to you if that happens when they come to the nursing home in their atomic hoverbikes.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 09, 2009, 09:49:54 PM
Cersei has to get captured at some point, and then knowing Martin he'll flip the tables on us to make her slightly sympathetic before he crushes her skull. He's a bitch like that.

The good die horribly. The bad stick around until we actually might give a shit. (see Jaime)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 09, 2009, 09:55:21 PM
Wasn't her fate already told at least vaguely in prophecy? My memory might be a bit hazy but i think she is currently captured? But there is no redeeming that bitch, i cant recall disliking a fictional character more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 09, 2009, 10:02:03 PM
Wasn't her fate already told at least vaguely in prophecy? My memory might be a bit hazy but i think she is currently captured? But there is no redeeming that bitch, i cant recall disliking a fictional character more.

I'd like to think so too, but very few of his characters are black and white. At least on the main sense. She's currently captured by the High Septon, whom she gave control in an ironic twist. Will it go that easy? I have absolutely no confidence in that. At this point she's drunk and in trouble though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on June 10, 2009, 09:30:43 AM
To be fair though, she's no Cersei.  God I wish she'd die already. 

I hope that George has a violent and humiliating end in line for that bitch.

Agreed. She needs to be gangbanged by a pack of baboons and then hung from a ship's mast until crows pick out her eyes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 10, 2009, 08:10:52 PM
People found the Catelyn character anything but annoying? Wha?

She didn't have to sound annoying and condescending with every line she uttered. Never once did I find the character sympathic, likable, or remotely agreeable.

You have just described Catelyn for me. Looks like prefect casting to my mind.

Incidentally, looks like GRRM has let lose the game rights to ASoIaF. Anyone willing to make bets about which would be worse out of the TV show or the game(s)?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 10, 2009, 09:23:02 PM
People found the Catelyn character anything but annoying? Wha?

She didn't have to sound annoying and condescending with every line she uttered. Never once did I find the character sympathic, likable, or remotely agreeable.

You have just described Catelyn for me. Looks like prefect casting to my mind.

Incidentally, looks like GRRM has let lose the game rights to ASoIaF. Anyone willing to make bets about which would be worse out of the TV show or the game(s)?

This is all very true.  I've been rereading the series due to the show/new book coming out. Catelyn's character is completely unlikeable throughout.  Granted, she's had a nightmarish time, but even from the start she was impetuous, gullible, self-centered, and a melancholy buzzkill.  Every time her name pops up at the start of the chapter I have to groan.   Even the worst of the POVs are miles more entertaining than listening to her whine or blunder through another situation.

The Red Wedding just can't come soon enough.

I won't be able to make a call on your last point until I see this.  HBO doesn't put out crap, but if poorly done, this could be as bad as the Dresden Files abomination of a series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2009, 12:07:20 AM
She never jumped out at me as a hateful character. She's complex like everyone else. The history of her wedding to Eddard should give you enough to identify with her issues. And the bastards, and the other shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 11, 2009, 12:28:57 AM
I too despised Catelyn more than anyone else in the series. I cheered so much when she died, then sighed and cursed GRRM when he rezzed her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 11, 2009, 12:59:23 AM
I don't hate Catelyn either. I don't think I really like her as a person but I think she may be the most realistic, complex character in the entire series. So while I may not like the choices she makes, I stlil enjoy her chapters because they make you really appreciate what a cut above most other fantasy writers GRRM is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 11, 2009, 01:01:48 AM
After she forces Jon to be sent to the wall (Ned letting that go down never really made sense to me) i hated her. But Catelyn unlike Cersei at least has some depth. Cersei is like a caricature of a person, no depth just a bitch in all aspects in EVERY interaction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on June 11, 2009, 01:04:11 AM
I too despised Catelyn more than anyone else in the series. I cheered so much when she died, then sighed and cursed GRRM when he rezzed her.

Oh man, me too. It was like the one person he killed I didn't mind him killing too much and then OH JESUS WHAT


EDIT: Amusingly, I don't totally hate Cersei like I loathe Catelyn. There's been a couple of moments where he hints at why she's such a raging bitch of a woman that makes me at least understand ... er ... why she's such a raging bitch of a woman. I didn't really start to dislike her as a character (disliking her as a person is pretty easy) until she went all crazy Lady Macbeth and lost even the tiniest hints of personality she had previously in Feast for Crows.

Catelyn though. Fuck. I hate her chapters, I hate HER, and I hate that she's not fucking dead. I don't really see all the depth people are talking about, but I haven't read the books in a long damn time, so I could be that any depth I saw faded while the fact I fucking hate her remained.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2009, 12:27:02 PM
Wow, I've never heard anyone say they didn't totally hate Cersei.

Do you drown kittens in your free time?  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on June 11, 2009, 01:40:40 PM
Well, like I said, she's obviously a horrible person, but I don't hate her like I hates Catelyn, and the teeny tiny glimpses into why she's such a horrible person make her very slightly understandable to me. I don't think Cersei is even the most horrible person in the series, though. That would be Littlefinger.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 11, 2009, 02:13:39 PM
And Cersei gets to be in some hawt secks scenes. Catelyn not so much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on June 11, 2009, 02:17:47 PM
To be fair though, she's no Cersei.  God I wish she'd die already. 

I hope that George has a violent and humiliating end in line for that bitch.

Agreed. She needs to be gangbanged by a pack of baboons and then hung from a ship's mast until crows pick out her eyes.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 11, 2009, 02:24:27 PM
Its recapped a few pages up. Cersei is introduced and promptly gets caught fucking her brother, whom she goads into throwing a child from a window. She then orders a little girls wolf to be killed out of pure spite. Kills the king and Ned, this is just ONE book. Penis envy is not a "window" into why she does these things. Which is the only insight we are given into why she is so fucked up. Catelyn on the other hand is just an annoying nosy bitch, who basically fails at everything she attempts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Engels on June 11, 2009, 02:30:42 PM
I think the point is that I think most of us enjoy reading the Cersei chapters because she's such a omgwtf biatch. catlyn with her incessant moping about may be a 'better person', or whatever, but is just yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnerrific.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 11, 2009, 04:15:46 PM
Is there really a single female character in the series that overall is not on some level pretty despicable?

I know everyone is going on about how they hate Catelyn or Cersei, but I can't think of a damn female character I really liked that much at all except maybe the youngest Stark girl. The rest all have personality flaws you could drive a bus through.

Not to say the male characters are much better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on June 11, 2009, 04:30:49 PM
Is there really a single female character in the series that overall is not on some level pretty despicable?

Arya.  But yeah, she's it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on June 11, 2009, 04:37:06 PM
What about the Dragon Queen character?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 11, 2009, 04:43:19 PM
Arya,Daenrys,Wildling guiding the stark boys,Brienne,Jons chick....umm thats about it. Viking woman wasn't that bad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on June 11, 2009, 04:50:00 PM
Daenerys is definitely despicable on at least 'some level'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 11, 2009, 04:59:13 PM
Is there really a single female character in the series that overall is not on some level pretty despicable?

There's not really any major character that jumps out as the perfect example of shining good. Bran maybe. For now. Sam is pretty harmless. Brienne I suppose.

There are minor characters that we haven't seen so much who seem to be perfectly nice people, but the camera doesn't follow them, probably because they're not as interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on June 11, 2009, 05:26:11 PM
Not to be a sandy vagina, but could people please spoilerize things? I'm not yet finished with the books and I'd like to be able to come here to read about progress on the TV-series. Recent few posts haven't really spoiled anything, but just in case.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on June 11, 2009, 06:19:34 PM
Cersei didn't have Ned killed, she wanted to send him off to the Night's Watch. It was her little shit of a son that killed him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 11, 2009, 07:30:46 PM
Daenerys is definitely despicable on at least 'some level'.

I don't see it at this point.  At the beginning when you still had her dealing with her brother, yes.  However, once she got married and started on her life's work she became so much of a better character I was happy she didn't die the horrible screaming bitch death her brother did, which I wasn't at the time.

But then I like Cat, too, and understand her character beyond "omg whiny non-whore shut up!" so obviously my judgment is flawed.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on June 11, 2009, 08:16:07 PM
Arya Stark cannot be considered "good," as I think its pretty clear she is a raging psychotic.  Sanya is vapid and easily manipulated.  /Agree with what has been said on Cersei and Catelyn. 

Daenerys is interesting.  I think at some level she is meant to be sympathetic, but at the end she is really no different than any other claimant:  a person with a massively inflated sense of self-worth who is willing to see hundreds of thousands of people die so she can sit on the fancy chair.  In fact, given her  situation, its even MORE selfish of her to seek the throne than for the others to do so:  can't she see the whole civil war would come back when she died?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 11, 2009, 09:32:48 PM
Nobody every used the qualifier of "good" more like not being completely appalling. Cersei is psychotic she will betray ANYONE at any time even her own family. Arya definitely a rage filled little murderer but she wouldn't betray her family. Wouldn't randomly kill someone for no reason. Goes out of her way to help people and is generally a kind person. And in the situations she has killed its been pretty fucking justified even the minstrel guy (betrayed the black,betrayed his friends). All of the characters are ambitious they are almost exclusively royals most of them having just recently lost their family and ancestral lands. Daenerys entire line was slaughtered, her family the rightful rulers. She also wants to be a good ruler wants to free the enslaved, and is aware of her own personal limitations so is putting off going for the crown until she believes she can rule. She also has the whole  thing going on.

None of the characters being archetypal good/evil is part of the appeal of the entire setting. And that is one of the reasons Cersei is so glaringly one dimensional. She is a wicked witch and to a lesser degree Cat. Mega overbearing mother fucking shit up as she plods along. Even Ned was an asshole in some respects.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 11, 2009, 10:11:16 PM
But then I like Cat, too, and understand her character beyond "omg whiny non-whore shut up!" so obviously my judgment is flawed.  :awesome_for_real:

 :awesome_for_real:

Maybe you should try and get a job writing for the series, or better yet just write the last few books for GRRM. I'm sure he could use your omniscient guidance.

Everyone is meant to be empathetic on some level, if not then it's just bad writing, but that doesn't necessarily become sympathy. I think everyone reading the various character views is meant to gain some sort of understanding beyond psycho-child/bitch-mother/megalomaniac-whore/loner-hero/hero-in-exile and so forth. That doesn't mean they're all successful, that because someone doesn't 'like' the character they don't get the intention, or that the general character mould doesn't have some relevance.

Arya Stark cannot be considered "good," as I think its pretty clear she is a raging psychotic.

I'm looking forward to Rickon's chapter POVs. He seems to be growing up as the crazy wolf boy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on June 11, 2009, 10:20:24 PM
Sansa is a good example of a character I absolutely could not fucking stand at the beginning that has just the slightest hints of one day being cool lurking in the last book.

Onion Knight guy seemed like a pretty good guy all around, thinking about it? Argh, I really don't want to go back and read the series again, it'll just make me pissed the next book isn't out yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on June 12, 2009, 10:35:09 AM
Pretty much none of the characters are all good just as pretty much none of the characters are all evil, 'cept maybe Gregor Clegane, but at least he was cool.  Even Tywin Lannister, an extremely ruthless and calculating a character there is he did have a few honorable points for example, he loved his family, and was a good protector to his people.

Even the 'best' characters have their points where they will act in a selfish and self-interested manner if the right button in their psyche gets pushed.

Heck, it's one of the main reasons I like the stories.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 12, 2009, 12:02:02 PM
How the hell can anybody consider Arya not good?  Or psycotic?  What has she done thats bad?  Everything I can think of she's done for the right reasons, even if they didn't turn out the way she hoped.  It's been awhile since I've read the books, but I actually can't think of anything.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on June 12, 2009, 12:23:46 PM
How the hell can anybody consider Arya not good?  Or psycotic?  What has she done thats bad?  Everything I can think of she's done for the right reasons, even if they didn't turn out the way she hoped.  It's been awhile since I've read the books, but I actually can't think of anything.

Almost all her motivation is selfish?  The path she has gone down has nothing to do with helping other people and is entirely focused on revenge...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on June 12, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The question wasn't whether she was Mother Theresa, it's whether there were any female characters who weren't 'despicable', and Arya is entirely sympathetic.  She kills people, but that's kind of how this world works, and she has a moral sense and is an entirely decent person.  I think the Onion Knight is a good example of an equivalent non-female. . he has his own issues and doesn't live up to any high standards, but he makes an effort and could not reasonably considered 'despicable'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 12, 2009, 03:38:51 PM
Arya is


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 12, 2009, 05:22:08 PM
What she will become has already been heavily foreshadowed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 13, 2009, 01:05:44 AM
How the hell can anybody consider Arya not good?  Or psycotic?  What has she done thats bad?  Everything I can think of she's done for the right reasons, even if they didn't turn out the way she hoped.  It's been awhile since I've read the books, but I actually can't think of anything.

Almost all her motivation is selfish?  The path she has gone down has nothing to do with helping other people and is entirely focused on revenge...
As far as I can remember, absolutely everybody she killed deserved it.  She's fought back against all those who turned on her family.  For a girl who had her very noble/good father/brothers by a bunch of bastards, I can't possibly think of anything better to do.  Letting it go would actually be worst.  If her actions where "selfish", then they were also good in that she was killing some flagrantly bad people.  Again, refresh me because I don't' remember everything, what are actions she did that are in any way bad?

Now, as mentioned, if her training makes her become something worst, then maybe not.  But frankly I'm hoping she becomes completely bad ass so she can return and kill even more evil assholes in the 7 kingdoms.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on June 13, 2009, 06:05:08 AM
If you want to arbitrarily decide murdering people not in self defense is 'ok' because 'they needed killing' there really isn't much point to this conversation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on June 13, 2009, 10:35:25 AM
Do you normally apply real-world 20th century ethical standards to fantasy novels?  That must be terrible for you.

Were you outraged by the horrific racism of Gandalf when he just assumed that Orks and goblins were evil, without actually trying to strike up a conversation and learn their true feelings?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on June 13, 2009, 10:51:22 AM
One of the greatest things, to me, about this series is that it seems like every character has a fan SOMEWHERE.  Somewhere someone is saying Cersei is their favorite, I bet.

Hell, mine is probably Sandor Clegane.  You can say his issues with Gregor made him what he is, but in truth, I like him because he's a badass who doesn't take shit from the establishment.  He's got that Clint Eastwood grumpy gruff hardass thing going on.  Except he has his kryptonite weakness with fire.  Plus, you know he'll be wandering the kingdom like Caine in Kung Fu at some point.  Except without the dying in a closet part.  Also, add in he might one day head off to kill a giant zombie.  Ok, analogy fail.  But he's still my favorite.

Oh crap, I forgot about Hot Pie.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on June 14, 2009, 01:16:42 PM
Do you normally apply real-world 20th century ethical standards to fantasy novels?  That must be terrible for you.

Screw real life, show me in the books where it says it's okay for Arya to kill, or have killed, people she dislikes.

You know what?  If your point is that having people killed that picked on her makes her a saint than have fun with that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on June 14, 2009, 02:35:50 PM
Quote
You know what?  If your point is that having people killed that picked on her makes her a saint than have fun with that.

Why would his point be something he never said or even implied? The only person Arya has killed that was not in self defense or an active enemy of her house during a time of war was the minstrel who broke his oath to the Night Watch. Whose life is forfeit the instant he did so and can be "lawfully" killed by anyone. Trying to equivocate all "murder" as having the same moral weight is specious at best even in the 20th century. In a fantasy setting its a bit  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jayfyve on June 14, 2009, 03:40:44 PM

Almost all her motivation is selfish?  The path she has gone down has nothing to do with helping other people and is entirely focused on revenge...

I think in the books its clear she is still a child, so she is innocent. As soon as she is fully mature, she can be judged the same as everyone else.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on June 14, 2009, 07:06:02 PM
I don't think Arya is psychotic because she kiled the guards, etc. back in the Seven Kingdoms (the minstrel killing, although perhaps "legal" in the fictional context, was more iffy).  I just think everything we read about her (especially in the last book) implies she is surely but slowly going crazy.  Its hard to point to a specific passage that "proves" that, its just my feeling from the totality of how she reacts to the world. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 15, 2009, 06:09:41 AM
I think the intention was to show her

A: Growing up.
B: Changing under the influence of the faceless men.

She is meant to be caught in a crisis between her identity as Arya Stark, abandoned orphan, etc etc and and her new role as a servant of the faceless. Not sure she's meant to be seen as going crazy, but certainly having an identity crisis and a breakdown of some sort. The minstrel killing is the expression of these conflicts, of her ties to Winterfell (the series begins with the lord of winterfell killing a black brother who abandoned the watch, after all), her uncouth recent lifestyle (of killing a fair bit), and a growing sense of purpose and control gained from her tutalige. The fact she killed someone wasn't exactly the reason she was punished (the blindness), it was the fact that she was setting herself up as the aribter of who should be killed due to her prior identity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jayfyve on July 20, 2009, 12:10:38 PM
Sean Bean will be Ned (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/07/20/sean-bean-plays-a-game-of-thrones/)!

Just for sure (http://grrm.livejournal.com/95840.html).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on July 20, 2009, 02:26:53 PM
Bean would have been better fitted to play Jaime imo. He has a world class sneer, which is a requirement for the part. Don't know Mark Addy, but he certainly looks the part of Robert.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 20, 2009, 07:10:57 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on July 21, 2009, 12:11:20 AM
I so wish that this is awesome, it has extreme potential. HBO someone who tends to not skimp on budget or quality for at least a few seasons. And the inherent goodness of the novels.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on July 21, 2009, 12:09:17 PM
Bean is well outside of the right age range to play Jamie (he's 50.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 21, 2009, 01:36:55 PM
Martin has been pretty clear that his template is not chivalric high fantasy of the Ivanhoe kind (a lot of fantasy) or a freshened-up version of old fantasy epics (Tolkien) or something like China Mieville's Marxification of Tolkienesque fantasy. He's drawing from the Wars of the Roses & Hundred Years War, in which:

a) there  were a few just undebatably evil schemers who were always doing some bad shit, sometimes psycho bad shit
b) most everyone else did some good things, some things that were loyal to their side or faction and some really astonishingly awful and evil things. All while being pretty distinct as individuals.

Read Barbara Tuchman's history of the Hundred Years War and I think you'll see where Martin is getting some of his ideas for characters and some of the mini-plots in the series. Frankly I wish he'd go read Tuchman again, because there's some ideas for events that he hasn't tapped into yet and it might help him resolve what is obviously serious writer's block.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on July 22, 2009, 09:46:20 AM
Quote
Read Barbara Tuchman's history of the Hundred Years War

Is that A Distant Mirror? That seemed to be the closest match. Just put a hold on it at the local library...thanks for the recommendation!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 24, 2009, 10:21:11 AM
Distant Mirror, yup.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on August 04, 2009, 06:56:58 AM
Jennifer Ehle is Catelyn Stark.  Confirmed by GRRM


http://grrm.livejournal.com/97759.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on August 04, 2009, 07:29:35 PM
Almost looks too likeable in her pictures!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 09, 2009, 10:04:35 AM
Its recapped a few pages up. Cersei is introduced and promptly gets caught fucking her brother, whom she goads into throwing a child from a window. She then orders a little girls wolf to be killed out of pure spite. Kills the king and Ned, this is just ONE book. Penis envy is not a "window" into why she does these things. Which is the only insight we are given into why she is so fucked up. Catelyn on the other hand is just an annoying nosy bitch, who basically fails at everything she attempts.

I hate to defend the crazy bitch but she did not goad Jamie into throwing Bran out the window, quite the opposite in fact.  I believe she said something like "he was only a child, i could have scared him into shutting up"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on August 09, 2009, 09:45:41 PM
Its recapped a few pages up. Cersei is introduced and promptly gets caught fucking her brother, whom she goads into throwing a child from a window. She then orders a little girls wolf to be killed out of pure spite. Kills the king and Ned, this is just ONE book. Penis envy is not a "window" into why she does these things. Which is the only insight we are given into why she is so fucked up. Catelyn on the other hand is just an annoying nosy bitch, who basically fails at everything she attempts.

I hate to defend the crazy bitch but she did not goad Jamie into throwing Bran out the window, quite the opposite in fact.  I believe she said something like "he was only a child, i could have scared him into shutting up"

Literal reading fail.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on August 09, 2009, 11:43:23 PM
She's the damn devil.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on August 21, 2009, 03:08:35 AM
Pulling this thread back on topic


http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/38421510.html#cutid1



HBO is filling out the cast of its fantasy pilot "Game of Thrones" with the addition of former "New Amsterdam" star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and several others.

The group joins the previously cast lead Sean Bean as battle-weary Ned Stark, who leaves his home to serve the king. Mark Addy, Kit Harrington, Jennifer Ehle, Jack Gleeson, Peter Dinklage and Harry Lloyd also star.

In the adaptation of the George R.R. Martin fantasy-book series, Coster-Waldau will play Jaime Lannister, one of the king's guards and a ruthless usurper of the previous king. The actor, most recently seen in Ron Moore's Fox pilot "Virtuality," is repped by WME, Impression and Independent Talent Group.

Another addition is Tamzin Merchant (Showtime's "The Tudors"), who'll play Daenerys, an exiled teenage princess.

Also new to the cast: Richard Madden ("Hope Springs") as Stark's eldest son, Robb; Iain Glen ("Into the Storm") as Ser Jorah Mormont, a disgraced knight; Alfie Allen ("The Other Boleyn Girl") as Theon, Stark's young ward; Sophie Turner ("Doctor Who"), as Stark's eldest daughter, Sansa; Maisie Williams as Stark's young tomboy daughter, Arya.

The group joins the previously cast lead Sean Bean as battle-weary Ned Stark who leaves his home to serve the king, Mark Addy, Kit Harrington, Jennifer Ehle, Jack Gleeson, Peter Dinklage and Harry Lloyd.

HBO still has a few more roles to fill in the large ensemble cast of "Thrones," one of the more buzzed-about titles on the premium network's development slate. The pilot shoots in Ireland in October.

David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, Guymon Casady, Carolyn Strauss, Vincent Gerardis and Martin are executive producing.

Source: www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iebbbd387ec9a77d4420b06999a24352b


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on August 21, 2009, 08:54:57 AM
Beside Sean Bean and Dinklage I don't know any of these actors, but Tamzin Merchant as Dany looks  :awesome_for_real: :drill:.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on August 21, 2009, 11:43:14 AM
Beside Sean Bean and Dinklage I don't know any of these actors, but Tamzin Merchant as Dany looks  :awesome_for_real: :drill:.

GRRM's got your back on this one:

Dany is very difficult role. She starts out vulnerable and scared, but blooms on the Dothraki sea, and becomes a powerful leader by book's end. It's no secret that HBO's Dany will start out older than Dany does in the book; that was a change that had to be made, if we wanted to keep the sex scenes, and David and Dan and I were all agreed that the sex scenes were essential. Tamzin can play much younger than her actual age (as she does when playing Katheryn) and her sex scenes on THE TUDORS were as hot as anything I've ever seen on TV. In her readings, she showed Dany's other side as well, commanding and charismatic after Drogo's death. I think she'll be marvelous.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on August 21, 2009, 11:56:41 AM
Please don't suck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on August 24, 2009, 12:50:27 AM
Please don't suck.

Don't worry.  Tamzin Merchant is no Chloe Sevigny. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 24, 2009, 12:56:25 AM
Quote
David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, Guymon Casady, Carolyn Strauss, Vincent Gerardis and Martin are executive producing.

What.

Is this Lucky Wander Boy D.B. Weiss? If so, I'll have to watch this.

Would still like to see Black Company as a TV show more though. I couldn't get into Game of Thrones at all.

Quote
D. B. Weiss was hired to rewrite the screenplay for a film adaptation of Bungie's game series Halo, based on the $1 million dollar script written by Alex Garland. The rewrite was during 2006 and planned for a 2008 release. [3] He also penned a script of Orson Scott Card's book Ender's Game.[4].

Weiss is currently working with David Benioff, the writer of Troy, on the HBO TV adaptation of George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series.[5]

Well. Shit. Benioff is crap, but hopefully Weiss can fix that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on August 26, 2009, 09:06:29 AM
directly from Martin's blog, pictures of Maisie Williams (Arya)...:

(http://pics.livejournal.com/grrm/pic/00067h4r/s320x240)

...And Sophie Turner (Sansa):

(http://pics.livejournal.com/grrm/pic/00068zys/s320x240)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Engels on August 26, 2009, 12:55:44 PM
They more or less work, appearance-wise, anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on August 26, 2009, 01:07:33 PM
At first I thought they were the same kid a couple of years apart. That's a good sign I suppose. Appearance-wise, I mean. :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on August 26, 2009, 05:55:46 PM
The blonde chick looks like how I thought Sansa looked. Also she annoys the shit out of me as a character, so I hope she can pull that off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on September 02, 2009, 10:43:10 AM
Cersei Lannister, bitch extraordinare, has been cast:

Lena Headey, from "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" and "300":

(http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Lena-Headey-f01.jpg)


Here is a collage of the happy (?) families thus far, courtesy of a visitor of Martin's blog:

Stark:
http://liftingfaces.com/uploads/thestarks.jpg (http://liftingfaces.com/uploads/thestarks.jpg)

Lannister:
http://liftingfaces.com/uploads/thelannisters.jpg (http://liftingfaces.com/uploads/thelannisters.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on September 02, 2009, 12:24:05 PM
They've managed to not cast a single blond Lannister, that's going to be hard to get used to.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on September 02, 2009, 12:36:34 PM
They've managed to not cast a single blond Lannister, that's going to be hard to get used to.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the invention of hair dye. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on September 02, 2009, 12:40:43 PM
They've managed to not cast a single blond Lannister, that's going to be hard to get used to.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the invention of hair dye. 


But the eyebrows man, the eyebrows.

THIS IS TOM BOMBADIL ALL OVER AGAIN


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on September 02, 2009, 12:48:19 PM
I feel moved to buy stock in a hydrogen peroxide producer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on September 02, 2009, 01:48:36 PM
More importantly, there will be a carpet/drapes discontinuity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on September 02, 2009, 01:54:01 PM
More importantly, there will be a carpet/drapes discontinuity.

This isn't on SyFy.  I'm sure changing the drapes can get written into the budget.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on September 02, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
More importantly, there will be a carpet/drapes discontinuity.
You sir, are not with the times.

http://www.bettybeauty.com/ :wink:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 02, 2009, 03:19:56 PM
They've managed to not cast a single blond Lannister, that's going to be hard to get used to.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the invention of hair dye. 


 :awesome_for_real:

Lena Headey is about 10 years too old to play Cersei. And she will look really strange as a blonde.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 02, 2009, 03:46:27 PM
They've managed to not cast a single blond Lannister, that's going to be hard to get used to.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the invention of hair dye. 


 :awesome_for_real:

Lena Headey is about 10 years too old to play Cersei. And she will look really strange as a blonde.

She  would have made a better Catelyn imo.  I was hoping for Tricia Helfer for Cersei.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on September 02, 2009, 05:53:35 PM
She does have the green eyes though.

Of course, blue eyes can be made green by contacts easier than hair can be made blonde by makeup.

I don't really mind the age thing, as they have already aged some of the other characters for non-pedobear reasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on September 02, 2009, 06:43:25 PM
Ehm, Headey is not to old too play Cersei, atleast not significantly. Cersei is not 22, she's more like 32. Mind that Joffrey is 13.

Also, Tricia Helfer is just as "old" as Headey is. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 02, 2009, 09:15:37 PM
Ehm, Headey is not to old too play Cersei, atleast not significantly. Cersei is not 22, she's more like 32. Mind that Joffrey is 13.

Also, Tricia Helfer is just as "old" as Headey is. :oh_i_see:

I never said she was too old, i just imagined her looking more like Tricia than Lena.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on September 02, 2009, 09:48:37 PM
Yes, my bad; it was meant as a more general comment, since Helfer appears to be a very popular choice for the role among fans. Thus, if Headey is too old, so is Helfer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 03, 2009, 10:58:12 AM
Looking at her imdb page, I guess she is more like 6-7 years too old. I thought for sure she was in her 40s.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on September 03, 2009, 12:40:58 PM
She plays a mom of a 20-year old in Terminator.  Might mess with your perceptions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on September 25, 2009, 04:14:23 AM
The Hound, Sandor Clegane, will be played by Rory McCann. Here is the related news entry written by Martin himself:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/109392.html (http://grrm.livejournal.com/109392.html)

Yeah, now I'm curious about who will play the "Mountain that Rides"  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on September 25, 2009, 07:59:07 AM
Ehm, Headey is not to old too play Cersei, atleast not significantly. Cersei is not 22, she's more like 32. Mind that Joffrey is 13.

Also, Tricia Helfer is just as "old" as Headey is. :oh_i_see:

Based on the setting, if Joffrey is 13, I'd peg Cersei at closer to 28 - 29. Not sure if he ever actually stated her age in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Big Gulp on September 25, 2009, 10:13:18 AM
And she will look really strange as a blonde.

Am I the only one who doesn't give two shits about hair color?  Just get a decent actor in there and I'm pleased as punch.  For that matter, hair colors can vary widely within families.  I've got medium brown hair, but my older brother's hair is so blond it's damned near white.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on September 25, 2009, 10:56:54 AM
What color is the mailman's hair?


IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on September 25, 2009, 12:36:45 PM
Based on the setting, if Joffrey is 13, I'd peg Cersei at closer to 28 - 29. Not sure if he ever actually stated her age in the books.
I don't think he did, but I've been working off the assumption that Cersei wasn't in her early teens (contrary to GRR tradition, I guess) when she married Robert after the war and had Joffrey. So yeah, I agree on ~30. My point being, if you want someone to do a decent job with a character, 5 years too old (and totally "fixable" with make-up) is a better bet than 5 years too young. :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on September 25, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Based on the setting, if Joffrey is 13, I'd peg Cersei at closer to 28 - 29. Not sure if he ever actually stated her age in the books.

Jamie/Cersei are twins,Jamie was 17 when he killed the king. Cersei was married around that time and the marriage lasted 15 years. So early 30's at the beginning of the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on September 25, 2009, 01:56:08 PM
I'm a Jennifer Ehle fan, so I should explain her. She's best known for the role of Elizabeth Bennet in the superb 1995 BBC series version of Pride & Prejudice (with the iconic scene of Colin Firth emerging from the water).

(http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/rsz/434/x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/65/57/93/18871914.jpg)

But she's actually a natural blonde, an intelligent and sexy 39-year-old with a tendency to play highbrow English characters. With a tendency to get naked (NSFW) (http://images.celebritymoviearchive.com/members/thumbs/b/bM5338-JenniferEhle@TheCamomileLawn-2.jpg).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 25, 2009, 08:39:43 PM
The Hound, Sandor Clegane, will be played by Rory McCann. Here is the related news entry written by Martin himself:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/109392.html (http://grrm.livejournal.com/109392.html)

Yeah, now I'm curious about who will play the "Mountain that Rides"  :ye_gods:


I've been curious about this as well.  I can't think of many really huge, buff white guys in the acting realm who aren't current or former Pro Wrestlers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on September 25, 2009, 08:49:43 PM
How big is Brendon Gleeson?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 25, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
Not very, but he's too old anyway.  Gregor is supposed to be over 7 1/2' tall, so you're looking for someone of or around Shaq's height, and he dwarfs Richard Moll who's the last "Freakisly Tall" white guy I can think of. (Other than the guy who played Lurch in the Addam's Family movies.)

There will be camera trickery and post production effects to truly portray Gregor. Like they've done for Hagrid in the Harry Potter flicks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: gryeyes on September 25, 2009, 09:42:24 PM
Yeah, Hagrid was who I was thinking of when I asked. Gleeson always seemed to be a huge intimidating man in most of his roles that I can easily remember(Gangs of NY,28 days later,Braveheart). I also confused the character Sandor for Gregor,I thought McCann was playing Gregor. Id imagine that since Gregor has mostly an ancillary role in the books and most of his "close ups" would be him in his monstrously huge armor it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Could let the character be only seen in his armor and not lose anything.  Im not sure how much older Gregor is but its probably a good 5-6 years and McCann is 40 or so.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on September 25, 2009, 10:05:33 PM
If he weren't dead, Trevor Goddard would have been perfect for the role IMO, with camera angles and whatnot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on September 28, 2009, 02:05:28 PM
Hehe andre the giant if you could have found a horse that could lift him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sidereal on September 29, 2009, 03:04:34 PM
Tyler Mane + camera shenanigans

Though I always imagined The Mountain as being more fat than buff.  Possibly I just didn't read closely.  Andre the Giant would really have been the best fit, if he could act his way out of a paper bag and didn't seem so friendly (and was still alive).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on September 29, 2009, 04:26:16 PM
Tyler Mane + camera shenanigans

Though I always imagined The Mountain as being more fat than buff.  Possibly I just didn't read closely.  Andre the Giant would really have been the best fit, if he could act his way out of a paper bag and didn't seem so friendly (and was still alive).

I'm sure there's a few professional wrestlers that wouldn't mind taking a year off.  They already act for a living and it's probably not hard to speak like Gregor who roared half of his lines.  

edit: Holy shit, Kevin Nash is 50.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on October 19, 2009, 06:06:35 PM
And here we go:

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/10/game-of-thrones-cast-with-photos-.html

(http://reporter.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451d69069e20120a5f5edd0970b-800wi)

Khal Drogo:

(http://reporter.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451d69069e20120a5f617e6970b-320wi)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2009, 08:58:41 PM
I'm not a big fan of Jon or Robb in the casting. Still, not bad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on October 19, 2009, 09:17:27 PM
Dany looks the most likely to fail to me. Judging at a glance as I am.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on October 21, 2009, 07:45:50 AM
If they cast Rory McCann as Sandor, who the hell are they going to find that's bigger than him to play Gregor? Yes, I know this was already discussed.

I just didn't really think of Sandor as a giant guy. Always pictured him as more a wirey/lanky guy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on October 21, 2009, 09:27:40 AM
Heyyyy Mark Addy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 21, 2009, 10:36:22 AM
Heyyyy Mark Addy.

I still think Brian Blessed would have been perfect (if he was a bit younger), but Mark Addy is a good second choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on October 21, 2009, 10:38:11 AM
I don't know shit about Game of Thrones, I just liked him in Knight's Tale.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on October 21, 2009, 10:52:47 AM
I just didn't really think of Sandor as a giant guy. Always pictured him as more a wirey/lanky guy.

Nah, several times GRRM makes a point to note that Sandor is huge, just dwarfed by his brother.  Gregor is probably going to have to be mostly camera tricks but when I lived in Cali there was a guy I would see on the street every now and then, he would wear a shirt that said, "7 foot 2" just to preempt the question.  He would have been perfect for the part as long as he could just stand around in the armor and look menacing.

Also, Jaime needs to be blonder and younger looking IMO.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on October 21, 2009, 11:13:47 AM
Jamie and Cersei are in their low 30s, the age seems fine and the blonde thing is easily fixable.  I thought he needed to be more pretty boyish rather than rugged though, like maybe an older Orlando Bloom that didn't suck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on October 21, 2009, 05:43:02 PM
Jamie is almost exactly like what I expected.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on October 21, 2009, 05:51:19 PM
They could have that wrestler guy, Paul Wight. (Not sure what his 'stage' name is these days, but he is ginormous).

Only white guy I can think of that is mountainous.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on October 21, 2009, 07:12:54 PM
They could have that wrestler guy, Paul Wight. (Not sure what his 'stage' name is these days, but he is ginormous).

Only white guy I can think of that is mountainous.
The Big Show?

Anyway, here: http://www.cruzan.info/tall.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on October 22, 2009, 12:47:51 PM
That list is lose. No Tiny Lister.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on October 22, 2009, 08:32:07 PM
It looks like the only former/current pro wrestler that they have on there is Andre the Giant. Even though a lot of them have been in a number of movies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on October 23, 2009, 09:27:24 AM
It looks like the only former/current pro wrestler that they have on there is Andre the Giant. Even though a lot of them have been in a number of movies.

Quote
Glen Jacobs 6-8 "See no evil""WWF wrestler"born in spain. 

AKA Kane.  It's not an exhaustive list.  It doesn't have Nash on there and he's been in several things and is over 7'.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: stray on October 23, 2009, 09:04:54 PM
Damn.. Kristanna Loken is 5'11? Now she's more hot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on March 02, 2010, 05:39:00 PM
NERDS REJOICE.   

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/03/hbo-greenlights-game-of-thrones-.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on March 02, 2010, 08:58:36 PM
I read the first three books and I enjoyed them a lot.  I won't read anymore until the series is finished which should be just in time for my retirement in 30-40 years.

TV show should be cool though.  I bet Spartacus is still better though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Engels on March 02, 2010, 10:25:01 PM
I dunno. If Lena Headey pops a boob, its gonna be a tough tough call.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on March 03, 2010, 06:04:16 PM
NERDS REJOICE.   

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/03/hbo-greenlights-game-of-thrones-.html

I really don't have much interest in this.  I do wish it great success, though, just to open the door for other fantasy adaptions.  An HBO adaption of Zelazny's Amber books, Gaiman's Sandman or American Gods, or Cook's Black Company would be soooo amazing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on March 04, 2010, 02:51:49 PM
Not a fan of Ice and Fire?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on March 04, 2010, 05:23:14 PM
Not a fan of Ice and Fire?

It's alright. I'll still buy the next book (whenever it finally comes out  :awesome_for_real:) in hardcover.  I just don't think it's that amazing, which is blasphemy in some quarters.  Part of it might just be that by the time I had read ASOIAF I had already read Wolfe, Cook, Zelazny, Brust, and a host of others.

There are just so many other fantasy series I'd love to see serialized, especially by a TV studio that doesn't mind giving us nasty, evil or flawed protagonists that you still love. 

I'm really hoping that the adaption will open the door for other authors to get in there. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on May 21, 2010, 07:24:58 PM
Just a bit of recasting news -
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2010/05/game-of-thrones-hbo.html

Tamzin is out as Dany and Emilia Clarke is taking her place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 21, 2010, 08:02:22 PM
They recast Caitlin as well, according to that article.  Michelle Fairley instead of Jennifer Ehle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Engels on May 23, 2010, 09:08:50 AM
Hmm, what's the TV equivalent of vaporware? Why are actors dropping out at this stage?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on May 23, 2010, 12:06:09 PM
Hmm, what's the TV equivalent of vaporware? Why are actors dropping out at this stage?

Not dropping out so much as being recast after the initial pilot/greenlight was given.  Happened with True Blood as well, and I'm sure more than a few other shows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 23, 2010, 12:54:40 PM
It's very common for even principal roles to be recast after a pilot is filmed/shown to the programming people. Sometimes the pilot is aired before they change the cast around.

Most major series in television history have had it happen, it is not something to be concerned about.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Engels on May 23, 2010, 04:52:02 PM
That's good to hear. I worry that the TV show is going to be 'in production' much like Mr. Martin's final book(s).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 24, 2010, 01:48:15 AM
Yeah, the show got green lighted for full production by the top brass, so it has the funding.  It's not in limbo at all at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on June 08, 2010, 09:27:16 AM
After the success of Spartacus, I'm fairly sure HBO is frothing to do this right and get this out.  Prior to Spartacus it kinda felt like the network was a bit gunshy.
I'm in the camp of wishing they'd picked another fantasy series to do though, but the fact is GoT is mainstream and "light" enough to be palatable by most audiences and not require all kinds of post-production.  Whereas something like Dragonlance or Wheel of Time would be mentally out of reach for a lot of folks unless produced perfectly.

What I've always wondered though is why someone doesnt just pick up the Tolkien IP and do a show based in Middle Earth's other time periods.  As worn out as LotR was/is it's still the best way to get "normal folk" to watch Fantasy in droves.  And for the Spartacus-types, we should be seeing more Conan, done in TRUE Howard style, which is lots of blood, nudity, and questionable ethics.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sickrubik on June 08, 2010, 03:31:13 PM
What I've always wondered though is why someone doesnt just pick up the Tolkien IP and do a show based in Middle Earth's other time periods.  As worn out as LotR was/is it's still the best way to get "normal folk" to watch Fantasy in droves.  And for the Spartacus-types, we should be seeing more Conan, done in TRUE Howard style, which is lots of blood, nudity, and questionable ethics.

Getting the rights to do LOTR stuff is very very difficult.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on June 08, 2010, 03:47:15 PM
After the success of Spartacus, I'm fairly sure HBO is frothing to do this right and get this out.  Prior to Spartacus it kinda felt like the network was a bit gunshy.

I'm not sure how comparable Spartacus and Game of Thrones are.  Spartacus is low budget and not afraid to cut corners, with a heavy focus on the sex/violence thrill.  Game of Thrones will likely be a sumptuous period piece based on character and intrigue filmed on location (Westeros is basically reskinned British Isles) with a solid cast of actors.

Also, Legend of the Seeker (based on the Goodkind books, which are major sellers even if no one on the internet likes them) just got canned, which doesn't bode well for fantasy IPs drawing power.

Quote
I'm in the camp of wishing they'd picked another fantasy series to do though, but the fact is GoT is mainstream and "light" enough to be palatable by most audiences and not require all kinds of post-production.  Whereas something like Dragonlance or Wheel of Time would be mentally out of reach for a lot of folks unless produced perfectly.

What I've always wondered though is why someone doesnt just pick up the Tolkien IP and do a show based in Middle Earth's other time periods.  As worn out as LotR was/is it's still the best way to get "normal folk" to watch Fantasy in droves.  And for the Spartacus-types, we should be seeing more Conan, done in TRUE Howard style, which is lots of blood, nudity, and questionable ethics.

Tolkien rights are closely guarded and expensive as fucking hell.  The early time periods are essentially unfilmable, as well....  the heroes are nasty pieces of work, or are tragically flawed, and everyone fucking dies while the world slowly crumbles.  Most of the early time periods are so sparsely described outside of the First Age that the writers would be making shit up out of whole cloth.  And so likely to end up as bad Tolkien fanfiction.

Also, the vast majority of people that have read LOTR care very little about the older time periods.  If it doesn't have Bilbo, Frodo, or Aragorn people won't care.

Literally, there is no upside for the Tolkien Estate to sell those rights outside of another huge budget series of films backed by a well regarded director or producer team and a major studio.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on June 08, 2010, 03:55:00 PM
What I've always wondered though is why someone doesnt just pick up the Tolkien IP and do a show based in Middle Earth's other time periods.  As worn out as LotR was/is it's still the best way to get "normal folk" to watch Fantasy in droves.  And for the Spartacus-types, we should be seeing more Conan, done in TRUE Howard style, which is lots of blood, nudity, and questionable ethics.

Getting the rights to do LOTR stuff is very very difficult.

As picky and stubborn as the Tolkien Estate can be, it's far fucking better than the corpse raping that is happening to the Dune or Amber books....  or what happened to Conan after Howard killed himself.  Or the slew of mediocre Foundation novels cashing in on Asimov's work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 08, 2010, 04:47:35 PM
Also, Legend of the Seeker (based on the Goodkind books, which are major sellers even if no one on the internet likes them) just got canned, which doesn't bode well for fantasy IPs drawing power.

While Seeker had tons of eye candy. (and my god was it great) I think its problem was that it took itself too seriously. It tried to be big an impressive and epic, but felt silly because you can't pull that off on a tight budget.   

It also alienated the fans of the books by diverging from the details and some major plot points from the get-go.  The last few episodes I saw were using bits willy-nilly to prop up what was passing for the 'major story arc.'   (Sisters of the Dark are all Ninjas in Red dresses that fight with big ass throwing stars!)

If it was going to fit itself loosely around the source material it should have done so in the same fashion that Hercules and Xena did.  However, it lacked the camp and fun of those shows while trying to maintain the heady high-fantasy talk about "the Keeper" and "The boxes of Ordin" and "Additive vs Subtractive" magic.  That kind of geekery in a light fantasy show will turn folks off.

GOT I figure has a shot because intrigue-heavy shows like the Tudors, First Blood and Rome have done pretty well in the past.  GOT won't be tossing a lot of wizardy and magic at the audience at once, forcing them to leap into a world that most don't care about.  Instead it will pull them in with the character drama, slowly introducing the magic and oddities in the same way the characters discover them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on June 08, 2010, 05:13:44 PM
Also, Legend of the Seeker (based on the Goodkind books, which are major sellers even if no one on the internet likes them) just got canned, which doesn't bode well for fantasy IPs drawing power.

If it was going to fit itself loosely around the source material it should have done so in the same fashion that Hercules and Xena did.  However, it lacked the camp and fun of those shows while trying to maintain the heady high-fantasy talk about "the Keeper" and "The boxes of Ordin" and "Additive vs Subtractive" magic.  That kind of geekery in a light fantasy show will turn folks off.

Camp is actually really hard to do.  Especially deliberately.  There is only a very small audience for it, as well.  Outside of Hercules and Xena, who else has actually done a recently successful camp series?  Going camp right away also pretty much alienates the fans of the IP you paid all that money for.

The major problem with Seeker from the few episodes I've watched was just bad writing.  The writers were flailing around trying to make things work and constantly hamstringing themselves.

Quote
GOT I figure has a shot because intrigue-heavy shows like the Tudors, First Blood and Rome have done pretty well in the past.  GOT won't be tossing a lot of wizardy and magic at the audience at once, forcing them to leap into a world that most don't care about.  Instead it will pull them in with the character drama, slowly introducing the magic and oddities in the same way the characters discover them.

Yep.  They have a successful model to build on, which will help. 

The question is if the show will build enough of an audience to pay for the giant budget.  Or if the show will survive the mass fan howling when characters and viewpoints are massively scaled back to focus on setting up a couple of major characters while reducing many of the minor characters to one note caricatures.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 08, 2010, 06:10:17 PM
The major problem with Seeker from the few episodes I've watched was just bad writing.  The writers were flailing around trying to make things work and constantly hamstringing themselves.

Yeah, that was a big problem as well.

Quote
The question is if the show will build enough of an audience to pay for the giant budget.  Or if the show will survive the mass fan howling when characters and viewpoints are massively scaled back to focus on setting up a couple of major characters while reducing many of the minor characters to one note caricatures.


I dunno, the first book seemed all about Ned up until the end.  I can see building season one around him, a few glimpses of Daen and a focus on Clan Lannister with brief forays into the side characters being totally in tune with the book.   Later books/ seasons I agree it'll be a problem.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 09, 2010, 10:20:18 AM
I dunno, the first book seemed all about Ned up until the end.  I can see building season one around him, a few glimpses of Daen and a focus on Clan Lannister with brief forays into the side characters being totally in tune with the book.   Later books/ seasons I agree it'll be a problem.

I think the howling will be epic if they focus on Ned. I would imagine that a lot of people will watch this show, and they will have zero clue about the source material.

It's like those people in my theatre who got all pissed at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring. "WTF, THAT'S THE END???"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on June 14, 2010, 02:59:52 AM
It's now for real.

http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones (complete with teaser trailer)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sky on June 14, 2010, 07:06:51 AM
Trailer was played on HBO last night!  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on June 14, 2010, 07:30:15 AM
Is Boromir Ned?   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 14, 2010, 08:03:51 AM
Is Boromir Ned?   :uhrr:

No, that's a different Sean Bean.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on June 14, 2010, 10:55:02 AM
Is Boromir Ned?   :uhrr:

No, that's a different Sean Bean.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 22, 2010, 08:14:42 AM
Wanted: NI amputees for major US TV series (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10339677.stm)

Quote
Starstruck amputees are being offered a golden opportunity to be on television.

A Northern Ireland casting company is looking for amputees to take part in epic fantasy adventure series, Game of Thrones, which is being filmed in Belfast.

Local company, Extras NI, also wants a lot of dark, hairy people for the production to begin in July.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: nurtsi on July 18, 2010, 11:03:02 PM
Not really TV, but I guess this goes in here as well:

Cyanide is making the game (http://www.cyanide-studio.com/?rub=node&nid=809)

Jon Snow hack'n slash snow-zombie fest?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on July 25, 2010, 02:01:24 PM
Although I've not read the books, I've skimmed the wiki and I will sub to HBO when this comes out.  Looks very interesting!  Yeah and I thought of Boromir too from that pic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on September 12, 2010, 11:43:54 PM
Game of Thrones: In Production (http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html/?autoplay=true&vid=1118917&filter=game-of-thrones&view=null)

Slightly longer version on you tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CIuGhRQLW8).

(http://imgur.com/ml4YL.jpg) (http://imgur.com/ml4YL.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/mhtJY.jpg) (http://imgur.com/mhtJY.jpg)

Robert Baratheon smokes rollups  :why_so_serious:

(http://imgur.com/5WMwD.jpg) (http://imgur.com/5WMwD.jpg)

New website http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Salamok on September 13, 2010, 12:39:57 AM
It's like those people in my theatre who got all pissed at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring. "WTF, THAT'S THE END???"
yeah I was pissed they didn't torch the shire too!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on September 15, 2010, 11:11:56 AM
Nelson McCausland (Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure in the NI Executive) from his blog (http://theministerspen.blogspot.com/2010/09/jay-roewe-senior-executive-of-hbo-film.html).

Quote
The series Game of Thrones is currently being filmed in Northern Ireland and it is going extremely well.  Like all large scale film/television production it is very challenging but all of the creative executives involved in the project are very happy and there is enormous optimism that the series will be a great success.  Most of the series is being filmed at locations in northern Ireland with some extra filming in Malta for the desert sequences.  The series will involve a spend of more than £20m in Northern Ireland and that is good for the local economy.  Planning is now shifting to arrangements for the second series and Jay Roewe's visit was primarily focused on the planning for that second series.

HBO seems pretty confident about Game of Thrones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on September 15, 2010, 09:54:02 PM
That's Robert Baratheon?  He doesn't look as badass as he should.  I know by the time of the books he's put on a few pounds from his Rhaegar-slaying days, but he isn't THAT old or fat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on September 15, 2010, 10:01:40 PM
Oh, he's that fat. Perhaps fatter.  I think they were being nice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on September 15, 2010, 11:47:46 PM
I hope it's the photo, because the wig Headey is wearing looks TERRIBLE from here. I got more than a lifetime's quota of bad wigs by watching Pillars of the Earth, thankyouverymuch.

And yeah, Robert is a fatty. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 16, 2010, 05:28:17 PM
Joffy had to get it from SOMEWHERE!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on September 16, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
Oh, he's that fat. Perhaps fatter.  I think they were being nice.

Ya, that dude's beer gut is not much bigger than mine. And his beard is not nearly obnoxious enough. Needs to have enough girth to have shit like chicken bones hanging out of it.

I always pictured Robert as being kind of shaped like a taller George Wendt.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on September 20, 2010, 02:12:19 PM
Brian Blessed is my image of Robert.  It's just a shame he's too old for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on September 20, 2010, 02:25:59 PM
Specifically Blackadder the First era Brian Blessed:

(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2009/06/yaDibW_BTvg.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 20, 2010, 04:20:26 PM
That's probably not a coincidence since GoT is inspired by the War of the Roses and Blessed's character is supposed to be in the same era, yes?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 23, 2010, 09:25:35 AM
Specifically Blackadder the First era Brian Blessed:

(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2009/06/yaDibW_BTvg.jpg)

Exactly!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 24, 2010, 07:01:03 AM
Yeah, Robert is basically the classic "hard-drinking, lusty former high school quarterback gone to seed, but still capable of winning a barfight". So Blessed is spot-on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 18, 2010, 02:23:44 AM
Game of Thrones: Exclusive First Look! (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20385926_20442931,00.html)

About 10 new stills.

(http://imgur.com/VjTX2.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/wqgDD.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/XRPVx.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/xkMO2.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/DO2CQ.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on November 18, 2010, 03:04:09 AM
Face down on a dungeon floor is no way to go through life son.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on November 18, 2010, 08:49:50 AM
Saw those photos. Drooling like a bloody idiot, right now.

I always pictured Dany a little more..."ethereal" and skinny, but Emilia Clarke looks lovely anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on November 18, 2010, 10:55:28 AM
Daenerys looks freaking hot.  Jaimie is supposed to look more like Cersei though, but it will do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on November 18, 2010, 11:30:55 AM
High resolution pics of Cersei and Tyrion; the latter is just ridiculously good.

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2010/11/17/new-got-photos-on-ewcom.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on November 18, 2010, 07:46:56 PM
I always pictured Dany a little more..."ethereal" and skinny, but Emilia Clarke looks lovely anyway.

I'm with you on the skinny, but I envisioned her a little more exotic-looking than etheral.  No idea why as that makes little sense when I think about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on November 19, 2010, 01:09:30 AM
Well, her hair is supposed to be silver (not whiteish gray old person) and she is supposed to have purple eyes. If that isn't exotic, I don't know what is.

Also, her age was adjusted to remove some of "teh creepyz"  :pedobear: for the series so she is more like 18 instead of the 14 she was in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on November 19, 2010, 10:37:22 AM
The casting makes me happy.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on November 19, 2010, 11:37:55 AM
The production looks fabutastic.

Headey/Cersei is very pretty, although maybe too sweet-looking. :Love_Letters:

Jaimie is supposed to look more like Cersei though, but it will do.
I think they could very well be siblings, judging by those shots. Fraternal twins aren't actually more similar to eachother than any pair of siblings, which is the only way you get twins of both sexes. Besides, Jaime and Cersei are supposed to be very beautiful, according to some kind of classical scale, which means Jaime has to look much more masculine than Cersei and vice versa.

The books may claim they're virtually identical (not that I remember), but I don't think Martin took basic genetics into consideration because he was writing fantasy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on November 19, 2010, 11:43:19 AM
Obviously he didn't take basic genetics into account. Daenerys is supposed to be the product of many generations of sibling schtumphing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on November 22, 2010, 08:16:32 PM

The books may claim they're virtually identical (not that I remember)

They do, Cersei used to dress as Jamie and pretended to be a man.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 23, 2010, 01:35:00 AM
I bet "Weapons Master (http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html?view=grid&vid=1140267&autoplay=true)" looks good on a CV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 27, 2010, 12:23:07 PM
Some new (?) images.

(http://i.imgur.com/HUUwt.jpg) (http://imgur.com/HUUwt)

Tyrion again.

(http://i.imgur.com/uYniB.jpg) (http://imgur.com/uYniB)

Arya Stark completing the short but deadly duo, Ser Ilyn Payne standing behind her, behind Ned is Jory Cassel.

(http://i.imgur.com/NiaZ6.jpg) (http://imgur.com/NiaZ6)

Sansa with Lady.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on November 27, 2010, 02:13:32 PM
Gah Lady looks beautiful, i already feel sick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on November 27, 2010, 06:08:56 PM
Droooling: teaser of a 15 minutes long behind the scenes video that will air on HBO today (sunday): on December 5th, before the "Boardwalk Empire" season finale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNhgIjyEock


Dany  :heart: :heart: :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on November 28, 2010, 01:07:06 PM
Sansa is perfectly cast. I hate her already.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 29, 2010, 01:02:49 AM
Third preview trailer (http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html/?autoplay=true&vid=1145144&filter=game-of-thrones&view=null)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on November 29, 2010, 01:59:41 AM
Third preview trailer (http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html/?autoplay=true&vid=1145144&filter=game-of-thrones&view=null)

Perfect...The only thing that seemed slightly off to me is
Doreah and Dany  :heart: :awesome_for_real: :drill:

Bran is the cutest thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on November 29, 2010, 09:55:17 AM
This is at least a tangentially on topic question: what are the astronomical characteristics of a planet with multi-Earth year seasons?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Murgos on November 29, 2010, 10:25:38 AM
This is at least a tangentially on topic question: what are the astronomical characteristics of a planet with multi-Earth year seasons?

That would just be a planet with a very slow orbit.

The world this is in has two phases though, they have a yearly cycle and then they have a great cycle that is superimposed on top of the yearly cycle.  Earth has similar cycles which is why we get ice ages every few thousand years.  There is a bit of debate about what causes that on the earth though.  Some possible theories that I have seen are solar activity and 'wobble' in the orbit and also large geologic events (volcanoes and etc...).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on November 29, 2010, 10:45:04 AM
Most likely a widely varied solar activity.

Also, there doesn't need to be an explanation other than DWAGONS LIVE THERE.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 06, 2010, 02:18:19 AM
10 minute preview (http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html/?autoplay=true&vid=1149091&filter=game-of-thrones&view=null)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on December 06, 2010, 03:58:08 AM
Just re-watched Dune and I've been wanting more stories like that; noble houses in a power struggle in a fantasy world.  Looks like this will fit the bill nicely.  Haven't read the books, but the story looks really deep and complex.  I like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 06, 2010, 04:36:22 AM
If you haven't read the books, don't read any spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on December 06, 2010, 05:58:04 AM
That was a fantastic preview!!!!  :heart:

So much to digest; what stood out the most, to me, was Emilia Clarke and Harry Lloyd as the Targaryens (btw, unlike how we can hear in the preview, I always spell "Targaryen" with the accent on the "e", like in the french "rien ne va plus". Oh well). The latter is just how I pictured Viserys. I already said it, but Emilia looks lovely, and she seemed so enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Oh, and we also got a very brief glimpse of Arya with Needle and the Hound with his helmet. Just great :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on December 06, 2010, 09:17:07 AM
Looking pretty good. Still think some of the characters look 'off' but hey, what can you do. It is not MY imagination they are putting on the screen heh.

Robert looks better cast in those scenes than he did in the early screenshots, though he still is missing the "beer-swilling jock gone to pot" vibe.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 06, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Was that the first time they have narrowed down the premiere to 'April'? I just remember seeing Spring 2011.

It is looking really, really good. Now if that useless fuck would just finish the series I might not get a pain in my head every time I think about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on December 06, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
Was that the first time they have narrowed down the premiere to 'April'? I just remember seeing Spring 2011.

It is looking really, really good. Now if that useless fuck would just finish the series I might not get a pain in my head every time I think about it.

That was the first time I saw it on their promotional stuff, I think I might have read an air date on his blog once when I skimmed it.

And he will never finish the series. Which sucks, because I want to read about the shit happening up north. Also chick riding dragons might be cool too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on December 06, 2010, 03:01:46 PM
Looking pretty good. Still think some of the characters look 'off' but hey, what can you do. It is not MY imagination they are putting on the screen heh.

Robert looks better cast in those scenes than he did in the early screenshots, though he still is missing the "beer-swilling jock gone to pot" vibe.

No problem with Robert and Tyrion and Cersei but some of the other roles seem woefully miscast — Ned and Jon Snow, for instance…


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on December 06, 2010, 04:30:50 PM
Now if that useless fuck would just finish the series I might not get a pain in my head every time I think about it.

That's what's driving me nuts about this series.. it won't be finished.  They'll take it so far and then end it, because there's no way Martin is wrapping it up any time soon.  Certainly not any time in the next 4 years (Assuming series 1 covers the entirety of the first book.)  I also expect, like Jordan, he'll die before completing them.  Not only is he overweight and over 60, but he's bitched that the fans expect him to devote time to them outside of 'whenever I damn well feel like it.'  I don't expect an uptick in the quality of the books after his death If they're continued, unlike Jordan.   By all accounts Jordan was an obsessive note taker and had reams of material outlining everything so it was easy for a ghostwriter to take over.  I haven't ever heard the same thing of Martin.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on December 06, 2010, 04:41:06 PM
We may get lucky though. Working on the series may break Martin's writer's block. Especially if the show does well and HBO says: "we plan on doing 8 seasons of this, you better fucking get back to writing the books so we can actually finish the story."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on December 06, 2010, 06:49:33 PM
I still say Ned is miscast.  And after seeing Catelyn, so is she... she's supposed to be homely, but not THAT homely (when she was young she was supposedly prettier than her own daughter).  Also, isnt she supposed to be blonde? 
Also, what do we know of Jon Snow's actor?? 

Another gripe is Tyrion's eyes are wrong (they should be different colors), which may seem like a small detail but it's probably the most important physical characteristic of him aside from his height.
Lastly, the whole thing in general, though badass, still seems a bit too dumbed down and "light" even for Ice&Fire.  Things arent quite as larger than life as they should be, from the Dire Wolves to Targaryen's hair.  I'm hoping that this changes as the series goes on though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on December 06, 2010, 07:09:32 PM
Where are you getting that Catelyn is supposed to be homely?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on December 06, 2010, 10:15:59 PM
Also, isnt she supposed to be blonde? 

I stopped reading right there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on December 07, 2010, 08:03:49 AM
Also, isnt she supposed to be blonde?  

I stopped reading right there.

Red hair and blue eyes for the Tullys.  It's part of the difference between Sansa and Arya - Sansa favors House Tully, while Arya is Stark all the way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on December 07, 2010, 09:09:27 AM
Where are you getting that Catelyn is supposed to be homely?

Homely at her older age, or I believe as was said "somewhat comely."  wtfever, you get my point.  That being they've got a busted-looking Catelyn currently.
(http://serialetari.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Michelle_Fairley.jpg)

Also, isnt she supposed to be blonde? 

I stopped reading right there.

Red hair and blue eyes for the Tullys.  It's part of the difference between Sansa and Arya - Sansa favors House Tully, while Arya is Stark all the way.

But jet black hair???  I may have been wrong about the blonde but I know for sure it's not supposed to be jet black.

This was the original Catelyn that was recast:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bzAMKlgbLrU/So_GkAdKZ_I/AAAAAAAAA7g/cbDrHHam4uQ/s400/Jennifer%2BEhle.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on December 07, 2010, 09:24:08 AM
Dude, you are smoking crack. "Somewhat comely" =/= "somewhat homely" in any fashion whatsoever. English, learn it.

Also, where are you getting the black hair shit from, in every clip I have seen she has auburn hair just like in the books.

Pictures of actors from a red carpet event where they have different colored hair does not tell you the color of the hair of the characters. If that were the case, look up Lena Headley and wonder "why the hell isn't she blonde?" I know this is big freaking news to you, but 90% of female (and 50% of male actors) wear a wig when playing a role. Wigs can be any color.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on December 07, 2010, 10:37:15 AM
I wasnt referring to red carpet pics.  And to me, when someone says a chic is 'somewhat comely' that basically translates to homely. 
Clips I saw she looks busted and had black hair.  (shrug)  Maybe the lighting.  Whatever, I just dont like her (the new overtly-homely Catelyn) nor Sean Bean.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on December 07, 2010, 10:40:05 AM
If you think "comely" is even in the same hemisphere as "homely" you REALLY need to look in a dictionary.

EDIT: Actually, I will do it for you:

Quote
Definition of COMELY
1
: pleasurably conforming to notions of good appearance, suitability, or proportion
2
: having a pleasing appearance : not homely or plain
— come·li·ness noun


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on December 07, 2010, 11:52:17 AM
Now if that useless fuck would just finish the series I might not get a pain in my head every time I think about it.

That's what's driving me nuts about this series.. it won't be finished.  They'll take it so far and then end it, because there's no way Martin is wrapping it up any time soon.  Certainly not any time in the next 4 years (Assuming series 1 covers the entirety of the first book.)  I also expect, like Jordan, he'll die before completing them.  Not only is he overweight and over 60, but he's bitched that the fans expect him to devote time to them outside of 'whenever I damn well feel like it.'  I don't expect an uptick in the quality of the books after his death If they're continued, unlike Jordan.   By all accounts Jordan was an obsessive note taker and had reams of material outlining everything so it was easy for a ghostwriter to take over.  I haven't ever heard the same thing of Martin.



Calling Sanderson just a ghost writer is eminently unfair. Still, you are right on that Game of Thrones series is never finished.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on December 07, 2010, 08:51:02 PM
Yes, it is unfair to call him a ghost writer which is why I didn't specifically name him.  His credentials weren't the point, it was that there were reams of material for a ghost writer to use.  Considering the overall quality of the books has increased significantly, I'm glad they didn't go with just a ghost writer.  (Though my wife did bitch that the latest one did the Jordan "tease for x^10 chapters, then have everything happen in the last 75 pages" thing.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on December 08, 2010, 06:54:42 AM
I wasnt referring to red carpet pics.  And to me, when someone says a chic is 'somewhat comely' that basically translates to homely. 

What it means to you is inconsequential, what it actually means is the exact opposite of what you think it does.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on December 08, 2010, 07:51:21 AM
This makes me want to reread the books.

But they're so long :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on December 08, 2010, 07:55:31 AM
This makes me want to reread the books.

But they're so long :(

After reading Erickson and rereading the entire WoT series, not so much.  They're quick reads anyhow.

edit: I think I've done 1-3 twice and 1-4 twice.  The last time I did 1-4, I thought book 5 was coming out.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 08, 2010, 07:58:40 AM
I reread them all a couple of months ago, surprisingly good even on a 2nd time through.  Excluding the Iron Islands sections but which just don't grab me at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on December 09, 2010, 09:51:27 AM
This makes me want to reread the books.

But they're so long :(

If you re-read, do 1-6, then 9+. 7 and 8 contribute squat,


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on December 09, 2010, 10:15:31 AM
If you re-read, do 1-6, then 9+. 7 and 8 contribute squat,

 :headscratch:

Pretty sure there are only 4 books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vaiti on December 09, 2010, 10:27:07 AM
Here in Finland we chop large English text novel up into about three books each. I assume it is likewise elsewhere.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on December 09, 2010, 12:11:39 PM
If you re-read, do 1-6, then 9+. 7 and 8 contribute squat,

 :headscratch:

Pretty sure there are only 4 books.

I thought he meant WoT, but I see I jumbled things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on December 10, 2010, 05:08:18 AM
Here in Italy they split GoT in 2 books, ACoK 2, SoS 3, FfC 2. Sigh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on December 26, 2010, 05:43:00 AM
Fantastic hi-res pic released on the "Making Game of Thrones" website, featuring Jon, Bran, Robb and Rickon (in the background) at Winterfell:

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2010/12/23/tv-guide-photo-jon-bran-robb.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on December 29, 2010, 12:13:22 PM
Yes, it is unfair to call him a ghost writer which is why I didn't specifically name him.  His credentials weren't the point, it was that there were reams of material for a ghost writer to use.  Considering the overall quality of the books has increased significantly, I'm glad they didn't go with just a ghost writer.  (Though my wife did bitch that the latest one did the Jordan "tease for x^10 chapters, then have everything happen in the last 75 pages" thing.)

If it was real Jordan, it would have done the "tease for x^10 chapters, then have nothing happen in the last 75 pages" thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 05, 2011, 03:10:04 AM
http://twitter.com/sky_atlantic/status/22591051365621760

Quote
APRIL: #GameofThrones, an epic fantasy based on the novels by George RR Martin and starring Sean Bean.

April for UK, did I miss the US air date being announced?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on January 05, 2011, 06:04:55 AM
Pretty sure it said April on the last big trailer thing you posted.

(or I am smoking crack)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 07, 2011, 03:39:43 PM
Maybe.

Firm date here (http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/01/07/game-of-thrones-premiere-date/) anyway.

Sunday April 17th.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 07, 2011, 09:09:11 PM
Just.

Amazing.

(http://winter-is-coming.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/arya-fencing-lr.jpg)

More at http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/1/7/latest-set-photos.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on January 07, 2011, 09:25:35 PM
I don't want to be too nitpicky, but...those are awfully thick swords.  I always imagined Syrio and Arya practicing with blades similar to epees or rapiers.  Her sword is named "Needle," afterall.  Still, it's a minor critique, I suppose.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on January 08, 2011, 05:03:30 AM
I don't want to be too nitpicky, but...those are awfully thick swords.  I always imagined Syrio and Arya practicing with blades similar to epees or rapiers.  Her sword is named "Needle," afterall.  Still, it's a minor critique, I suppose.

Pretty sure the book specifically notes that all Needle is is a smaller version of a "real" longsword. Shorter, lighter, smaller grip etc. I think it even mentions the blade having a fuller on it (which a rapier would not have in most cases).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 08, 2011, 07:15:41 AM
http://grrm.livejournal.com/146489.html

Quote
Maisie Williams, who will play Arya Stark, is preparing for her part by practicing her needlework. I though you might enjoy seeing these recent pictures of her that her mom was kind enough to send me.

http://pics.livejournal.com/grrm/pic/0009k32k/
http://pics.livejournal.com/grrm/pic/0009pa1w/

http://www.valyriansteel.com/shop/swords/needle-sword-of-arya-stark/prod_3.html



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on January 08, 2011, 07:18:22 AM
I didn't think of it exactly as a rapier, just something closer to one.  You're right about the fuller, but it still looks big to me.

Arthur_Parker: Yes!  That's much more like it.  My qualm has been overcome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on January 08, 2011, 07:22:02 AM
Uhm, guys, those are wooden practice swords. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: dusematic on January 08, 2011, 07:48:28 AM
Uhm, guys, those are wooden practice swords. :why_so_serious:

LOL, no shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 08, 2011, 07:55:40 AM
Uhm, guys, those are wooden practice swords. :why_so_serious:

Yeah, that's why Ruvaldt said "I always imagined Syrio and Arya practicing..."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on January 08, 2011, 08:10:24 AM
Exactly.  It didn't make much sense to me to practice with swords that would be so dissimilar to the one she'd eventually use so I figured they were going bigger with her real sword as well, but after seeing stills of her and Needle any concern I had is gone now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on January 08, 2011, 08:10:56 AM
Needle is not a wooden sword. Thus, not Needle in the picture. Thus, whatever complaint it's too thick to be Needle is invalid. They practiced with loaded wooden swords. Not Needle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 08, 2011, 08:14:20 AM
I knew what he meant, it's logical.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on January 09, 2011, 07:03:39 AM
I knew what he meant, it's logical.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 10, 2011, 06:56:14 AM
Edit, apparently there's a major spoiler in this, not sure about what exactly after watching it and I've read the books.

Sean Bean interview about Game of Thrones (http://www.accesshollywood.com/video_1268828)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 10, 2011, 01:43:04 PM
Yeah, Sean Bean interview is quite spoilerish, at least the way he hints about possible developments;

Also, Emilia Clarke and Peter Dinklage video interviews here:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/01/access-hollywood-interviews-thrones-cast/

BEWARE: Emilia Clarke interview is also spoilerish at the beginning, when she refers to...Err, certain "gifts" she receives.

But Emilia is lovely  :heart:


Title: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sand on January 12, 2011, 08:13:12 AM
I cant believe there isnt a thread on this already.

Other than Boardwalk Empire, which Im already watching, I havent been this excited about something on TV in a long time.
HBO is seriously doing some amazing programming.

http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html

Seems to be a very heavy European cast and crew. Filmed in Northern Ireland.

Its going to be awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43LW7a_NKMk


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on January 12, 2011, 08:30:15 AM
I can't believe you didn't look five threads down. ;D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sand on January 12, 2011, 11:49:06 AM
I can't believe you didn't look five threads down. ;D

Yeah. No excuse. Other than I hadnt had coffee yet this morning.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 12, 2011, 01:17:21 PM
LOL.

Anyways, great interview with the producers and writers of the show, Benioff and Weiss, over at WiC; the roundtable was held during the recent TCA event:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/01/roundtable-discussion-with-david-dan/

Long read, but it's worth it: they dwelve into a lot of topics: their first impact with the books, their view on how to adapt from book to TV, flashbacks, fan expectation management and more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 13, 2011, 04:01:52 PM
new BtS video over at Making Game of Thrones with Buster Reeves, Fight Coordinator:

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/1/13/the-artisans-buster-reeves.html

Emilia Clarke briefly talks about sex scenes in GoT (rawr):

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1655909/game-thrones-actress-filming-sex-scenes-was-really-scary.jhtml


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 17, 2011, 04:58:21 AM
New Teaser trailer  :drill: :drill: :drill: :drill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ5p18wIQEI


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 01, 2011, 09:01:38 AM
New video featuring Maisie Williams (Arya) talking about her swordwork.

WARNING: The amount of cuteness in this video could seriously harm you  :grin:

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/1/31/the-artisans-maisie-williams.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on February 28, 2011, 07:19:15 AM
Oh hello there new teaser.   :drill:


http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html?view=grid&vid=1162375&autoplay=true



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on February 28, 2011, 08:17:26 AM
Nice, I don't see how this can fail to be honest, it's not like it's going to pull a battlestar galactica or a Lost on us.  I guess the kid actors being terrible would hurt a lot given how important they are, but the twists of the story line should see it through.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 28, 2011, 08:38:15 AM
Until the biggest twist of all, when the story just fucking stops. It will be just like Deadwood!

 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on February 28, 2011, 10:00:34 AM
Until the biggest twist of all, when the story just fucking stops. It will be just like Deadwood!

 :heartbreak:

That is like, 10 television seasons away with this though.

And we might get lucky and ole' fatso might actually get the bug to write the damn books again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on February 28, 2011, 12:16:06 PM
Well, it looks expensive at least!

I doubt we'll get to see this run its course. My best case scenario, we get two or maybe three seasons and a decent but half-hearted ending á la Rome (edit: with some heavy rewriting in its final season, obviously...)

I just don't think there's a lot of room for TV-series this expensive and heavy on narrative. Procedural shows though? Can run for-fucking-ever.

Would love to be proven wrong, however.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on February 28, 2011, 03:28:00 PM
Nice, I don't see how this can fail to be honest, it's not like it's going to pull a battlestar galactica or a Lost on us.  I guess the kid actors being terrible would hurt a lot given how important they are, but the twists of the story line should see it through.

It's very, very easy for Game of Thrones to get cancelled...  the same way Rome, Deadwood, and Carnivale did.  On location period pieces (essentially in GoTs case, since it is a loose adaption of War of Roses England) with loads of characters played by Name actors are EXPENSIVE.  Even if they are on their face profitable, large and expensive productions like this need multiple partners to underwrite it.  If one partner hits financing snags, it could sink the whole project.

That's essentially what happened to Rome, which was moderately popular but far too expensive for HBO to run by itself when one of it's major foreign partners (either the BBC or the Italians) pulled out.  Deadwood had a huge budget that had HBO antsy, and once the showrunner started to burn out caused the whole thing to get canned. 


The Spartacus series, on the other hand, has all the cost conscious fingerprints of Raimi and Tapert.  Though the effects are a bit cheesy at times (I'm only up to episode 3 or 4), they did whatever they could to keep the budget down such that it would be a money-maker even with a moderate number of viewers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on February 28, 2011, 03:36:18 PM
Graph of budgets for comparable series: (This graph is budget per episode, so GoT has a pretty similar production cost to Deadwood.  Rome was FUCKING EXPENSIVE.)

(http://7kingdoms.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/diagramm1-350x190.png)


Article about the budget and economic effect, though from westeros.org so grain o' salt:

http://www.westeros.org/GoT/Features/Entry/A_Budget_to_be_Reckoned_With/

Realistically, the biggest winner no matter what in this is GRR Martin.  There has been a decided uptick in internet chatter, and even if the series gets cancelled after one season it's going to mean a big uptick in sales.  Jim Butcher, author of the "Dresden" books, has gone on record as saying that even the slightly shitty SyFy series of his books that lasted half a season led to a HUGE uptick in the sales of his series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on March 03, 2011, 06:56:09 AM
A Dance With Dragons gets a shelf date!

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/if-update.html

/squee!

The first comment on this article is classic:

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/03/03/dance-with-dragons-date/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on March 03, 2011, 10:56:31 AM
As I scramble to notify people around me that the end of the world is upon us and hell has frozen over...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: tgr on March 03, 2011, 11:16:50 AM
(http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/10/omg-onoz.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 03, 2011, 12:34:47 PM
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEE

First full-lenght trailer revealed on Entertainment Weekly!!!!!!!!

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03/03/game-of-thrones-new-trailer/


Don't want to spoil what you're going to see, so enjoy (we'll get a hi-res version, eventually).
-----

Also, a new website related to the series has been launched, "The Maester Path". When you'll resolve the riddle (by looking around another couple fansites to find the hints) you'll unlock a fan-favorite scene from the books, which will probably be portrayed in the Pilot:

http://www.themaesterspath.com/

Too lazy to unlock it? I guessed that :P. So here's the scene on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDtsYjNV0eI

So cute :)
---


Oh, and by the way, another quite unimportant piece of news just hot out the oven: the fifth installment of the book series, "A Dance with Dragons", will be out on July 12th:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Stormwaltz on March 03, 2011, 05:38:42 PM
First full-lenght trailer revealed on Entertainment Weekly!!!!!!!!

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03/03/game-of-thrones-new-trailer/

is this the same one? I couldn't get the EW one to play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWIyCUHrESk&hd=1


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on March 03, 2011, 05:50:50 PM
First full-lenght trailer revealed on Entertainment Weekly!!!!!!!!

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03/03/game-of-thrones-new-trailer/

is this the same one? I couldn't get the EW one to play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWIyCUHrESk&hd=1

No, a lot of shared footage between them, but a bit different.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 03, 2011, 08:44:24 PM
Underwhelmed by that trailer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yoru on March 04, 2011, 05:04:23 AM
Well, damn it. Now I need new shorts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on March 07, 2011, 08:42:09 AM
I'm going to have to re-read the books.  I never read the last one because I hate reading series when the author is not in site of finishing them. 

Just like WoT, I haven't read one in about 6 years or so.  Soon!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 08, 2011, 09:58:16 AM
You might want to wait another decade then. Once the TV and ADWD checks start rolling in, that lazy bastard will be in no hurry to write. AGAIN.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on March 08, 2011, 12:20:27 PM
Meh, watching the tv show and vaguely remembering things is going to piss me off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on March 08, 2011, 04:53:20 PM
Second puzzle clip, for people who suck at puzzles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQshrvRIZg

Tyrion being Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 08, 2011, 05:18:14 PM
Ugh. I am still massively under whelmed. A lot of elements, casting, acting, costumes, etc are a bit off for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on March 08, 2011, 05:57:32 PM
Ugh. I am still massively under whelmed. A lot of elements, casting, acting, costumes, etc are a bit off for me.

That's because it's looking more "networky" and less "fantasy" every time we see glimpses.  Everything just seems very toned down and monotone to me.  Even as light as Martin's world is, there are still many many otherworldly elements that just dont seem to be there yet or are just underwhelmingly represented as you say.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on March 08, 2011, 07:56:00 PM
Somehow I would be floored if a fantasy novel being turned into a TV show got rave reviews here.

We nerds are a harsh and unforgiving lot down the last unimportant lorelastic detail.

Where's WUA!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 08, 2011, 08:54:11 PM
Got nothing to do with lore, just a whole lot to do with looking boring and lifeless and paint by numbers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on March 08, 2011, 11:33:08 PM
Somehow I would be floored if a fantasy novel being turned into a TV show got rave reviews here.

We nerds are a harsh and unforgiving lot down the last unimportant lorelastic detail.

Where's WUA!

(http://i.imgur.com/zRs5ml.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: tgr on March 09, 2011, 12:36:14 AM
I dunno, I'm not as underwhelmed, in fact I'm slightly intrigued. I'm usually more turned off by bad actors than bad sets (hell, I just rewatched all the star trek episodes ever made, and there are some pretty shit-tastic sets there, along with effects...).

I'll wait a bit before passing judgement, and certainly not on such short snippets.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on March 09, 2011, 12:59:59 PM
I'm just spoiled by watching Spartacus, which took something (yawn) historically-based and pretty much made it rip-roaringly fantastical to the degree it's by far the best show on TV.
GoT needs to be over-the-top or the show won't do the genre or the book any justice.  I mean, the amount of "wtf" moments in reading the series would translate into $$$ if they just took it and ran with it effectively, instead of making it so 'accessible.' 

So yah, I'm underwhelmed and pessimistic about it because if HBO had produced the show much like how most people want it we damned well would've seen glimpses of it by now... because it'd be a helluva good marketing tool.  What we're getting now is utter shite, especially if you havent read the books.  Jeez, I feel for those who havent read the books and have seen the trailers.  What exactly is there to draw them to the series???


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on March 09, 2011, 03:18:48 PM
Not everyone needs ridiculous amounts of sensationalism to make them happy. Nor does every show need it to make it a success.

And no one has seen the real footage to know how much silly blood spatter effects or how many scenes show naked women to compare it to anything else. Trailers WON'T show that as a rule.

Besides, how can we expect them to be true to source material in your eyes? You are the person who spent an entire page trying to say that one of the characters was not ugly enough because the books described her as comely. How many more words used in the books do you equate to their antonyms?   :roll:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 09, 2011, 03:30:00 PM
It almost always takes a production a few episodes to really hit its stride. Actors get to know their characters better, and the writers get to know the actors better and tweak the scripts to take advantage of their strengths. Look at Boardwalk Empire- the first few episodes were decent, but it really hit it stride just past midseason. GoT is hamstrung a bit since it is tied to the source material, but there is still wiggle room in there for the writers and actors to make it better as it goes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on March 09, 2011, 03:39:12 PM
I'm just spoiled by watching Spartacus, which took something (yawn) historically-based and pretty much made it rip-roaringly fantastical to the degree it's by far the best show on TV.
GoT needs to be over-the-top or the show won't do the genre or the book any justice. 

Have you read the book? It is as far as you can get from over-the-top fantasy and still lay a claim to being in the genre. The fantasy stuff is really around the fringes, especially in the first book. If they turn it rip-roaringly-fantastical it would be a horrible mistake. That stuff would just distract from what makes the book actually good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on March 09, 2011, 04:18:54 PM
I'm hoping for a Deadwood in Westeros of sorts. Well. I always hope for Deadwood. :oh_i_see:

Because while Spartacus was entertaining in its own way, its fights, for all the dismemberment and blood, had shit on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blki-DISUis&NR=1


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on March 09, 2011, 05:31:25 PM
I'm just spoiled by watching Spartacus, which took something (yawn) historically-based and pretty much made it rip-roaringly fantastical to the degree it's by far the best show on TV.
GoT needs to be over-the-top or the show won't do the genre or the book any justice. 

Have you read the book? It is as far as you can get from over-the-top fantasy and still lay a claim to being in the genre. The fantasy stuff is really around the fringes, especially in the first book. If they turn it rip-roaringly-fantastical it would be a horrible mistake. That stuff would just distract from what makes the book actually good.

Yes I have.  What I mean by over-the-top is just how "raw" and uninhibited the stories were.  I'm not talking about dancing faeries in pink spiky shoulderarmor who never speak a bad word.
Martin's books are bloody, dangerous, sex-filled, evil stories that dont hold a punch, even though they're considered "light" fantasy.  That being said, there's obvious magic, heroism, and grandiosity to the world.  I got NO sense of any of that watching the trailer.  It feels like I'm watching the boring parts of PotE, only more badly lit, more depressing, and equally located in only one place.

Just pretend you've never read the books nor even heard of GoT and tell me if the trailers and sneak peeks would interest you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 09, 2011, 06:58:45 PM
Have you read the book? It is as far as you can get from over-the-top fantasy and still lay a claim to being in the genre. The fantasy stuff is really around the fringes, especially in the first book. If they turn it rip-roaringly-fantastical it would be a horrible mistake. That stuff would just distract from what makes the book actually good.

I agree that it's not high fantasy, but it is absolutely pulp soap opera historical fiction. It's not about descriptions of landscape and character subtleties, but about over the top machinations and shit from a bunch of mostly nasty people that doesn't stop to breathe ever. With


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on March 10, 2011, 10:37:16 AM
Have you read the book? It is as far as you can get from over-the-top fantasy and still lay a claim to being in the genre. The fantasy stuff is really around the fringes, especially in the first book. If they turn it rip-roaringly-fantastical it would be a horrible mistake. That stuff would just distract from what makes the book actually good.

I agree that it's not high fantasy, but it is absolutely pulp soap opera historical fiction. It's not about descriptions of landscape and character subtleties, but about over the top machinations and shit from a bunch of mostly nasty people that doesn't stop to breathe ever. With battles and backstabbing and incest and child serial killers and fucking and the dead coming to life and so forth.

Dany is a child queen who gets sold in to slavery and then forms an attachment to a warrior king who fucks her senseless - which she grows to love - and then dies (literally that is the relationship), leaving her abandoned to journey through the desert to abandoned cities and magic civilizations. Magic houses of sorcery, dragons, fat bodyguard and hidden knights, etc.

It's well and truly over the top. If you try and play it more like a period piece you are really missing the "holy shit they slaughtered Robb and his whole team at a fucking wedding" side of things and losing a vast tract of the books' appeal.

This.   Thank you for saying much more eloquently what I was trying to say.
Anyways, I get no sense so far that this show will be anything like that.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on March 10, 2011, 11:41:44 AM
Guys, you might want to spoiler seriously unexpected shit from season 2 or 3 considering the pilot hasn't aired yet.  Just saying, it's the tv forum not the book thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on March 10, 2011, 11:44:17 AM
Watch the spoilers IMO.


You can have plenty of violence without making it Spartacus. I think in fact the emotional impact will be greater if they play it for realism rather than getting stupid and over the top.

It really isn't pulp, IMO, any more than say I, Claudius or the actual War of the Roses was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 10, 2011, 05:53:52 PM
I Claudius isn't historical drama, and ASoIaF is waaaaay more pulp than it. Historical fiction, yes, but they're not dramatic novels. Claudius is a comedy more than anything, and GoT is firmly in the fantasy genre.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's almost like arguing that Hammett isn't genre pulp but closer to Henry James. In one sense you're right, in that it is much better written in many regards, but the base conventions are still in genre fiction. You wouldn't really want to make a Hammett novel in to a TV series without babes and one-liners...

It doesn't really matter what something is based off historical event wise. To say that it should be played like a BBC drama because GRRM was inspired by the war of roses would be daft. What matters is how it is written. Anyone who has read the books can agree that they are not slow moving detailed character studies. What drives the books is the events and actions. And these events and actions are for the most part graphic, violent and fantastic.

Will fix up the spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Margalis on March 10, 2011, 06:04:21 PM
Literary fiction is quite obviously a genre to itself.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 10, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
Literary fiction is quite obviously a genre to itself.

Fair cop.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on March 10, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
So, a grand total of like, 7 or 8 minutes of footage spliced together into trailers has made people think this is some stayed BBC period piece?

And that there is no way it could be anything different because that footage "is proof that they are not true to the books"?

  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 10, 2011, 06:26:44 PM
All I said was I was underwhelmed and gave my reasons. Nothing about writing the show off or anything like that.

But hey, we could not talk about our impressions of the footage we have seen and let the thread idle for a few months instead I guess?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Margalis on March 10, 2011, 06:48:53 PM
The footage is underwhelming. If I didn't know it was Game of Thrones I would never have guessed. It's just medieval looking dudes doing normal things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on March 11, 2011, 08:19:39 AM
The footage is underwhelming. If I didn't know it was Game of Thrones I would never have guessed. It's just medieval looking dudes doing normal things.

Thank you.
And you cant tell me as a moneyhat HBO producer that you'd let said footage be the 1st impression most people got for... GoT.
Two theories:  Either it is what it is and will underwhelm as a show OR they just dont have enough footage beyond the beginning parts of the 1st book, which is a decidedly bland part of the story.
The latter theory is somewhat troubling in that it means they're likely going to string along the series as much as possible, rather than pound you in the face with awesomesauce.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on March 11, 2011, 11:46:39 AM
The series should start with the slaughter at the castle in Book 3(?) and then look backwards.  Pull people in hard.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 11, 2011, 01:09:15 PM
You have to be attached to the characters before that really makes a large impact, though. The end of the first episode ("The things I do for love...") should grab plenty of attention.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Margalis on March 11, 2011, 07:58:54 PM
I just saw another preview on TV and it has a distinct shot-on-video look to it. Which is bad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 13, 2011, 06:17:57 PM
HBO production diary, "Making game of thrones", just posted two new videos:

- The first is a presentation of House Stark (3m56s):

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/3/13/house-stark-feature.html

- The second is a new trailer, called "Fear and Blood" (2m11s):

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/3/13/fear-and-blood-preview.html
--

Well, IMO, they are really upping the game, here. I think these latest "featurette" are definitely the best we've seen so far. I tried to put myself in the feet of a new viewer, and I think the presentation does its job in giving an overview of some of the major actors and the series as a whole (with more to come related to the other houses).

Oh, and it goes without saying (spoilers about the Pilot ending):


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on March 15, 2011, 12:23:44 AM
Oh, Taiwan!   :heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G6QyXl6d2M


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 16, 2011, 08:25:17 AM
Whoa, video overload!!!

Three new House presentations:

- Baratheon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqgWX66fY

- Lannister:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URxuzDwE5S0

- Targaryen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlCSUUquFw

Targaryen Extended Version (7m12s) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4dqsoTsIYA

Lannister and Baratheon Extended presentations (no matter what the title of the video says): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJm1Wicp4Dw
---

Characters - House Stark:

* Eddard Stark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW7Xk82dU14
* Catelyn Tully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSD03i6rKj4
* Robb Stark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Icdz0xN5s
* Jon Snow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIU9UCpkMps
* Sansa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dJjq78HZOM
* Arya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NGAf6DnDWo
* Bran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7hDTyE8le0
----

Characters - House Targaryen/Dothraki

* Daenerys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6UITpdLt-s
* Viserys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMtS-fm0JGs
* Khal Drogo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpWaMDh-QN4

Characters - House Lannister/Baratheon

* King Robert Baratheon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P7nqrlooOQ
* Cersei: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycDo-VBZzWI
* Jaime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9RAtp2jUDQ
* Tyrion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ois_9HGsfkU
----

Production - Weapons and Armors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM_7ccvNcys
Production - Fight coreographies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb03X8BOn_s
Production - Clothing, Hair & Makeup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d91UPMvYZU
Production - On Location (Invitation to Westeros Extended): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUxVg1LTG4o


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on March 16, 2011, 08:31:05 AM
That Targaryen video almost makes Viserys an empathetic character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 17, 2011, 09:41:04 AM
Video overload continues!

To the above post, I added the Jaime Lannister and Robb Stark profiles; also, there are two extended presentations (longer, new footage!) featuring the Targaryen, Lannister and Baratheon Houses. Finally, there is an extended version (longer, new footage!) of the "Invitation to Westeros" trailer (I put it as last under "Production - On Location)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on March 29, 2011, 11:33:35 AM
King Robert is such a scamp:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjz9Wwx6vzc
 :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 03, 2011, 01:54:48 PM
Awesome acting by Mark Addy in the above clip, IMO  :drill:

REMINDER: Tonight on HBO, at 9pm EST, "sneak peek" of the pilot episode, the first fifteen minutes. The series will start on April 17th.

It *should* be available shortly after on either:

http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones

or

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/

And of course Youtube and other places, I imagine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: AcidCat on April 03, 2011, 06:04:30 PM
Not really interested in all these sneak peeks and shit, just want to see the first episode proper and go from there. I imagine it will be like the books, where it takes a while to find its stride and for people to realize that this is a lot more than just your stock standard sword and board tripe. Though it's been a while since I read the books, it will be interesting reaquainting myself with this world and the characters. Though it will be cool watching Peter Dinklage play Tyrion, as that's who I mentally envisioned in the part when I first read the books a few years ago. I imagined Liam Neeson as Eddard but honestly Sean Bean is not a bad second choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 03, 2011, 06:10:24 PM
Aaaand.....here it is!

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/4/3/exclusive-sneak-preview-watch-the-first-few-scenes-of-game-o.html

First impression: the opening scene seemed a bit "off" to me: even though I know the detailed one from the book, and I realize they cannot translate it 100% on screen, it looked like it was somehow..."cut" and compressed, especially after


Same sensation with the beginning scenes at Winterfell, for example the passage between Bran/Jon/Robb and the scene inside the keep with Arya and Sansa. But again, that is probably only because the book is quite fresh in my mind.
------------

Anyways, good sneak peek, the child actor playing Bran (Isaac Hempstead-Wright) was quite impressive in those beginning scenes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 03, 2011, 07:06:03 PM
It hit the major points it needed to, compressed or not.  The biggest thing the Crows scene failed to do was relay the true power of the Others that the book did and how far away from the wall they actually were (I just looked, 8-9 days.).  As for its lack of adherence to the actual scene, it worked better than an extended fight scene about characters we don't care about because they're meat.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 04, 2011, 04:50:35 AM
It hit the major points it needed to, compressed or not.  The biggest thing the Crows scene failed to do was relay the true power of the Others that the book did and how far away from the wall they actually were (I just looked, 8-9 days.).  As for its lack of adherence to the actual scene, it worked better than an extended fight scene about characters we don't care about because they're meat.



Yes, I agree, I think it pretty much conveyed the creepy feeling north of the wall and the weight on Ned's shoulders when he had to carry out the execution, basically the major points of the 15m "prologue". So far, so good. The only thing I really miss from the book is


But again, impossible (and certainly not advised) to translate everything, especially if you consider that, at least for me, those 14 minutes really passed in a snap of fingers, and only about 45 minutes left to the end of the episode :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on April 05, 2011, 07:51:12 PM
Game of Thrones' author was pissed at the end of Lost, too (http://blastr.com/2011/04/game-of-thrones-author-wa.php)

Quote
"I kept watching it and I was fascinated. ... They'd introduce these things and I thought that I knew where it was going. Then they'd introduce [something new] and I'd rethink it. ... We watched it every week trying to figure it out, and as it got deeper and deeper I kept saying, 'They better have something good in mind for the end. This end better pay off here.' And then I felt so cheated when we got to the conclusion."



"What if I f--- it up at the end? What if I do a Lost? Then they'll come after me with pitchforks and torches."

 :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 05, 2011, 08:53:28 PM
He won't because I'm assuming he has an actual plotline that he knows. I've always assumed that in the end Dany comes back and reclaims the throne for her line, but whatever. In the end somebody takes over, wins, and the credits roll. That or the whole thing gets covered in ice. It's hard to fuck that up. He just gets to decide who lives and dies.

In LOST, I still think the problem was that everyone guessed exactly what the real solution was really early on in the process, and the writers had to scramble to get around the fact they'd set the stage for them to end up in Purgatory.

Writers: <pitch a show with a bunch of people on an island that's mysterious and a great setpiece for character development>
Studio: Ok, but you better have a plan.
Fans after three episodes: I bet they are all dead and the island is Purgatory
Writers to fans: Nope, it's so much more than that!
Writers to themselves: HOLY HELL THEY KNOW! Quick, toss in some crap about hippies and time travel! Stall, damn you, STALL! We'll figure it out as we go.

I mean the fact that the actor playing Benjamin Linus wasn't even supposed to have a major role until he pulled off the acting job of a lifetime really tells you how much they were writing out of their asses.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 06, 2011, 07:08:18 AM
He doesn't. He's said a number of times about how it was meant to be 3 books and it keeps changing and getting longer and he has to rewrite all sorts of characters and etc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 06, 2011, 07:45:45 AM
He doesn't. He's said a number of times about how it was meant to be 3 books and it keeps changing and getting longer and he has to rewrite all sorts of characters and etc.

Extension is just a money ploy. I think he knows the ending. You always have a plan as a writer. What he doesn't know is how to get there, which is completely understandable. That's the hard part.

You set the stage, you have the characters, and you know at the end X happens to close things out. LOST writers had X, panicked, and stalled. The SOIAF series doesn't have a mystery element to it, so whatever he decides will be fine as long as he can get there. If Jon Snow conquers all, that's fine. If Dany rises up and comes back, that's fine. If Westeros gets rolled by things from beyond the wall, that's fine too. Hell, if Tyrion becomes the new Mad King and has everyone he knows executed in a death-by-pudding, I could live with it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on April 06, 2011, 08:21:23 AM
George has always known how it's going to end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxijf8zeZ0I


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on April 06, 2011, 08:37:48 AM
George has always known how it's going to end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxijf8zeZ0I

So did Robert Jordan.  Knowing how something is going to end, and moving the series in a sensible manner towards that end point are two different things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on April 06, 2011, 08:46:05 AM
This talk reminds me of a very popular Swedish soap opera that aired in the late nineties, a typical small town drama centered around a café. The final episode the writers went all out and had random terrorists blow the café into the air with all the major characters inside.

Now that's an ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 06, 2011, 08:48:58 AM
Quote
I imagine it will be like the books, where it takes a while to find its stride

I just purchased all the books on Kindle (I am sooo weak), and was amazed at how quickly I got sucked into the book in the first few pages. GRRM has many deplorable qualities, but (at one point at least) he was a very good writer. Pretty sure that ship has sailed, but at least the series should prove interesting.

This is my third or 4th pass through the books, but my first since AFFC was new. I am really picking up a lot more of the small details like . I think I read more closely on my Kindle, which is probably why I have really enjoyed reading books on it so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 07, 2011, 09:33:09 AM
Well, I have read all four books released in this series and have really enjoyed them for the most part.

So now I have to decide to pony up for 3 months of HBO for this or not. Gah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 07, 2011, 09:35:20 AM
Not.  Just buy the DVD set if it gets good enough reviews here.  It'll cost you less and there won't be the annoying delays between episodes.  That's my plan at least.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 07, 2011, 08:34:47 PM
HBO is worth it, this is just one of many (hopefully) good shows. If I could just get HBO, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, USA, and some History/Discover channels I'd be all set.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 08, 2011, 01:01:46 AM
The last "Making of..." before the show goes on air on April 17th. It's 25 minutes long, great stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofPjpBVvEA

For those of you who know the books and watched other previews, here we have a variety of glimpses of new scenes; also, Osha, Shagga, Lysa Tully, Robert Arryn, the infamous "door" (which is a "pit" in the show); and also: we get to see more of the direwolves, the Wall from the south and more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 08, 2011, 08:53:41 AM
Not.  Just buy the DVD set if it gets good enough reviews here.  It'll cost you less and there won't be the annoying delays between episodes.  That's my plan at least.

I don't think you will be saving much money...HBO DVDs are notoriously overpriced. If you got it for < $50 I would be surprised, which is about what 3 months of HBO would get you. That also gives you access to their entire On Demand library (at least on Comcast), so you could watch a lot of their other programming. I am still trying to find a WORKING (long story) full series set of The Wire for less than $120 if possible, and that is several years old by now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 08, 2011, 11:12:21 AM
Not.  Just buy the DVD set if it gets good enough reviews here.  It'll cost you less and there won't be the annoying delays between episodes.  That's my plan at least.

I don't think you will be saving much money...HBO DVDs are notoriously overpriced. If you got it for < $50 I would be surprised, which is about what 3 months of HBO would get you. That also gives you access to their entire On Demand library (at least on Comcast), so you could watch a lot of their other programming. I am still trying to find a WORKING (long story) full series set of The Wire for less than $120 if possible, and that is several years old by now.

Yes, this was kind of my calculation... $48 for 3 months.. a bonus is all the extra HBO stuff .. so yeah, gonna go for it.

Thanks for the opinions in any case.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on April 08, 2011, 01:40:52 PM
Not.  Just buy the DVD set if it gets good enough reviews here.  It'll cost you less and there won't be the annoying delays between episodes.  That's my plan at least.

I don't think you will be saving much money...HBO DVDs are notoriously overpriced. If you got it for < $50 I would be surprised, which is about what 3 months of HBO would get you. That also gives you access to their entire On Demand library (at least on Comcast), so you could watch a lot of their other programming. I am still trying to find a WORKING (long story) full series set of The Wire for less than $120 if possible, and that is several years old by now.

Yes, this was kind of my calculation... $48 for 3 months.. a bonus is all the extra HBO stuff .. so yeah, gonna go for it.

Thanks for the opinions in any case.

If your cable company offers InDemand, you can now go back and watch a bunch of other HBO shows there when you are subscribed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 13, 2011, 10:31:29 AM
I have been watching all the little featurettes (to coin a word) available on Comcast On Demand the past week or so; also re-reading the books to get ready for the premiere. It really looks like they nailed it. The EP/writers/showrunners really seem to understand and respect the source material and are committed to doing to justice. Just a few more days now!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 13, 2011, 10:53:25 AM
Not.  Just buy the DVD set if it gets good enough reviews here.  It'll cost you less and there won't be the annoying delays between episodes.  That's my plan at least.

I don't think you will be saving much money...HBO DVDs are notoriously overpriced. If you got it for < $50 I would be surprised, which is about what 3 months of HBO would get you. That also gives you access to their entire On Demand library (at least on Comcast), so you could watch a lot of their other programming. I am still trying to find a WORKING (long story) full series set of The Wire for less than $120 if possible, and that is several years old by now.

Yes, this was kind of my calculation... $48 for 3 months.. a bonus is all the extra HBO stuff .. so yeah, gonna go for it.

Thanks for the opinions in any case.

If your cable company offers InDemand, you can now go back and watch a bunch of other HBO shows there when you are subscribed.

Or you can get a $9 Netflix subscription.   :awesome_for_real:  Even if it's not available on streaming, they'll have the DVDs and you won't have to pay $50 to watch them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 14, 2011, 08:26:06 AM
So I'm getting married the day this airs.   :grin:

I'll have to wait a few until I get to see it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 14, 2011, 11:09:05 AM
HBO will run it 649376397397539573-07 times (a conservative guess) in the next week, so you should probably be able to find it. They are running it 3x consecutively on Sunday alone, FFS.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on April 14, 2011, 11:53:36 AM
So I'm getting married the day this airs.   :grin:

I'll have to wait a few until I get to see it.

Why? Does your hotel not have free HBO?    :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 14, 2011, 12:12:33 PM
Disks are out to the reviews and the first reviews are starting to hit. A fawning one here:

http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Game-Thrones-Review-Winter-Coming-Series-Premiere-31310.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Game-Thrones-Review-Winter-Coming-Series-Premiere-31310.html)

I read one other that was negative, although the author admitted from the start he didn't like the genre. Keep your eyes open for more please.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 14, 2011, 12:18:53 PM
So I'm getting married the day this airs.   :grin:

I'll have to wait a few until I get to see it.

Why? Does your hotel not have free HBO?    :why_so_serious:

I read Storm of Swords on honeymoon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 15, 2011, 11:30:22 AM
Disks are out to the reviews and the first reviews are starting to hit. A fawning one here:

http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Game-Thrones-Review-Winter-Coming-Series-Premiere-31310.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Game-Thrones-Review-Winter-Coming-Series-Premiere-31310.html)

I read one other that was negative, although the author admitted from the start he didn't like the genre. Keep your eyes open for more please.



If that was the one on Slate, ugh. That guy is a huge tool.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 15, 2011, 12:03:07 PM
I read one other that was negative, although the author admitted from the start he didn't like the genre. Keep your eyes open for more please.

If that was the one on Slate, ugh. That guy is a huge tool.

Yah, thats the one. He actually has about three sentences about the movie. Most of it is about himself.

Edited to add: Ha! Free HBO weekend. I can put it off until I've seen the first one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on April 15, 2011, 04:11:07 PM
It is tempting to subscribe to HBO just for this.

Also, this made me LOL (http://io9.com/#!5792574/really-why-would-men-ever-want-to-watch-game-of-thrones).


 :roflcopter:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on April 15, 2011, 05:54:15 PM
I AM AN ATAVISTIC EXAMPLE OF MY SPECIES - NYUAAAARRGGGHRARR.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2011, 09:35:39 AM
Edited to add: Ha! Free HBO weekend. I can put it off until I've seen the first one.

Bah, lucky. No free HBO weekend here.

As for the price of DVDs vs HBO: I don't watch enough TV to justify $48 for "all the great stuff."  I see HBO on my Guide and it's never got more than a few things I'd want to watch. Those that it does I can also get from Netflix. 

Also, if you buy the DVDs early or at the right places, you can get a great deal on them, particularly the week of release.   Best Buy usually does an early-buyer price and I've got plenty of reward bucks to cash in for more off.  I won't be spending $50 on it.  Hell, even Amazon has Rome for $27 per season now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 16, 2011, 10:31:08 AM
One thing I should mention I guess is, I can't stream. I live in a rural location and my internet is Evdo with a 5 gig cap.

My GF has a netflix account and we get dvds weekly. So yeah, I could wait for that and just get them this fall or whenever they get released.

Still deciding and now I have another week to put the decision off. Life is good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on April 16, 2011, 03:26:21 PM
Edited to add: Ha! Free HBO weekend. I can put it off until I've seen the first one.

Bah, lucky. No free HBO weekend here.

As for the price of DVDs vs HBO: I don't watch enough TV to justify $48 for "all the great stuff."  I see HBO on my Guide and it's never got more than a few things I'd want to watch. Those that it does I can also get from Netflix. 

Also, if you buy the DVDs early or at the right places, you can get a great deal on them, particularly the week of release.   Best Buy usually does an early-buyer price and I've got plenty of reward bucks to cash in for more off.  I won't be spending $50 on it.  Hell, even Amazon has Rome for $27 per season now.

HBO DVDs have come way down in price, mostly.  I've picked up alot of shows I want to re-watch when they hit the $20-30 price from either Target, Best Buy, or Amazon.  That includes Deadwood, Carnivale, Rome, etc.  Gave Entourage a shot when it was like $15/season.  The Wire is usually $30/season, but it occasionally drops below that if you hit the timing right.  The days where HBO could charge $80 a season and people would buy it are dead and gone.

If you're smart and make occasional sweeps for big deals, you can get things when they hit clearance and save big time.  I have a couple of friends that also play DVD bargain hunter, so between us we can swap shows around.

HBO is often in the top tier of TV packages, too... that means shelling out for a bunch of other channels you probably have no interest in watching.  You are pretty much shelling out big money to watch one show as it's aired. 

Best bang for TV buck is really just the "basic" cable package which usually includes stations up to FX and AMC (who are easily THE outlets for quality TV), and wait for other things to hit clearance after you have an idea about quality.

Sopranos was largely HBOs one and only watercooler show, where you HAD to watch it as episodes came out. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 16, 2011, 07:23:11 PM
Can't wait  :drill: :drill:

On monday morning (CET) I'll immediately download it  :heart:

(well, after all, here in Italy no television has picked it up, yet; we'll probably have to wait until september. So, since I would like to watch it along with you guys across the narrow sea pond, and I also like to watch tv shows in native language, that's the only way I can do it).

Oh, by the way: HBO Official Viewers Guide. VERY nice:

http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/


A totally stupid review by NY Times' Ginia Bellafante:

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Which generated quite a bit of anger and annoyance among fans (of course), women, and Martin himself:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/210874.html
---

Yes folks, apparently anyone who likes fantasy is still ye olde teenage geek living in the basement, rolling dices, roleplaying a dwarf, with the potential of becoming a serial killer when he grows up. The seventies-eighties all over again.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2011, 09:08:41 PM
The Times has sanitized the review, there are 0 user comments.  :why_so_serious:

Then again, what more do you expect from a reviewer who complains that they have to keep track of more than 5 characters by stating, "Keeping track of the principals alone feels as though it requires the focused memory of someone who can play bridge at a Warren Buffett level of adeptness. "

Perhaps if she played more bridge and watched less TV it wouldn't be so daunting.  Or hell, read a goddamn book once in a while.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on April 17, 2011, 07:38:28 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 17, 2011, 08:19:44 PM
I was pretty lost. Lots of exposition goes by really really fast in various forms of accents.  I'm sure it will unfold a bit and I will continue watching but I had to rewind it a bunch to catch stuff and still didn't get all of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 17, 2011, 08:41:06 PM
I get that infodumps are bad, but it wouldn't have hurt to have found a moment for inventing a longer scene with some clever expository dialogue in the middle, a scene between two self-aware characters who don't really interact that way in the book. Tyrion and Benjen Stark, maybe. Or hell, have Eddard start off with a bit of "We're the Starks, we guard the North, but once I went south to fight the Mad King, who killed my sister, and I never want to go south again" or somesuch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 17, 2011, 08:52:19 PM
I was pretty lost. Lots of exposition goes by really really fast in various forms of accents.  I'm sure it will unfold a bit and I will continue watching but I had to rewind it a bunch to catch stuff and still didn't get all of it.

To be fair you'd be just as lost at the start of the book also.  They throw a ton of characters with tons of previous history between them at you with no exposition there either.  The payoff is worth it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on April 17, 2011, 08:59:29 PM
As I was watching, wondered why I hadn't thought previously of how difficult it would be to translate the backstory to video form. I don't know that they succeeded.

Also, I probably in the minority, but the gratuitous T&A is a bit more graphic than in the novel form.

And some of the casting just doesn't jive for me -- Ned,  Daenerys, and most egregious Jaime Lannister. Others OK -- Sansa, Jon Snow, Cersei, Catelyn -- only little Arya and Tyrion and maybe Robert seem to match what I conjured from reading the books (which could be totally baseless, I freely confess ;().

                      


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Margalis on April 17, 2011, 10:26:30 PM
Vaguely related but I read the first book then stopped because my Spider Sense told me it was one of those series that was never going to end. I don't really get turning book 1 into a series. The first book basically feels like a prologue, or half a prologue. So it's hard to imagine getting to the end of the TV series and being satisfied, especially when you know that realistically the written series is never going to end and even if it does the chance of it turning into a complete TV series before 2020 is basically zero.

I have it DVR'd but I think I might just delete it. It sounds like the only real fun of it is just the novelty of it existing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on April 17, 2011, 10:48:00 PM
Everyone in my Sunday TV group loved it. Was about half and half people who had read the books and people who hadnt.

I kept wanting to stop and explain backstory, but found that the people who hadnt read the books didnt want it, they wanted it to unfold for them.

As far as casting goes, I thought Sean Bean was spot on. The major ones that seemed off to me where Cersei and Jamie Lanester and Rob Stark. I felt that the Lanesters should have been a bit more effeminate. I pictured Jamie being almost "elfin" with a lot more blonde hair, and Rob being a bit more rough, and for some reason I thought he had red hair.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 18, 2011, 02:16:37 AM
Quote
All dwarfs are bastards in their father's eyes

Thought it was great I'm also really enjoying seeing the Ulster of Cú Chulainn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn) in the background of this story.

Edit to add.

It was always going to be difficult to translate this to a tv show, Rob Stark didn't stand out to me either but how many strong characters can they introduce in the first episode and not put people off?  Eddard, Robert, Arya, Tyrion & Jaime I thought came across great, Cersei I don't like anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 18, 2011, 04:41:20 AM
Thought some of this was funny.

http://geeknotgeek.blogspot.com/2011/04/26-things-i-learned-from-game-of.html



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 18, 2011, 04:46:21 AM
Jaime is supposed to be a pretty boy, golden, gets along easily with everyone, light-hearted--it's with the pushing-out-the-window that you get a very abruptly different sense of what's going on. And then later on, a different sense again as the character gets more complicated.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 18, 2011, 06:24:25 AM
The show is going to have to last for years for the prologue to make a lick of sense to anyone who didn't read the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 18, 2011, 06:54:47 AM
I was not really impressed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 18, 2011, 07:01:53 AM
I enjoyed it. Not overwhelmed for sure and not sure I will pay to see it as it is released.

I cannot understand how anybody who has not read the books could follow it. Some critical plot points were pass out in a single word of dialogue.

meh   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on April 18, 2011, 07:03:52 AM
I liked it, but I think I liked it because I really WANT to like it.

I can't imagine watching it without an understanding of the books. So many characters are thrown at you and last names mentioned in the prologue come back in later books. I'll be interested to watch the Kings Hand tournament as even the small bit players barely mentioned become more important and bigger plot points in later books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 18, 2011, 07:09:04 AM
Having not read the books. Rome, Spartacus, and a number of others were better pilots.  I'm not felling this, seems like some generic fantasy, oh, and rapeings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 18, 2011, 07:57:29 AM
Having not read the books. Rome, Spartacus, and a number of others were better pilots.  I'm not felling this, seems like some generic fantasy, oh, and rapeings.

If you stick with it, I'd like you to post your feelings after the 6th episode has aired.  It's a dense plot with lots of characters so I'm actually kinda envious of people who haven't read the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 18, 2011, 07:58:18 AM
Well, if the free HBO is over, I won't be able to get that far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 18, 2011, 07:59:00 AM
I really liked it.

Strip away all the expectations and hype, and it stands. It's good. I haven't read the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2011, 08:26:04 AM
Having not read the books. Rome, Spartacus, and a number of others were better pilots.  I'm not felling this, seems like some generic fantasy, oh, and rapeings.

The first episode of Spartacus was horrid, if you remember correctly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 18, 2011, 08:41:23 AM
I thought this looked good. Good opening, managed to help me not get lost with the geography. My only real gripe was that the eye make up guy bits were confusing. I'm not sure what his name is and if he's even the supreme leader of that tribe or whatever. It felt as if sometimes they were talking about him and sometimes someone else. I'd rather watch it when the series is done and I can watch big chunks in one sitting if I want to but I'm always that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 18, 2011, 08:48:50 AM
It felt very pilot-y- uneven and strange. Shows have a tendency to improve from their pilots though (see my earlier musings), so I still have hope.

Good-
Others and wights were fucking creepy
Peter Dinklage was pretty good as Tyrion (a massively important character going forward)
The girl playing Arya is good
Show did a decent job of showing the Starks in a warm sympathetic light- they did feel like a family
GOD puppies are cute, even if they are dogs instead of direwolves
Emilia Clarke is gorgeous and spends a lot of time in various stages of undress  :drill:

Bad-
Jaime Lannister...ugh. Actor's accent is awful, and he is wooden as a weirwood
I usually like Lena Headey, but she wasn't too good here either
Why was Ned carrying a longsword in the scene when they find the puppies? Is Ice only used for executions? That is not the impression I got from the books, but oh well
Was it just me, or was Benjen Stark's head in constant motion, especially when he was talking to Jon in his first scene? Watch it again- the actor is constantly moving his head up and down. It is incredibly distracting
Episode needed to be 2 hours long to get things up and running- too much being crammed in/thrown at the viewer
Dothraki wedding by the sea- the books make a big deal of how afraid of the 'poison water' the Dothraki are- I doubt they would choose to celebrate there. It was damned pretty though


I will obviously keep watching, but unless some of the actors really pick up the pace and the plot does the opposite, viewers will flee.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 18, 2011, 08:53:24 AM
I thought this looked good. Good opening, managed to help me not get lost with the geography. My only real gripe was that the eye make up guy bits were confusing. I'm not sure what his name is and if he's even the supreme leader of that tribe or whatever. It felt as if sometimes they were talking about him and sometimes someone else. I'd rather watch it when the series is done and I can watch big chunks in one sitting if I want to but I'm always that way.

The horse guy? his name is Kal Drogo.  Actually his name is Drogo, Kal is his title.  He is a horse warrior who has never been defeated in battle and thus commands a huge army.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 18, 2011, 09:10:52 AM
It was a first episode, so I'll give the pacing and how much they threw at us a bit of a pass. I do hope it actually slows down a bit and focuses more.

I may be in the minority, but I actually like Jaime and the casting for him. Just the right amount of smarm.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on April 18, 2011, 11:05:42 AM
I also felt Kal Drogo was sort of under done in a way. Also they seemed to downplay a little bit how horsey they where. I will fully second the fact that it should have been 2 hours and explained a few things a bit better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on April 18, 2011, 11:07:03 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on April 18, 2011, 11:37:42 AM
You know that guy is also playing Conan in the upcoming remake?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 18, 2011, 11:52:10 AM
I thought he was pretty good, the scenes weren't great because he's meant to have an army of 40,000 warriors with him, plus hangers on, trying to suggest anything like that just isn't worth the effort for the pay off. 

Viewers are going to have a hard enough time just understanding the main Direwolf, Stag & Lion nobles, I think the Dragon's can take a back seat for while, especially as they are across the sea.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 18, 2011, 12:32:10 PM
Kal Drogo

The dude from Stargate Atlantis?

Having not read the books. Rome, Spartacus, and a number of others were better pilots.  I'm not felling this, seems like some generic fantasy, oh, and rapeings.

The first episode of Spartacus was horrid, if you remember correctly.

Hoked me more than Generic Fantasy 12537 complete with LOTR Elves getting raped.

Just saying.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 18, 2011, 12:34:35 PM
"White dude" is perhaps a bit of an overstatement, he's half Hawaiian. It isn't like John Wayne playing Ghengis Khan or something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 18, 2011, 01:08:55 PM
Kal Drogo

The dude from Stargate Atlantis?

I've decided to share my own mental scaring Re: this character wtih everyone since the SGA mention triggered it again. Every time I read the books or saw the character's name I wind-up reading it as "Kal D'argo" and mentally visuallized the character from Farscape. While this made the Dothraki scenes much more exotic it also made the Dany/ Kal sex scenes very disturbing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 18, 2011, 02:38:10 PM
It was a first episode, so I'll give the pacing and how much they threw at us a bit of a pass. I do hope it actually slows down a bit and focuses more.

I may be in the minority, but I actually like Jaime and the casting for him. Just the right amount of smarm.
Yeah, I'm with you.  I actually thought they translated Jaime better than anybody else as a matter of fact.  Perfect casting, and good acting.

Overall I enjoyed it, though I will agree it could have been better.  Felt a bit meh'ish.  I'm hoping that they'll spend the next episode giving detailed explanations for everybody, and the history leading up to this point.

And Bloodworth, where the hell was this elf raping scene you keep talking about?  I seem to have missed it.....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 18, 2011, 03:19:20 PM
2nd series seems like a safe bet (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hbo-top-1-billion-international-176907).
Quote
In a latest sign of international success, the premium pay network’s newest show, Game of Thrones, premieres on Sunday, but has already become HBO's best-selling series abroad ever, fetching more than $2.5 million an episode, more than 50% above the international price tag for The Sopranos, the paper said.

Ratings out tomorrow apparently.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: FatuousTwat on April 18, 2011, 03:56:38 PM

Why was Ned carrying a longsword in the scene when they find the puppies? Is Ice only used for executions? That is not the impression I got from the books, but oh well


I thought that was something they got right, Ice was an executioners sword for Ned. I could be wrong.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on April 18, 2011, 03:56:54 PM
2nd series seems like a safe bet (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hbo-top-1-billion-international-176907).
Quote
In a latest sign of international success, the premium pay network’s newest show, Game of Thrones, premieres on Sunday, but has already become HBO's best-selling series abroad ever, fetching more than $2.5 million an episode, more than 50% above the international price tag for The Sopranos, the paper said.

Ratings out tomorrow apparently.

Ratings for the first 3 or 4 episodes don't matter.  There's a ton of hype and promotion behind the series, and it's a well know property, so you'll have lots of people checking it out.

Midway through will be the clincher, to see if people who aren't familiar with the books hang around or drop the program.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 18, 2011, 04:00:37 PM

Why was Ned carrying a longsword in the scene when they find the puppies? Is Ice only used for executions? That is not the impression I got from the books, but oh well


I thought that was something they got right, Ice was an executioners sword for Ned. I could be wrong.
Yeah, as I recall the sword was only used ceremonially.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 18, 2011, 04:27:22 PM
Yep, "Ice" has been passed through generations (valyrian steel) as some sort of relic/ceremonial sword.
---

As a reader, I really liked this Pilot, but I understand it must have been quite hard for a neophyte. The actor portraying Jaime, beside the similarities with Shrek's Prince Charming, also bears a resemblance with LOST's Josh Holloway (Sawyer)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: adjunct on April 18, 2011, 04:42:06 PM
"White dude" is perhaps a bit of an overstatement, he's half Hawaiian. It isn't like John Wayne playing Ghengis Khan or something.

Or Charlton Heston playing a mexican.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 18, 2011, 04:52:53 PM
He looked like all the other horse warriors to me, i don't see what the problem is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 18, 2011, 05:27:12 PM
I knew nothing about Game of Thrones but I watched this 25-minute HBO video before I watched the first episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofPjpBVvEA

I think that video brought me up to speed, so I could enjoy and follow the first episode without any other knowledge. Maybe everyone should watch that first?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 18, 2011, 06:13:12 PM
Why do all the men have fairly normal names (Eddard, Jamie) but the women have exotic names?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 18, 2011, 06:51:04 PM
Because they are a nerdy fat man's fantasy women?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 18, 2011, 06:52:55 PM
He looked like all the other horse warriors to me, i don't see what the problem is.

Sharp knees.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: raydeen on April 18, 2011, 08:16:20 PM
I'd never heard of the books before so I don't know if it's doing them justice or not but I like it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2011, 11:50:11 PM
Watched the first episode last night and it was utter tripe from start to finish.

It has 2 episodes to get good, then it gets dumped.  I don't really care how many bare breasts you throw on my screen, I'm a grownup.

It really, really needed to explain itself a little more in ways that could be understood. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 19, 2011, 12:58:30 AM
I liked Sean Bean in it, but everything else was just "Look, we are edgy. Here is some blood. Here is some implied sibling sex. Look, we are really edgy. Here is some not so implied sibling sex. See you next week."

Maybe it does the books justice. But it seems like a show that lives for shock effects that are frankly not shocking anymore after Rome and Spartacus desensitized everybody. So they better get some good actors and a good story going. I give them the benefit of the doubt though, this is a setup episode afterall. And maybe I am supposed to hate almost every main player. Hell, since doggystyle is all the rage in this world the Horselord is one of the more sympathetic characters (if you accept medieval gender roles for the series). At least he doesn't prattle on all the time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 01:21:14 AM
My Gimmick is entirely right.  Except for making up the word "desensibilized".

Also, I spent ages trying to figure out who the wee chap from Doctor Who reminded me of.  When he gave the 'hey, I'm driven and whatnot, so it's fine for a multi-pile up horse rape to happen to you, you vacuous wee shite" I finally got it.  They've put Raistlin up on my screen and not even bothered to give him gold skin and freaky eyes...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 02:05:54 AM
The show is based on the first in a series of fantasy books, released in 1996, it's an unusual series and reading it you can tell that halfway through the first book.  It doesn't follow "normal " rules and that's a good thing no matter how shock proof you think you are after watching Rome and Spartacus.  

I have no problem with people not liking the tv version but saying it's trying to be edgy with "implied sibling sex" is silly, considering 1, it's not implied at all & 2, it's being true to the book.

Rome and Spartacus probably helped this get made, but those shows didn't spring fully formed into the minds of their creators free of outside influence.

As for why I personally like the story.  I think LoTR worked well because the history of middle earth was applied with a light brush under a compelling story of good versus evil.  GoT has underlying history as well but the battle lines aren't drawn in such simple good/evil terms, I like the extra focus on phrases that are memorable and echo throughout the series adding an extra layer each time.

A minor non spoiler one being "A Lannister Always Pays His Debts".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 19, 2011, 02:11:56 AM
Yes, I'm a naughty gimmick. Serves you right for impersonating a foreigner, though.

Obviously desensibilisiert translates to desensitized. I'm sorry about that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 04:18:45 AM
As Johny Cee said the ratings for the first few episodes don't indicate which way this will go but posting them anyway, just so we have a benchmark for later.

Game of Thrones scores Sky Atlantic ratings record (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/19/game-of-thrones-sky-atlantic-ratings)
Quote
Game of Thrones: Sky Atlantic, 9pm – Fantasy epic Game of Thrones took the crown as Sky Atlantic's most popular show to date for its launch episode on Monday, 18 April.

The big-budget HBO spectacular starring Sean Bean averaged 743,000 viewers between 9pm and 10.10pm, with a peak of 823,000.

It beat the Sky channel's previous highest overnight audience, believed to be the first episode of Martin Scorsese's Boardwalk Empire, which averaged 438,000 on its opening night.

Game of Thrones' audience is likely to be around 50% higher when viewing on timeshifted viewing on Sky+ is taken into account.

Sky Atlantic comes as part of paid for packages with Sky in HD, it's only been going for a few months, the Mrs watches thirtysomething on it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 04:28:27 AM
I liked the dwarf.  He said 'bastard' a lot.  He could have been Scottish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 05:03:04 AM
The link Tale put up is well worth a watch Ironwood, it's a good introduction to the characters and they drive the story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofPjpBVvEA


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 19, 2011, 06:22:02 AM
I liked Sean Bean in it, but everything else was just "Look, we are edgy. Here is some blood. Here is some implied sibling sex. Look, we are really edgy. Here is some not so implied sibling sex. See you next week."

+ LOTRO Elves, and rapeings.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 06:41:45 AM
She wasn't raped (although that could have been a lot clearer) and she's not an Elf, if you want to make shit up at least make it funny.


I could have done without the sex scenes on TV but two of them were central to the story & the Tyrion one was a pretty accurate way to introduce him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 19, 2011, 06:49:57 AM
She wasn't raped (although that could have been a lot clearer) and she's not an Elf, if you want to make shit up at least make it funny.


I could have done without the sex scenes on TV but two of them were central to the story & the Tyrion one was a pretty accurate way to introduce him.

Maybe in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 07:05:56 AM
I really don't give a crap, but I will say that the show I watched last night was quite clear that she was getting raped.

Hey, ho.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 19, 2011, 07:09:28 AM
I liked the dwarf.  He said 'bastard' a lot.  He could have been Scottish.

Tyrion is the best damn character in the books.  I'm going to be pissed when he gets killed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 19, 2011, 07:13:52 AM
The books chapters sometimes end in mini-cliff hangers where the outcome later is somewhat different then you think is implied. They may be using that same mechanic. Or perhaps they are altering the story for the sake of brevity.  Guess we have to watch next week to find out.   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 19, 2011, 07:16:36 AM
I really don't give a crap, but I will say that the show I watched last night was quite clear that she was getting raped.

Hey, ho.



I don't ether. I just found it funny, I mostly agree with Tebonas at this point. They were trying REALLY hard to be edgy. This show has to go up against, The Pillars of the Earth, Deadwood, Carnivàle, Spartacus, and The Tudors.

Right now it feels like a low budget knock off of that style. But I have only seen the first episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 07:50:10 AM
Whereas if you compare to the books and how they had altered the ages of the younger characters, they actually toned it down.  I'm pretty sure there's going to be lots of other things they tone down too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 19, 2011, 08:03:16 AM
I read the first 3 books when the 3rd one was released, which apparently was in 2000.  In preperation for this show I started reading them again.

Let me tell you that the first book, for the first 300-400 pages is confusing as hell because they through out so many names and houses etc.  The show is pretty much following suit.  But there is such a payoff once you get your feet under you.

I thought the show was fantastic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 19, 2011, 08:27:11 AM
It was OK for a pilot.  The show won't move that fast at first and it'll be confusing for a bit, because the books were exactly like that and they seem to be trying for as much fidelity as they could. I didn't really like the series for the first 400 pages if I'm recalling correctly.  Luckily for my wife, I could explain things to her or she would have been lost.  They definitely could have tried harder to introduce characters better, since you don't have pages of backstory to help you in the series.  Things should come together as they focus more on different characters.  If it doesn't, they'll have problems.

There were a few things they could have done better (like the marriage consumation), but overall I was generally pleased with the way they handled things.  As for charactrers.. uhh, I guess Jaime Lannister's hair could have been longer and the Hound could have been more crispy.  I always pictured Joffrey as Draco Malfoy, so he could have been taller.  Yah, pretty  much all "sharp knees" criticisms, so I can live with it.

They aren't trying to be edgy.  The books are just like that.  It's like calling Glen Cook's work morally ambiguous.  If they put the red wedding on screen, some of you are going to have a goddamned fit.

And Targaryens aren't elves.  They're just inbred to an extreme degree. Brother-fucking makes your kids look odd.

Tyrion was awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 08:40:30 AM
Ooh, Glen Cook - What did he do ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 19, 2011, 08:44:12 AM
HBO renews "Game of Thrones" for second season:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/04/hbo-renews-game-of-thrones-for-second-season/ (lots of traffic at the moment)


The Pilot raked in 4.2 million viewers, apparently (not bad, considering there is still the "oh, it's that fantasy crap" mentality).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 19, 2011, 08:45:53 AM
Ooh, Glen Cook - What did he do ?


I threw that in just for you.   :grin: 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 08:46:35 AM
Still haven't read them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 19, 2011, 08:48:19 AM
I don't think you'd get past the first 60 pages.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on April 19, 2011, 08:52:52 AM
At some point you just have to give up the computer and go sit in your rocker on the porch screaming at the neighbors kids.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 19, 2011, 08:54:54 AM
I think it's a pretty good sign that the complaints so far are basically exactly the same complaints you would have at this point in the books.  Also, they are not trying to be "edgy" to outdo the other shows, they actually toned it down from the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 19, 2011, 09:04:12 AM
She pretty much get raped in the books too. So if it come across as a rape (haven't seen the ep yet) it is a fairly accurate representation; if not fully expained in regards to subtlties.

Also it's pedophilia in the books? Young girl sold in to sexual slavery to Ghengis Khan is the gist of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 09:04:26 AM
Worrying for me tho.  It was tripe.

If it had been in book form I'd have put it down and not gone back.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 19, 2011, 09:06:50 AM
She pretty much get raped in the books too. So if it come across as a rape (haven't seen the ep yet) it is a fairly accurate representation; if not fully expained in regards to subtlties.

Also it's pedophilia in the books? Young girl sold in to sexual slavery to Ghengis Khan is the gist of it.

No, in the books and throughout most of our history a 13 year old girl getting married off was perfectly acceptable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 19, 2011, 09:11:15 AM
Worrying for me tho.  It was tripe.

If it had been in book form I'd have put it down and not gone back.

Hopefully they don't play too much of the adolescent pornographic elements of the book in the series (and there is a fair bit) as it is far and away the
Worst writing. There is a lot to enjoy otherwise, and I hope it translates.

The context of the book is not a 13 year old girl getting married in any normal sense, as you know.  Nor is the sex written as if it is not a coerced relationship in it's first instances. And as you well know, I am not talking about historical views, but those of contemporary viewers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 19, 2011, 09:13:44 AM
Like Arthur Parker said, the books are...well, just what they are: what you are seeing now is what I consider a very well done translation of a 1996 book on the TV screen. Before Rome, Spartacus or whatever explicit stuff you've seen lately. So, in a way, I understand if you approach GoT with a more "jaded" mentality (hey, it's F13!!! :D)
---

Now, of course, if you are a ASOIAF neophyte, you are more interested in the "right here and now", you want to be engrossed week by week by the events of the current season. Me as a reader, if I turn back and look at the happenings of Book One, knowing what happens after it, I could almost say that the first book is just a big introduction, almost a "dull" one compared to later events, especially book three.

I don't know every single Fantasy Saga that came before 1996, and what approach each author took (from Tolkien-esque High Fantasy/Mythology to Gritty medieval), but it seems to me that Martin mastered the "historical fantasy" one. Fantasy around the edges, yes, but in a very recognizable and realistic world when it comes to clashes of power, much more akin to our own medieval times.

Again, yes, you will catch this peculiar aspect of the world only when Eddard Stark arrives in King's Landing, but even more so the next season (which got the green light, as written in a previous post).

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/04/19/game-of-thrones-premiere-ratings/



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 09:27:18 AM
She pretty much get raped in the books too.

No she doesn't, I actually quoted the passage from the book, I'd have quoted the full section but I felt odd c&p'ing something that's borderline erotic fiction.  She had the marriage forced on her but then Drogo immediately gives her the horse and she starts to feel a sense of freedom for the first time in her life, because her brother is an insane, cruel little bastard and she's free of him.

That's not to say that the scene in the tv show couldn't have been a lot better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 09:31:08 AM
It did look like a nice horse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 19, 2011, 09:50:46 AM
Rape is hyperbole, sure, but we're talking about a coerced (through marraige, gifts - general expectation) sexual relationship between a orphaned minor and a fully grown man from a rough masculine society that treats her as an object it isfair to say the sex would be rape-like. GRRMs adolescent guilt effacing 'yes' doesnt change that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 19, 2011, 10:23:54 AM
Dany was beaten, treated like an object and quite possibly molested by her brother.  Sure, she was forced to marry Drogo and was terrified of him, but it was because she thought he was just a bigger meaner Viserys.  It is really not that hard to imagine how she could be happy about it when she realized it was nowhere near as bad as she thought it would be and actually a lot better than what she had before.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on April 19, 2011, 10:27:15 AM
This is the kind of problems we get taking this to the screen. The back story was thoroughly under explained. The 'releasing the dragon' line meant nothing to the viewers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 19, 2011, 10:43:45 AM
This thread is veering dangerously close to the "what actually constitutes rape" argument that went on in that spiderman thread.  Thats not a place we want to go back too.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 10:50:36 AM
Yeah, the SA non spoiler thread is a trainwreck.  I can see why people are getting the impression they did, maybe it was intentional as they had to make her older, I'm happy to drop it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 19, 2011, 10:51:17 AM
She pretty much get raped in the books too.

No she doesn't, I actually quoted the passage from the book, I'd have quoted the full section but I felt odd c&p'ing something that's borderline erotic fiction.  She had the marriage forced on her but then Drogo immediately gives her the horse and she starts to feel a sense of freedom for the first time in her life, because her brother is an insane, cruel little bastard and she's free of him.

That's not to say that the scene in the tv show couldn't have been a lot better.

Did you just openly post a spoiler?  :mob:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 19, 2011, 10:57:45 AM
edit: I'll be nice.

 :facepalm: should cover it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 11:21:13 AM
Did you just openly post a spoiler?  :mob:

I thought you weren't going to be watching it?  And no, a summary of events from the book, but only up to the end of episode 1 isn't a spoiler.

If they put the red wedding on screen, some of you are going to have a goddamned fit.

I guess this is what I most hope happens as far as season renewals goes, if it ever makes it that far, that's going to be a television event.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 19, 2011, 11:26:51 AM
Did you just openly post a spoiler?  :mob:

I thought you weren't going to be watching it?  And no, a summary of events from the book, but only up to the end of episode 1 isn't a spoiler.

My comments were about the pilot. I will watch more if there is another way, I always give shows like this at least 3 episodes to find its footing. What you described, was nothing like the show ending. I did not see a "sense of freedom" in her eyes before the credits rolled.

What you typed did not come across in the show, thats why I thought it was a spoiler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 19, 2011, 11:36:44 AM
As was said they didn't match the scene to the book very well, which shouldn't be taken as me saying that you are going to approve of episode 2 either  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 19, 2011, 11:45:06 AM
In case anyone is interested: the first 77 pages of the book, covering all you've seen in the pilot:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52871822/GAME-OF-THRONES-Exclusive-First-Episode-E-Book

Since the books are structured via POVs, now that you have seen the Pilot you can jump back and forth, for example checking out only the parts covering "Daenerys" events, or how Martin actually wrote the last scene concerning Bran (page 67 to 77).

EDIT: Sorry, regarding Dany, it's just the beginning.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 19, 2011, 11:47:30 AM
This is the kind of problems we get taking this to the screen. The back story was thoroughly under explained. The 'releasing the dragon' line meant nothing to the viewers.

I think the fact that Viserys was a complete douche was pretty well covered.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2011, 12:06:25 PM
Yeah, but the Doctor's gonna put him in a Scarecrow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on April 19, 2011, 02:15:32 PM
Yeah, but the Doctor's gonna put him in a Scarecrow.

 :awesome_for_real:

He was being kind.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Engels on April 19, 2011, 02:18:02 PM
Regarding Ironwood's 'tis but tripe!' accusation: Its true. The book is tripe too. Its dirty lascivious male nerd fantasy tripe. Its well written, and the characters are believable, engaging assholes with one or two exceptions. Martin caters to outrage and titillation without remorse. Its Sopranos with swords all the way. Its War of the Roses with the dirty bits thrown in. If it isn't your bag because you're feeling a bit manipulated and made to watch a car-wreck/strip show, then that's not HBO, that's just what it is. It was never high art and I don't think Martin would ever have dreamed of it being considered anything but a good lusty yarn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: voodoolily on April 19, 2011, 04:08:20 PM
It did look like a nice horse.

 :awesome_for_real:

I thought the whole thing was basically incest porn for nerds. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on April 19, 2011, 04:20:08 PM
There's actually more sex in the book in the same timespan... although that was cut in the show, because good Lord, we can't have people over forty thirty twenty-five have sex on TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 19, 2011, 04:21:54 PM
The person they picked for Cat isn't very attractive.  I consider us lucky.

And Lyssa later on.  :ye_gods: Do not want.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on April 19, 2011, 04:35:47 PM
That's kind of the point. It would have required cahonas/integrity to show a middle-aged couple have sex on prime-time TV, something I think this show has deceptively little of. I think it would have been a sign of health for a show that's acting all tough and grown-up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 19, 2011, 04:54:12 PM
Not if they had kept the original (http://www.leninimports.com/jennifer_ehle_gallery_main.jpg) casting choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 20, 2011, 12:11:02 AM
Regarding Ironwood's 'tis but tripe!' accusation: Its true. The book is tripe too. Its dirty lascivious male nerd fantasy tripe. Its well written, and the characters are believable, engaging assholes with one or two exceptions. Martin caters to outrage and titillation without remorse. Its Sopranos with swords all the way. Its War of the Roses with the dirty bits thrown in. If it isn't your bag because you're feeling a bit manipulated and made to watch a car-wreck/strip show, then that's not HBO, that's just what it is. It was never high art and I don't think Martin would ever have dreamed of it being considered anything but a good lusty yarn.

Thank you, that does kind of put it all in focus.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 20, 2011, 06:20:20 AM
It's an important thing--Martin wasn't just trying to draw from a different source material than Tolkein (the nasty histories of the War of the Roses vs. high 'epic' literature and mythology like Beowulf) but also the vulgar, brutal and bawdy mood of some late medieval and early modern histories and chronicles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 20, 2011, 06:36:38 AM
I really like some of the promotion images they have put out.


(http://i.imgur.com/T6x21l.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/rQRjol.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/4BL9Wl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Wiv1Bl.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/lHyZAl.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on April 20, 2011, 07:02:22 AM
Ah hell... now I need those Sean Bean ones in full size so I can post them in my work cubicle (I like making my co-workers think).  Or at least in wallpaper size for the computer. 

Sean Bean =  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on April 20, 2011, 07:09:39 AM
Quote
Its dirty lascivious male nerd fantasy tripe

Maybe this explains why I just don't get the appeal of the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 20, 2011, 07:11:00 AM
My wife, who has not read the books, and was given a very limited amount of background by me with no spoilers, did find a good deal of it confusing but also interesting.

Her comments during the show, about which I remained steadfastly  :oh_i_see: :

"That fat guy? The king? How soon until he dies? He is so obviously dead."
"The dwarf is kind of funny but a jerk. Is he going to get killed soon doing something heroic so that we feel sorry for him?"
"The wife of the northern guy gives off a vaguely bitchy vibe though not so much as the queen. Is that on purpose?"
(Before the scene where Bran gets a peek at Cersei and Jaime): "The climbing kid is too cute, something bad is going to happen to him."
"Please kill the whiny princess girl who wants to marry the prince, she's obnoxious."
"The kid prince is creeeeepy. Like 'The Omen' creepy. Is that on purpose?"
"Who is this guy [Benjen]? I missed it. I don't understand what he's talking about."
"I am having a hard time keeping straight who all the kids of Sean Bean's character are. There seem to be more than six, even counting the bastard guy."
[re: Viserys]: "Isn't that the guy from Dr. Who? But I don't get him and his sister. Who are they? What's going on?"

Also really did not like the rapey feeling of Daenerys' scene with Khal Drogo, and had a very hard time understanding any of that plot. The knight showing up at the wedding completely confused her--she felt like she was supposed to know him from before, as if he'd been in the earlier scenes in Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 20, 2011, 07:14:15 AM
Another poster but bit of a spoiler.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 20, 2011, 12:29:47 PM
had a very hard time understanding any of that plot. The knight showing up at the wedding completely confused her--she felt like she was supposed to know him from before, as if he'd been in the earlier scenes in Winterfell.

Yeah this. If they wanted to include the horse barb wedding bits they needed another 30 min or something to make it sensible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 20, 2011, 12:38:57 PM
"Please kill the whiny princess girl who wants to marry the prince, she's obnoxious."

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 20, 2011, 01:22:38 PM
"Please kill the whiny princess girl who wants to marry the prince, she's obnoxious."

 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 20, 2011, 01:33:34 PM
I had to explain to someone that the Targaryens weren't pervy elves and Tyrion wasn't a Tolkien dwarf.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 20, 2011, 01:33:55 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 20, 2011, 01:51:46 PM
I never got why people liked Arya so much. Her story lines alway made me roll my eyes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 20, 2011, 03:10:48 PM
I think Engles description isn't quite fair, since the reason the series is popular is because its very well written, and has very deep characters and good development.  But overall, I suppose thats a decent way to frame it.  I always felt it was catering more towards realism and history rather than nerd porn, however (the middle ages were gloriously fucked up).

I never got why people liked Arya so much. Her story lines alway made me roll my eyes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 20, 2011, 03:25:44 PM
I'll echo what Teleku said.  I didn't like her at first, but as a main character her story is one of the more interesting ones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 20, 2011, 03:30:34 PM
Book related spoiler:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 20, 2011, 04:10:09 PM
Just wanted to pop in and say that first poster is fucking epic win.  I don't know much about GoT, but that poster seems to encapsulate it.  Iconic.

(I swear I'm not gay for Boromir)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 20, 2011, 06:06:41 PM
Bob, that was a little mean. Spoiler it or I'll just nuke it. It's hard to select text on my iPhone.

Edit: nuked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on April 20, 2011, 06:22:50 PM
I don't seem to remember the Daenerys sex scene being so...rapey, in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 20, 2011, 06:26:19 PM
I don't seem to remember the Daenerys sex scene being so...rapey, in the book.

It wasn't. AP quoted some of the text earlier.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 20, 2011, 07:11:26 PM
Wish I had my book with me...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 20, 2011, 07:18:45 PM
Is "You win or you die" a slogan from the books? I think it sucks. Everything else about the posters I like.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 20, 2011, 07:20:35 PM
Bob, that was a little mean. Spoiler it or I'll just nuke it. It's hard to select text on my iPhone.

Edit: nuked.

Huh? Spoiler what? I've never read any of the shitty books, I was just guessing based on hamfisted plot billboards. Unless the part I was right about was the vikings and wrong about everything else, you've just confirmed that I've already seen this story in every crap fantasy novel ever written. Seriously, it's so treadworn Khaldun's wife could probably predict the entire miniseries.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 20, 2011, 07:36:48 PM
That's called foreshadowing and is meant to make you be able to do that.

Predicting the whole series in a general sense is pretty easy, but you will absolutely get some bits wrong.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 20, 2011, 09:06:08 PM
Is "You win or you die" a slogan from the books? I think it sucks. Everything else about the posters I like.

It comes off better in the book than it does on the poster.  

"When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 21, 2011, 03:40:31 AM
I watched it.

Fucking awful.

Really fucking awful.

Almost everything about it, apart from Dinkage and Bean, was useless. To be fair the script let every other actor down in a huge way, but still...

God it was awful. I felt embarrassed to tell my girlfriend that I had enjoyed the books after sitting through that tripe.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sparky on April 21, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Saw the pilot.  Acting was pretty wooden, all the lines from the book sounded very stilted and unnatural when spoken out loud.  But maybe that's GrrM's fault.  Found all the exposition a bit gruelling too.  Will probably continue watching because I'm a huge fantasy nerd but I won't clear my schedule for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 21, 2011, 08:37:06 AM
There's actually more sex in the book in the same timespan... although that was cut in the show, because good Lord, we can't have people over forty thirty twenty-five have sex on TV.

All the sex presented in the first episode is handled differently in the books (or not in the books). Hell, half of everything is handled differently.

I found the sex and nudity in the pilot to be not at all in keeping with the books in the way it was presented and jarring and juvenile in a way that even GRRM never reached. Only the Tyrion bit was half right, up until Jamie fucked it up...

I am really pissed off with how bad the show is; it's like they made the wrong choice every time they had to decide how to adapt the book. Including the fundamental ones. What have the gone with in the end? All I can feel is a 'shit TV' genre...

I wasn't expecting much, but it is still a huge letdown.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 21, 2011, 10:50:27 AM
The Nerd Rage is strong in this one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 21, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
Guess you can't please everyone.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on April 21, 2011, 11:13:59 AM
The Nerd Rage is strong in this one.

That isn't Nerd Rage.  Nerd Rage is freakouts about minor or background details that don't matter unless you live and breathe the subject matter:

"OMG, light cycles can't turn in curves!!! It's well established in lore!!"
"OMG, they cut Bombadill?  LOTR sucks!"
"<snort> Everyone knows that you can't have purple lightsabers!"

The complaining about whether Ned's sword is a long sword or a 2 hander is borderline.


lamoras has an especially valid point about HBO/Premium channel productions on the sex, violence, and titillation point.  Those channels shoe-horn in a bunch of awful and juvenile T&A shots or slasher film violence just because they can, often to the detriment of the story.  

Season one of Rome nearly drove me away in the first few episodes because they kept shoving in bad sex scenes with Atia (and corresponding B-plots) that hurt the pacing of the rest of the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 21, 2011, 11:17:01 AM
Somehow I would be floored if a fantasy novel being turned into a TV show got rave reviews here.

We nerds are a harsh and unforgiving lot down the last unimportant lorelastic detail.

Where's WUA!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on April 21, 2011, 12:55:46 PM
All the sex presented in the first episode is handled differently in the books (or not in the books). Hell, half of everything is handled differently.

I found the sex and nudity in the pilot to be not at all in keeping with the books in the way it was presented and jarring and juvenile in a way that even GRRM never reached. Only the Tyrion bit was half right, up until Jamie fucked it up...

This.

The sex scenes in the HBO show seem to tilt much more in the vein of porn than integral parts of a story plot line.

Yes, I realize for many, that's a plus and not a minus…


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: FatuousTwat on April 21, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
Glad to see A Game of Thrones is still moving forward:

I'm not. It's gonna be fucking terrible.

And I'm not just trying to shit on every ones parade, I want a TV series to do epic fantasy well, but it's just not gonna happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 21, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
Two clips from ep.2, "The Kingsroad".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPrW3Swrp4E (1m42s, Jon Snow and Jaime Lannister)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFcwyNDVy4k (1m09s, Daenerys with her handmaidens...An infamous "line" from the books is repeated, here :D)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lac on April 21, 2011, 02:31:44 PM
Nobody gives a flying shit if the occasional tit is in accordance to the books. People watch this show because it's adult fantasy. There is a market for that now. We should all be very grateful.
The fact they chose this rather dark story and took it to prime time is in itself extraordinary. We've become an audience that's being catered to through big TV productions, imagine that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 21, 2011, 02:39:42 PM
It just took media expanding so much that any segment of the population can be catered to in the hopes of gathering eyeballs from it and a wider audience because there's so damn many choices that you have to do SOMETHING to differentiate yourself.  Nichecasting vs broadcasting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 21, 2011, 03:36:28 PM
Nobody gives a flying shit if the occasional tit is in accordance to the books. People watch this show because it's adult fantasy. There is a market for that now. We should all be very grateful.
The fact they chose this rather dark story and took it to prime time is in itself extraordinary. We've become an audience that's being catered to through big TV productions, imagine that.

The only thing being catered to from the pilot is a bunch of idiots. The books are nerd porn, but nerd porn mostly consistent in characterization and with some subtlety. Nothing in the pilot was. Everything was overstated, underacted, and with added tits that were there purely for the camera to focus on them and not for the scene or story.

Seriously, Jamie giving Tyrion a bunch of whores? Completely unnecessary, both for the point of the story, the characterisation of Jamie and Tyrion (pretty well established that Tyrion likes his one at a time) and inconsistent with the brothers' relationship (spoiler alert - Jamie and Tyrion have a geyser of undercurrent tension in their relationship on the subject of whores).

The fact that whole scene felt like "here's some tits! Yay!" is pretty clear. You don't need to waste 4 mins on establishing that Tyrion likes whores at this point of the show when it is going to easily come out in time, and when every other part of the episode is a confusing mess that needs to be twice and long and better paced. How about introducing Rickon? Giving someone half a line about 'the wall' that makes sense?

You give Dany's story arc about 7 mins to unfold when it needs a whole episode of it's own, and then you spend 3 mins of that doing a slow motion shot of her walking nude in to a bath? Get fucked if you think that is consistent with the books. Sex happens, but it just happens, it is not awkwardly focused on in the same way.

Will they show Lysa fucking? Will they show anything from the books that doesn't correspond to 'attractive tits go on screen here'? Because if they don't there is nothing 'adult' or ASoIaF-ish about this? It's just nerd source material shoe-horned in to the HBO mold, and poorly at that.

As far as Nerd rage goes, that would be more in the: fuck Robert is poorly characterized and cast; dude is meant to be a hedonistic old stud gone to seed, not a pathetic lifetime fat dude who makes out with fat serving women in the middle of room.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 21, 2011, 05:06:03 PM
I get this vague feeling that you didnt like the first episode, Lamaros.

But maybe it's just me. :raspberry: :raspberry:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 21, 2011, 06:22:22 PM
Well, it does have really good opening credits.

That being said, Camelot facerapes it so bad in every way, on every level, that it travels the length of GoT's body and explodes out the back. The tits are even way better and considerably more appropriate. Especially if you like Ava Green.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 22, 2011, 04:56:36 AM
"In the Game of Food, you win, or you wash the dishes..." (recipes from Westeros and Essos)

http://innatthecrossroads.wordpress.com/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 24, 2011, 08:13:51 PM
Ok, the second episode set the hook in me pretty good.  I'm definitely going to watch this thing through.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 25, 2011, 02:01:35 AM
My wife quit when she realized they were going to kill the wolf.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 25, 2011, 07:07:22 AM
Thought the pacing for episode two was much better. I get some of the complaints about the gratuitous tits and sex in the pilot - its rather obvious it was a cheap ploy to attract a certain demographic. I thought they tuned that down a little in ep.2 (to basically just the Dany tent scene), which seemed a better balance.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 25, 2011, 07:12:09 AM
I think i prefer the shows version of the Dany/Drogo relationship than the books.  In the book it didn't really make much sense that Drogo would be gentle and tender on their first night then pound the shit out of her every night after that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 25, 2011, 07:22:29 AM
My wife quit when she realized they were going to kill the wolf.

Show her this (http://grrm.livejournal.com/194551.html)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 08:02:00 AM
Awwwwwww.  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 25, 2011, 08:30:56 AM
I read that link as "Show her tits" at first.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 25, 2011, 08:41:41 AM
My wife quit when she realized they were going to kill the wolf.

Mine had to leave the room as well during this part.  She also just quit watching Equilibrium altogether after the dog killing scene.

This was a better episode.  This show will get better the more they can slow things down.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 25, 2011, 11:56:11 AM
I liked the 2nd one, the reduced need to have everyone verbalise their relationship to each other in each scene really helped a lot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 25, 2011, 01:08:31 PM
I read that link as "Show her tits" at first.

Hey, it's worth a shot!

I liked this a lot better than the pilot too.  Minor quibble with  not being canon, but I understand why it was done, and am ok with it. Nice job editing/shooting the direwolf attack scenes- they were cool and exciting, which is tough to do when the dog is actually playing with someone or whatever they have them do. I am sure it felt a bit direwolf ex machina to the non-book readers, but I dug it. Was disappointed they didn't get into , but I did like the way they juxtaposed his awakening with Lady's death.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 25, 2011, 02:04:04 PM
About Cersei,.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
About Cersei,.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 25, 2011, 04:43:49 PM
Somehow I never put it into that perspective- I was just assuming


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 04:49:59 PM
Somehow I never put it into that perspective- I was just assuming

I don't think Martin would have gone that route because that makes her completely unbelievable and not human. I mean it's crossing the line of power hungry bitch and complete psychopath.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 25, 2011, 05:17:05 PM
Yeah, she seemed much more well-rounded as fuckhungry for her brother, coddler of her incest-born monster child, murderer of her husband and husband's best friend(s), killer of cute dogs, contemptuous of her own people, sacrilegious, hateful to her dwarf brother, cheerful commissioner of assassins, and so on. Making her poison her own child? What a monster!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 05:22:18 PM
Yeah, she seemed much more well-rounded as fuckhungry for her brother, coddler of her incest-born monster child, murderer of her husband and husband's best friend(s), killer of cute dogs, contemptuous of her own people, sacrilegious, hateful to her dwarf brother, cheerful commissioner of assassins, and so on. Making her poison her own child? What a monster!

When simply taking care of it in the womb serves the same purpose as carrying it to term and then murdering it from what? Spite?

Really? It's infinitely more psychotic and needlessly complicated from a character that's all about the manipulative method of cold vengeance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2011, 05:22:21 PM
I don't think Martin would have gone that route because that makes her completely unbelievable and not human. I mean it's crossing the line of power hungry bitch and complete psychopath.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 05:27:09 PM
I think you are letting the incest thing get in the way of what would be considered abnormal but not monstrous behavior in the period in question where the source material was derived. She may be awful, but she is not crazy. I hate the character, but I don't believe her actions do not stem from very human hate and emotions. That act would be completely out of character because there's a better solution.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 25, 2011, 05:32:00 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2011, 05:39:26 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 05:56:23 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 25, 2011, 06:14:36 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 07:35:30 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on April 25, 2011, 11:16:06 PM
Here's something you won't hear every day: I mostly agree with Paelos. There's being a stone cold bitch in book one, and then there's what is sounds like Cersei is in the TV show. She's not a total pyschopath in Book One, however giant a bitch you think she is.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on April 26, 2011, 04:52:08 AM
Re: Cersei and Jaimie getting it on - hey, if its good enough for the Targaryens for centuries, why can't it be good enough for the Lannisters?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 26, 2011, 07:05:45 AM
Here's something you won't hear every day: I mostly agree with Paelos. There's being a stone cold bitch in book one, and then there's what is sounds like Cersei is in the TV show. She's not a total pyschopath in Book One, however giant a bitch you think she is.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 26, 2011, 08:25:45 AM
So I watched the first two episodes, and I'm one of those who has not read the books yet (though I plan on it). There's somethings to like and somethings that I don't like. The whole Dothraki/fairy prince storyline feels very forced and trite. It doesn't help that Kal Drogo hasn't said more than two words and the actors playing the prince and his sister really aren't bringing off anything other than annoying. There were a shitton of characters to try to follow, with strange names or names that weren't given and relationships that weren't explained. A book can explain things so much easier, but the writers needed to work harder to explain things early on. It got better in the second episode, but it definitely still feels like we haven't left the prologue yet. I really really like Peter Dinklage's character - he has the best lines and he handles them so damn well. Sean Bean is always good. The rest of the cast I'm not too sure about. I haven't seen enough of them or know enough about the characters they are trying to play to make a judgement. The sex scenes did feel a bit gratuitous, but that's to be expected in HBO world. The little glimpse of the White Walkers was awesome. Killing dogs is much less awesome, especially such beautiful dogs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 26, 2011, 08:34:53 AM
The books don't explain relationships and characters either.  You're just tossed into the middle of things and are told to "swim".

And they aren't fairys.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 26, 2011, 08:43:05 AM
Sarcasm. Learn it. Live it. Love it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 26, 2011, 11:55:55 AM
I don't even recall the Targaryen plotlines getting a lot of pages in Book 1, but I could be wrong.  I think they should have left it out of season 1 and done a full episode on it (or more) in season 2 as a parallel story line.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 26, 2011, 12:05:01 PM
I think they should have left it out of season 1 and done a full episode on it (or more) in season 2 as a parallel story line.

I thought of that too but I decided people would have hated it.  It would be Feast of Crows all over again.  People want more of characters they like, introducing new ones when the story is still ongoing just pisses people off and they don't give the new characters a chance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 26, 2011, 12:36:47 PM
Targarayen plotline is mostly boring in book 1.  There are a few interesting moments surrounded by a lot of boredom.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yoru on April 26, 2011, 04:22:15 PM
I really really like Peter Dinklage's character - he has the best lines and he handles them so damn well. Sean Bean is always good. The rest of the cast I'm not too sure about. I haven't seen enough of them or know enough about the characters they are trying to play to make a judgement.

Tyrion (Peter D.) is pretty much one of the best characters in the books, in terms of characterization, depth and humor.

(Feast for Crows spoiler)

Sean Bean does a good Eddard. The actor playing Jon Snow is doing pretty well, as is the actress playing Arya. The guy doing Robb Stark could definitely look a little less lost and hollow-eyed all the time.

In general, I think the second episode is falling into a better cadence than the first, with a lot less whip-cutting between completely disparate sets of people and events - it's solidifying down to the folks on the road, the folks at the Wall and the Targaryen/Dothraki storyline. It still cuts between the stories too fast for my taste - the multi-POV effect works well in the books, but it's disconcerting when carried out every 3 minutes on screen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on April 26, 2011, 04:32:48 PM
Maybe next year HBO can do a series on The Black Company, just for Ironwood.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 26, 2011, 04:45:38 PM
Maybe next year HBO can do a series on The Black Company, just for Ironwood.

Can't even imagine trying to pitch it. Within 20 pages you're talking about blood-drinking, liver-eating, man-leopards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 26, 2011, 04:49:00 PM
Which means it is definitely SyFy material, not HBO.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fuser on April 26, 2011, 04:56:14 PM
Well, it does have really good opening credits.

The credits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7L2PVdrb_8) has a real nice animation. Plus there's a whole lot of stuff (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/secrets-game-thrones-opening-credits-179656) going on that's easily missed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 26, 2011, 05:16:34 PM
Maybe next year HBO can do a series on The Black Company, just for Ironwood.

Can't even imagine trying to pitch it. Within 20 pages you're talking about blood-drinking, liver-eating, man-leopards.

The Thundercats reboot is coming soon. Just relax.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 26, 2011, 05:34:14 PM
(Feast for Crows spoiler)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 26, 2011, 05:35:02 PM
Which would have been fine if the books were a year apart as the foreword (or was it an afterword) to Feast promised...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on April 26, 2011, 09:17:23 PM
Second episode was much much better.

Dany plotline is still tacky and horrible, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yoru on April 27, 2011, 03:00:34 AM

Yes, but I didn't know that going in and was looking forward to it, so I was ticked. Looking forward to ADWD though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 27, 2011, 04:29:33 AM
Ahhh. Yes that would suck.  Only 2 1/2 more months.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 27, 2011, 06:46:51 AM
Reason number 500 why I love tyrion

(http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/millies-tv-house/169751d1303789131-song-ice-fire-hbo-series-here-spoilerz-1303769954046.gif)

I really really like Peter Dinklage's character - he has the best lines and he handles them so damn well. Sean Bean is always good. The rest of the cast I'm not too sure about. I haven't seen enough of them or know enough about the characters they are trying to play to make a judgement.

Tyrion (Peter D.) is pretty much one of the best characters in the books, in terms of characterization, depth and humor.

(Feast for Crows spoiler)

Sean Bean does a good Eddard. The actor playing Jon Snow is doing pretty well, as is the actress playing Arya. The guy doing Robb Stark could definitely look a little less lost and hollow-eyed all the time.

In general, I think the second episode is falling into a better cadence than the first, with a lot less whip-cutting between completely disparate sets of people and events - it's solidifying down to the folks on the road, the folks at the Wall and the Targaryen/Dothraki storyline. It still cuts between the stories too fast for my taste - the multi-POV effect works well in the books, but it's disconcerting when carried out every 3 minutes on screen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yoru on April 27, 2011, 09:49:40 AM
You'd think Joff would learn to just stand up a little taller when mouthing off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 27, 2011, 09:55:47 AM
Probably he realizes that tyrion would just headbut him in the nuts and then start slapping him relentlessly until he does what he is told.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xuri on April 27, 2011, 01:15:25 PM
That Tyrion-gif makes me think of Terrence Hill's awesome saloon-duel in Trinity Is Still My Name.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 27, 2011, 03:00:18 PM
Speaking of GIFs...


(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk8zviVhu31qgck2go1_r1_500.gif)
 

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 29, 2011, 02:18:05 PM
Thought this was pretty good.

Game of thrones soundtrack on piano (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQKG6jhZJk)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 29, 2011, 04:04:53 PM
Hehe, the fans crazyness begins: Tyrion slaps Joffrey for 10 minutes in this video (Led Zeppelin's "Achilles Last Stand")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYNeT2nzEgA


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 29, 2011, 04:12:00 PM
That video lead me to one where people were in adoration of Sansa.  I'm flabbergasted.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on April 29, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
Second episode was much much better.

Dany plotline is still tacky and horrible, though.

I can't be the only one who skipped over every Dany chapter in every book so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 30, 2011, 03:35:41 AM
Second episode was much much better.

Dany plotline is still tacky and horrible, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lac on April 30, 2011, 05:10:40 AM
Well I haven't read the books but to us pleps there isn't much plotline going on. She got married out to the brute with the army and after her initial shock took to employing her womany ways to mold him.
I can't really see why you'd let such a simple storyline get all your nerdicles get knotted up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sparky on April 30, 2011, 05:39:33 AM
teach me how to deal with being raped by my brutish nonwhite husband by grinding my lesbian pussy


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 30, 2011, 06:32:27 AM
(NO SPOILERS 'til the tag)

Regarding Dany's plotline, when it comes to the first book it's really a matter of your "first impression" about the different environment/atmosphere and people surrounding the events happening around and to her. There is no "scheming", or complex Houses branches and so forth. So I can get the "uh....so WHAT?" approach, especially from the TV series newcomers.

If you want, Dany's storyline is your more typical "fantasy" novel, but again, it's more a matter of personal taste: I loved her character from the start, how she changes from a frightened 13 years old girl (in the books) to a strong willed Khaleesi. George Martin wrote that change very well, IMO; and anyway, yes, her story is quite dull 'til two important events happen, which I won't spoil in here.

Then, in the following seasons, her storyline becomes quite fascinating, mainly because you get to read (and hopefully, we'll get to see) about very exotic and bizzarre places and inhabitants; and also, about very unexpected allies and traitors.

And, of course



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 01, 2011, 02:33:09 PM
I just watched the start of episode 2 again, because I had liked the episode. The acting at the start is so incredibly bad. The horse people going past in the background are comical. The way the girls carry Dany from her horse is hilariously overacted.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on May 02, 2011, 03:54:54 AM
Finally got around to watching this (through episode three) and it's not badly done overall.  Peter Dinklage does a fantastic job as Tyrion (who has great dialogue which certainly helps).  The quality does seem to suffer a bit on the other side of the narrow sea. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetor on May 02, 2011, 10:25:55 AM
I didn't know Syrio Forel was Russian. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 02, 2011, 01:52:18 PM
I thought they pretty much nailed Syrio. Maybe a few years older would have been ideal, but he was very good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yoru on May 02, 2011, 04:17:39 PM
I thought they pretty much nailed Syrio. Maybe a few years older would have been ideal, but he was very good.

Agreed. The guy playing Syrio is excellent. Littlefinger, on the other hand, is stiffer than a cock in a brothel.

I think the construction of #3 is the best so far - no more rapid cutting between plot lines, they seem to mostly stick to one and shift between the relevant locations/plots at a more reasonable pace. I'm a lot happier with the series now than I was after episode #1.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2011, 04:33:16 PM
The only disappointing part of the show continues to be the almost complete neglect of the dire wolves.  Jon specially should hardly ever be apart from his.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 02, 2011, 05:29:41 PM
Well, I admit I almost cried out of happiness during the last scene with Arya and Syrio: the background music, the subtle expressions of both actors (and by Sean Bean at the end)...The book and its characters really came alive, but even more than that, it was a fantastic moment of TV. Loved it.  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 02, 2011, 07:54:03 PM
All the bits the "writers" have made up are fucking awful. Crass and unsubtle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zaljerem on May 02, 2011, 09:21:22 PM
All the bits the "writers" have made up are fucking awful. Crass and unsubtle.

Cry some more. I take the show for what it is ... an adaptation.

For real enjoyment, I'm reading the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 02, 2011, 09:43:35 PM
So because it is an adaptation it is ok that it's crap?  :oh_i_see:

I agree the Syrio bit was spot on Lucas.

Jon and his scenes are good too.

Not a co-incidence that they are the least "adapted".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on May 02, 2011, 11:33:06 PM
I'm not sure what you were expecting.  How long are the audiobooks, 30 hours or something?  If you include every line of dialogue, that right there is 3 seasons of show for just the first book, and that is, in this universe, not going to happen.  So there are going to need to be cuts made, things added to clarify points that were only in character's internal dialogue and, you know... adaptations. 

I've been enjoying it a great deal so far.  You are free to not enjoy it, of course, but why keep watching it then?  Those that dislike it, are, from the boards I've been following, in a very very small minority (the non-spoiler threads on somethingawful.com and televisionwithoutpity.com are the main ones I've been reading). 

There are a lot of people out there in internet-land who never read the books (televisionwithoutpity.com in particular has a ton of 'em), and I find it fun to follow along with the nubs and see what they like the most.  Tyrion is a big hit, of course, but there are a surprising number of fans of Jaime, which is pretty awesome/hilarious.  And by and large they seem to be following along fine with who is related to who and who is in charge of what, and are united in their hatred of Joffrey - so far so good, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the casting is great - Jaime and Arya in particular, and Jorah had a bunch to say in episode 3 which impressed me out of nowhere.  I always thought he was pretty bland in the book, but his little fireside chat with random Dothraki guy was cool.  Tyrion is good too, but that is really, like, who is the one actor who will work for this, is he available? - great!

After three episodes, my only remaining concerns are with the show's budget.  King's Landing is, uh, pretty sparsely populated, the Dothraki Horde is like 40 people, and the presumably eventually CGI grown-up direwolves and coming battles worry me a bit.   If you never saw HBO's Rome, the big battles on Rome were, um, creative (let's talk about the coming battle, blurry camera pan over six guys fighting, battle music for 15 seconds, 'welp we won' post battle discussion).  However, despite that, I really liked Rome.  So I remain hopeful.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 03, 2011, 12:18:43 AM
I'm not arguing the necessity of adaptation but the quality.

It is possible to be critical of something without having to abandon it completely.

I agree with your points regarding budget. There is no real sense of place outside the wall, which is of vital importance in conveying the atmosphere, especially politically, that the characters find themselves. It very often feels like you are looking at sets, which puts a lot more pressure on the dialogue to carry the scenes...

Which then leads to my criticism on the 'adapted' dialogue not having as much quality as that taken from the book and being less able to hold it all together.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on May 03, 2011, 12:36:51 AM
You're just losing me on the dislike of the quality of the new stuff, then.   I reread the books not too long ago - a couple of months, I believe - so some of the new scenes stick out as obviously new to me, but some of the scenes I am honestly not sure of - 50% of which I attribute to a shitty memory and 50% to them doing a decent job.   :grin:

Cersei & Joffrey from this week, though, I wasn't really sold on the necessity of that.  Humanizing Joffrey - pshaw!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2011, 04:21:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/DyYxs.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 03, 2011, 04:33:31 AM
Well, I admit I almost cried out of happiness during the last scene with Arya and Syrio: the background music, the subtle expressions of both actors (and by Sean Bean at the end)...The book and its characters really came alive, but even more than that, it was a fantastic moment of TV. Loved it.  :heart:

For me it was kinda a meh episode, apart from Arya scenes at the end, lots of backstory but nothing much happening.  I can't wait for episode 6.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2011, 04:34:01 AM
3rd part was another mixed bag of 'This is actually ok' to 'for fucks sake, how do you follow this shit, they're all taking about crap we have literally no fucking clue about yet, stop it it's unbelievably fucking exclusive you utter cunts'.

So, I'm not sold yet.

Dwarf remains the highlight.  Indeed, a show starring only the dwarf and the wee tomboy would suit me just fine.  He could call people bastards and slap them and she could grow a few more years.  It'd be awesome.

If anyone wants me, I'll be over here on the fence.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2011, 05:56:54 AM
Dwarf remains the highlight.  Indeed, a show starring only the dwarf and the wee tomboy would suit me just fine.  He could call people bastards and slap them and she could grow a few more years.  It'd be awesome.

If anyone wants me, I'll be over here on the fence.

People feel that way about the books too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on May 03, 2011, 07:03:45 AM
The only disappointing part of the show continues to be the almost complete neglect of the dire wolves.  Jon specially should hardly ever be apart from his.

This. Very much this.

I thought the 3rd episode was by far the best, but it still has it's rather glaring faults.

Syrio was great, Littlefinger - not so much. His little aside to the audience when Ned went into the brothel to see Cat was PAINFULLY bad. The stuff on the wall is shaping up a bit better than I expected. I'm looking forward to that getting established and moving forward. The Dothraki stuff wasn't quite as cringe worthy, but i think the scene with Jorah helped that immensenly. I have a feeling that he'll save those parts of the story for me.

The passage of time is portrayed really poorly I think, which would confuse a lot of people who haven't read the books. The scale of the land is poorly portrayed and Kings Landing DID feel very small. They'd done an alright job with trying to show the vastness of the wall, but as someone else said - it still feels very much like sets and not locations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 03, 2011, 08:14:18 AM
I think Littlefinger is fantastic.  Loved all the scenes with him in it.  Kinda matches perfectly with the books imo.  Scheming little bastard.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 03, 2011, 08:35:07 AM
I barely remember anything in the books, it's been so long since I've read them, but I don't see how the show is hard to follow. 

I'm a bit disappointed Ghost isn't in more scenes, I only saw him once in a panned out scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2011, 08:59:31 AM
Slight increase in the ratings:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/05/03/game-of-thrones-ratings-rise/

Steady ratings in the UK, with 510k viewers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Typhon on May 03, 2011, 09:26:09 AM
Dwarf remains the highlight.  Indeed, a show starring only the dwarf and the wee tomboy would suit me just fine.  He could call people bastards and slap them and she could grow a few more years.  It'd be awesome.

If anyone wants me, I'll be over here on the fence.

People feel that way about the books too.

This is me.  The Others + The Game?  Why have both?  The Others are pretty awesome on their own, unfortunately they serve to show just how pointless the The Game is.  I like individual parts of the books, I'm put off by the totality.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 03, 2011, 09:48:23 AM
As far as the "made up" scenes go, i thought most of them were well done and Arya "practicing" stabbing Joffrey was a great addition.  Cersei telling Joffrey when he was king the truth would be what he said it was perfectly illustrates her style of governing in future books and  Robert drinking and being a complete asshole was also fitting and true to his character.  I can't remember any other ones of the top of my head,  oh yeah Jorah talking to the random dothraki was quite good, i assume that guy is gonna end up being one of Danys bloodriders.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: AcidCat on May 03, 2011, 10:33:58 AM
I think Littlefinger is fantastic.  Loved all the scenes with him in it.  Kinda matches perfectly with the books imo.  Scheming little bastard.

Yeah I like the casting choice too.  Really overall I've been impressed with most of the casting, especially of course Tyrion and Arya.

Third episode was kinda slow, but things should pick up. Though I still  just groan every time we switch to the Dany storyline. I hope it's kept to a minimum, that whole aspect just comes off as cheesy, except for Jorah, who really carries every scene he's in.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 03, 2011, 03:38:20 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on May 03, 2011, 03:53:25 PM

EDIT: Removed my spoiler lest I inadvertently overspoil. Carry on!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on May 03, 2011, 03:56:19 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2011, 04:22:12 PM
'til it gets removed for copyright reason...Syrio Forel and Arya training scene from episode 3  :heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Invy0tvOc

When her smile beams and she says "...a needle!" I can't help but smile as well, no matter how many times I already watched this :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 03, 2011, 05:51:24 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2011, 07:14:29 AM
In other news:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/05/season-two-auditions-begin-today-in-london/

Quote
he auditions for season two of Game of Thrones are set to begin today in London. In fact, they are likely on-going right now. These auditions will only be the first round of many, many rounds of auditions, so don’t expect casting announcements any time soon.

If it is any thing like last year, the first round of auditions will only be in front of a casting associate or two. They will be recorded and sent to Nina Gold, David Benioff, D. B. Weiss and George R. R. Martin. From there, they will make a list of callbacks and those folks will come in and audition in front of Nina and usually either David or Dan. So we’re only at the start of a long process.

Also, for those who have hopes of making it onto the show, this post has some good information on where to send your headshot and CV. It also includes a rundown of the types of extras they need. I haven’t seen a call go out from Extras NI yet, the company that supplies the extras, so this info might just be a rehash of last season’s extras casting call. But I’m sure they will need more of the same.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 04, 2011, 07:34:37 AM
'til it gets removed for copyright reason...Syrio Forel and Arya training scene from episode 3  :heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Invy0tvOc

When her smile beams and she says "...a needle!" I can't help but smile as well, no matter how many times I already watched this :)

I love Syrio's satisfied hah! when Arya catches the sword the second time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2011, 07:36:26 AM
The whole exchange is adorable. I do like the actors they chose for the roles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 04, 2011, 08:09:08 AM
I think Littlefinger is fantastic.  Loved all the scenes with him in it.  Kinda matches perfectly with the books imo.  Scheming little bastard.

Yeah I like the casting choice too.  Really overall I've been impressed with most of the casting, especially of course Tyrion and Arya.

Third episode was kinda slow, but things should pick up. Though I still  just groan every time we switch to the Dany storyline. I hope it's kept to a minimum, that whole aspect just comes off as cheesy, except for Jorah, who really carries every scene he's in.

I started rereading the book before the series came out.  I'm in book 2 now and the show's version of Arya is so much better than what I had in mind.  The rest of the characters are pretty much spot on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 04, 2011, 11:31:27 AM
The Arya and Tyrion scenes got my wife back into it. She really does not like the Dothraki plot even now that it's less rapey, and the Stark-Lannister rivalry stuff is still baffling to her. Littlefinger also confused her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on May 04, 2011, 01:32:53 PM
I love Syrio's satisfied hah! when Arya catches the sword the second time.

Just so.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 04, 2011, 09:21:27 PM
The Arya and Tyrion scenes got my wife back into it. She really does not like the Dothraki plot even now that it's less rapey, and the Stark-Lannister rivalry stuff is still baffling to her. Littlefinger also confused her.

The Dany stuff really should have been introduced before the marraige part, with some of the negotiation between Viserys (spelling?) and the Magister providing some context for who they were and where they were and why. Being dropped in without that makes it more confusing. Plus it is just bad...

The same goes for the Stark and Lannister stuff. I don't know why the pilot was so scattered. Surely you're better taking it slow at the begining and establishing some ground for the characters, then cutting and speeding it up later rather than the reverse? The houses stories are histories and it is going to take a while to slowly build them up to the point where those who haven't followed the books can follow things.

It's no co-incidence that those with the smaller political back-stories are coming across better at this point, because they are easy to establish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 05, 2011, 04:31:01 AM
They're also more familiar as archetypes. Tyrion has a lot of complexity to come, but for the moment he's still instantly familiar as the outsider, the cunning observer, etc. Arya is a completely familiar kind of character, very well executed. Hell, Joffrey is a familiar character. But Eddard, Catelyn, Daenerys, Jaime, Tywin, and a bunch more, don't have any immediate archetypical resonance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 05, 2011, 06:57:27 AM
Good point. Jon is very much the same. Though I would argue Dany is too.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on May 05, 2011, 07:10:34 AM
I guess so too, because never having read the book, he screams "Paladin archetype who will lose everything because of his honor and steadfast loyalty" to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 05, 2011, 07:40:58 AM
That's how he is in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 05, 2011, 08:01:00 AM
That's how he is in the books.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 05, 2011, 08:43:30 AM
I guess so too, because never having read the book, he screams "Paladin archetype who will lose everything because of his honor and steadfast loyalty" to me.
That's how I remember him from the books, but it's been about 10 years since I've read them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 05, 2011, 11:25:38 AM
I think that's about right about Ned even in the books, though.


I don't think Dany feels particularly archetypical to me--or if she is, she's the kind of archetypical character who is usually seen from a male point of view and operates as a plot device in a male character arc  (e.g., Pretty Woman) and less like a character with an independent archetypical existence.

But: oh yeah, Jon definitely is a familiar character, and actually in the books, his story stays pretty recognizably archetypical throughout. So far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 05, 2011, 04:54:52 PM
Dany is pretty much Jon, with tits. I dunno if tits break the archetype.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Venkman on May 05, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
I think that's about right about Ned even in the books, though.


I'm stuck waiting for the end of season one before the episodes get onto iTunes/Netflix, but this is the part I'm most curious about too. This world is still unconvential enough to be jarring to me. I'm only 3/4 through the third book on my first read of the series, but so many things I thought were persistent untouchables have been, well, touched. I'm at point where I hate a chapter that shows optimism for a character or event because of what's likely to come in the next chapter dedicated to them/it.

The events surrounding Ned seemed pinnacle to book one, as similar things happening in the subsequent books. I'm curious how people who haven't read the books to be pre-jarred will handle the shows :)

(trying to be vague...)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 06, 2011, 11:45:11 AM

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on May 07, 2011, 05:14:26 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on May 08, 2011, 06:00:38 PM
Do we really need all these spoilers?  The % of posters in this thread who have read the books has to be extremely high.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2011, 07:24:23 PM
I like the spoiler tags; I've only read the first three books and that was a long time ago so the show feels mostly fresh and new.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 08, 2011, 09:49:55 PM
Never read the books so appreciate being able to talk/read about the show without the spoilers being spoiled.

I'm really liking this. I may have to read the books even though I don't read fantasy. Almost doesn't seem all that fantasy-ish. Are the books in the same vein?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on May 08, 2011, 10:12:31 PM
Absolutely in the same vein.  It's one of the reasons I've always enjoyed the books so much.

More fantasy elements are eventually integrated into the story, but it still never becomes high fantasy, thankfully.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 09, 2011, 02:48:09 AM
They really nailed the inn scene at end, the ending of 3 & 4 were the best bits but nice to see episode 4 also had a strong opening with Bran's dream.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on May 09, 2011, 03:35:03 AM
Absolutely in the same vein.  It's one of the reasons I've always enjoyed the books so much.

More fantasy elements are eventually integrated into the story, but it still never becomes high fantasy, thankfully.

ASoIaF is kind of the opposite of a Tolkien-esque fantasy world.  Instead of being a world where the age of elves and magic fading, it's a world where magic or non-human creatures (dragons, the white walkers, etc) have been gone for quite a while (to the point of being thought of as myth by some -- see Tyrion's dismissal of creatures beyond The Wall as stories told by nursemaids to children).  There is some hinting that some of these things may return (or already have), but heart of the story is about the people and the politics and the history that brought them there.

There are the old gods and the new gods (only seen in passing reference in the tv series so far), but it does not seem like a world where the gods take a hand in the lives of men (this is not the Malazan Books of the Fallen, after all).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 09, 2011, 06:25:45 AM
Even though neither scene was in the books the introduction of Theon and Jory were both very well done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 09, 2011, 01:48:01 PM
Guy who plays Jaime is so regal, heroic and damn good looking it's confusing me.

I love the armor too.

 :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 09, 2011, 03:32:41 PM
It gets more confusing with him.  They're playing him a lot more sympathetic than I thought they would this early on.  Of course, he's not a POV early on, so you're getting a lot more than you normally would.

These last two episodes have been fantastic.  They did a much better job with Sam than I thought they would.  Could have expanded a bit on his background, but they handled it well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 09, 2011, 03:39:13 PM
They really nailed the inn scene at end, the ending of 3 & 4 were the best bits but nice to see episode 4 also had a strong opening with Bran's dream.

My only quibble was the size of the inn/amount of extras. In a room of 15-20 people no way Catelyn could go unnoticed. Should have been about 3x that many people there in my mind's eye.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yoru on May 09, 2011, 04:16:55 PM
These last two episodes have been fantastic.  They did a much better job with Sam than I thought they would.  Could have expanded a bit on his background, but they handled it well.

Agreed. This series is really hitting its stride. I thought some of the scenes sagged a bit, particularly the Dothraki ones, and I'm still not thrilled with Littlefinger's delivery. The characterization seems right, but the actor... Perhaps he's trying to suppress any emotion in his voice, but it comes across wooden to me.

I did like how Sam's entrance was handled, and was wondering if they'd do the proper thing with the crow opening. I'm pretty glad they did. I got a smile out of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 09, 2011, 05:03:11 PM
It gets more confusing with him.  They're playing him a lot more sympathetic than I thought they would this early on.  Of course, he's not a POV early on, so you're getting a lot more than you normally would.

These last two episodes have been fantastic.  They did a much better job with Sam than I thought they would.  Could have expanded a bit on his background, but they handled it well.

It's hard to come back from tossing a kid out the window though, i doubt many people are feeling warm and fuzzy about him at this point.  I was surprised they sort of touched on the idea that maybe killing the mad king was not such a horrible act after all already.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 09, 2011, 06:36:35 PM
I think the guy playing Jamie is doing brilliantly. The combination of charisma and arrogance is balanced perfectly. The only point I would question is that he seems a bit too 'switched on'. In the books he is much more of a 'act first, think later' guy, but he's getting a few lines which are making him look calculating rather than just witty and charming.

I'm still not getting the strong sense of foreboding (outside the very well executed Arya dancing scene) that was in the novel at this point, but as said earlier, I think this is much a factor of the poor 'characterisation' of King's Landing as much as anything. No 'in to the Lion's den' sense when Ned rode in there, so hard to channel it now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 10, 2011, 01:53:13 AM
I have to say that I'm actually warming to the show, which has surprised me.  There are now 3 or 4 characters that I actually LIKE and some of the ones that I hate are starting to appeal as they develop.

So it might actually pass the 'Ironwood doesn't hate this' watermark soon.

Stranger things have happened.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 10, 2011, 07:53:23 AM
They really nailed the inn scene at end, the ending of 3 & 4 were the best bits but nice to see episode 4 also had a strong opening with Bran's dream.

My only quibble was the size of the inn/amount of extras. In a room of 15-20 people no way Catelyn could go unnoticed. Should have been about 3x that many people there in my mind's eye.

Yeah, I sort of expect every scene with more than half a dozen people to be smaller just because of the cost.  The whole joust being an example.  As for her being recognised, it had been 17 years (?) since she was last in the area and I thought the book covered that pretty well just before they entered the inn.
Quote
Catelyn made no move. Lord Jason Mallister himself rode with them, surrounded by his knights, his son Patrek by his side and their squires close behind. They were riding for King’s Landing and the Hand’s tourney, she knew. For the past week, the travelers had been thick as flies upon the kingsroad; knights and freeriders, singers with their harps and drums, heavy wagons laden with hops or corn or casks of honey, traders and craftsmen and whores, and all of them moving south.

She studied Lord Jason boldly. The last time she had seen him he had been jesting with her uncle at her wedding feast; the Mallisters stood bannermen to the Tullys, and his gifts had been lavish. His brown hair was salted with white now, his face chiseled gaunt by time, yet the years had not touched his pride. He rode like a man who feared nothing. Catelyn envied him that; she had come to fear so much. As the riders passed, Lord Jason nodded a curt greeting, but it was only a high lord’s courtesy to strangers chance met on the road. There was no recognition in those fierce eyes, and his son did not even waste a look.

“He did not know you,” Ser Rodrik said after, wondering. “He saw a pair of mud-spattered travelers by the side of the road, wet and tired. It would never occur to him to suspect that one of them was the daughter of his liege lord. I think we shall be safe enough at the inn, Ser Rodrik.”


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 10, 2011, 09:28:32 AM
I meant by Tyrion- GRRM made a point of her hiding way in the back hoping to go unnoticed (until the singer spoke up). In the scene from the show, she was 20 feet from Tyrion and there would have been no chance he would miss her, so the singer's part was really superfluous.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 10, 2011, 10:14:44 AM
Oh right, ok.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 10, 2011, 11:50:04 AM
I hated the episode really, because it makes me anxious.  It's so good I don't want it to end and I'm just waiting for the goodness to stop.

Each episode is better than the one before it.  Love Tyrion as every else does.

I just can't wait for Syrio's fight seen. 

I'm such a gushing fanboy it's really disgusting.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 10, 2011, 11:55:47 AM
I'm just waiting for Ironwood's reaction to episodes 6 & 8.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 10, 2011, 12:35:15 PM
When people say stuff like this on f13, it just disturbs me...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 10, 2011, 12:40:12 PM
Looks like Ironwood and Draegan are not the only ones "warming up" (hmm...), because 'Thrones' ratings have slightly risen again this week: 2.5 million viewers.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/05/10/game-of-thrones-ratings-rise-again/

Yeah, if the show is still building up its audience no matter the somewhat slow paced episodes (and lots of names and introduction), I just can't wait to see the reaction when s**t will start hitting the fan for real (and it will happen quite soon).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 10, 2011, 12:54:09 PM
Golden Crown episode will make me go  :drill: :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 10, 2011, 01:29:16 PM
So is there anyplace I can watch this online yet, apart from the obvious?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2011, 04:59:41 PM
Just the obvious.  They're going to hold this one close.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 10, 2011, 05:18:26 PM
Wife-o-meter: way up after the latest episode. Much much more engaged now. Thought Caetlyn was being a total idiot in arresting Tyrion.  :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 11, 2011, 02:41:48 AM
Ok, I saw this pic on the Something Awful boards and couldn't resist.

The Wall gets attacked by the "White Walkers" :P

(http://i.imgur.com/AfM1fl.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 11, 2011, 07:37:20 AM
Golden Crown episode will make me go  :drill: :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 11, 2011, 09:18:09 AM
Golden Crown episode will make me go  :drill: :drill:


Wife-o-meter: way up after the latest episode. Much much more engaged now. Thought Caetlyn was being a total idiot in arresting Tyrion.  :drillf:

It's a running theme with mama and papa Stark.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 12, 2011, 04:19:54 AM
Halfway through episode four.

Hitting its fucking stride. If it keeps this up it will be amazing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 12, 2011, 07:10:46 AM
Dinklage's acting is really phenomenal with this character.  Did you see his facial expressions at the end of the last episode in the inn?

It's going to suck really a lot when we have to wait for season 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on May 12, 2011, 08:35:04 AM
Dinklage is stealing the show, by far.  I loved the final inn scene.

Still, if I wasn't a fan of the books, I don't know if I would have the patience for this show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on May 12, 2011, 09:10:24 AM
To be fair, Tyrion steals the show in the books too.  Dinklage is doing a great job, but he has a fun character to work with, and he only gets more interesting as the series continues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 12, 2011, 01:54:46 PM
Major spoiler from later in the series so you might want to avoid it if you haven't read all the books.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 12, 2011, 02:09:49 PM
Major spoiler from later in the series so you might want to avoid it if you haven't read all the books.


SUPER SPOILEY. DO NOT CLICKETH.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 12, 2011, 02:19:46 PM
lol.

You know what's funny?

Clicking a super spoiler and not having a fucking clue what the fuck you're talking about because I haven't figured out all the names yet.

Stupid, stupid shit.  This is why Dickens stuck to 'Mr Happyflump' and 'Ms Lovelace' and 'Count CompleteBastard'.  So much easier to follow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 12, 2011, 02:47:08 PM
Just wait until the Freys show up. Every 2nd or third one is Walder or Walda.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 12, 2011, 02:49:06 PM
Black Walder is especially fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 12, 2011, 02:50:16 PM
(http://s1.postimage.org/93mbbo78/Thrones_Map_A.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/93mbbo78/)

(http://s1.postimage.org/947tb6mc/Families.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/947tb6mc/)

Seems simple enough to me  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 12, 2011, 02:50:34 PM
Yes, Freys are a funny and homely bunch.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lemming on May 12, 2011, 03:58:22 PM
I've been enjoying the show so far, but I can't really see how people who haven't read the books will have an easy time keeping up with this awesome story.  My wife has only really been able to keep up with the show because I am able to answer any little questions she may have about the characters or the world they live in.

So far I only have a few minor complaints about the show changing what characters do in some of the scenes.  For instance, Dany was the one who ordered her brother to walk behind the khalasar as punishment, not Jhogo.  I don't really understand why they would change things like that.  Having Dany give the command showed that she was becoming more confident in herself, becoming more of a leader.  She had been taking shit from her brother all her life, and she was finally coming into her own.

Another one that comes to mind is when Will, the young scout of the night's watch, was executed instead of Gared.  Gared was a hardened veteran on the wall.  He had been there for decades, and yet something on the other side of that wall made him run for his life, despite the fact he knew he would be executed if he was found deserting.

I completely understand omitting stuff from the book, and I know these are just minor changes, but it took these changes for me to realize their significance to me once they were changed.  Or maybe I'm just being the comic book guy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on May 12, 2011, 04:34:34 PM
Major spoiler from later in the series so you might want to avoid it if you haven't read all the books.


Nope.  That's been my read on it since the first book as well.  I don't see any alternatives that make as much sense.

As for those minor changes, Lemming: everyone's mileage varies.  Those things don't bother me at all.  In fact, I think that the writers have done an excellent job adding scenes that didn't exist in the books in order to better introduce characters.  The scene that introduced Theon, for instance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 12, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
I'm up to episode 3, watching it with my girlfriend. Neither of us have read the books. We found ep 3 quite long-winded, lots of talking and no action except the horse whip incident. She fell asleep towards the end. We'll give ep 4 a go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 12, 2011, 08:24:00 PM
I'm up to episode 3, watching it with my girlfriend. Neither of us have read the books. We found ep 3 quite long-winded, lots of talking and no action except the horse whip incident. She fell asleep towards the end. We'll give ep 4 a go.

It does take a while for the 'action' to happen in the first book. Once it doesn't it never stops, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mazakiel on May 12, 2011, 09:13:04 PM
Major spoiler from later in the series so you might want to avoid it if you haven't read all the books.



That's always been my theory as well.  I'm hoping there'll be some movement to confirming it in the next book. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 13, 2011, 06:53:03 AM
So far I only have a few minor complaints about the show changing what characters do in some of the scenes.  For instance, Dany was the one who ordered her brother to walk behind the khalasar as punishment, not Jhogo.  I don't really understand why they would change things like that.  Having Dany give the command showed that she was becoming more confident in herself, becoming more of a leader.  She had been taking shit from her brother all her life, and she was finally coming into her own.

I think they just want to make the character development more obvious to the audience. They changed that ep.3 moment to a more intermediate step (letting someone else kick his ass in her presence), setting up the ep.4 development where she really kicks his ass herself and talks about how he is a loser.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 14, 2011, 08:09:18 PM
The Jon Snow theory always struck me as screamingly obvious even in Book 1.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 16, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
I spoke too soon. Captain obvious (with terrible acting) episode.

Why are the writers so intent on butchering this? They have abandoned nearly all the characterisation in order to expedite the plot, but the whole thing is no fun when you can't believe the characters. They open their mouths, but only generic "here let me explain it for you dear viewer" words come out.

The kid playing Bran was the only bright spot in episode five for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 16, 2011, 02:31:29 AM
The Plot is dense, but it's moving so quickly there's no way round it.  I thought it was pretty good, with Gregor's poor horse, Tyrion's shield use "I'm willing if she is", the Eyrie, the sky cell and poor Jory all in one episode.

(http://i.imgur.com/thhYi.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 16, 2011, 04:46:51 AM
Lots of invented scenes in this one, but I thought they did a great job adapting here, except for the Theon scene, which just seems pointless and "look, it's HBO, there's cock and tit". But I feel for the writers: Theon has nothing to do that matters this early in the story and yet it's terribly important that viewers see him, understand who he is, and remember him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 16, 2011, 05:33:29 AM
One of the most hysterical scenes:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2011, 05:54:28 AM
I spoke too soon. Captain obvious (with terrible acting) episode.


I thought it was the best episode yet.  The duel between Varys and Littlefinger wasn't in the book but it was as awesome as Ned vs Jamie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 16, 2011, 06:13:25 AM
The Plot is dense, but it's moving so quickly there's no way round it.  I thought it was pretty good, with Gregor's poor horse, Tyrion's shield use "I'm willing if she is", the Eyrie, the sky cell and poor Jory all in one episode.

And yet they have time to shit around with Robert and Cersei (who I might add is being acted/portrayed very oddly compared to the books) at the end there? And a far too long scene with Theon? I know it's a very hard thing to do, but I am struggling to understand some of the choices. I mean, the scene with Renly getting shaved? Seriously? You think the comments from Littlefinger at the joust wasn't obvious enough? (Also it fucks the Loras characterisation, giving him too hard an edge for this early and less scope to grow later imho. And makes Renly a bit pathetic. Renly is meant to be the grandiose dandy with aims above his station, he doesn't need grooming tips from a child.)

Sansa is being done brilliantly. She's only on the fringes, but we see enough of her to know who she is and her personality; without resorting to inserting her in to scenes.

Anyway, I gotta stop ranting...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 16, 2011, 06:23:57 AM
I never read the books but I'm enjoying the series. A lot of people to try to keep track of, though. I thought ep 5 was good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 16, 2011, 06:27:40 AM
Anyway, I gotta stop ranting...
It's ok with me.  I didn't like the Theon scene myself but GRRM is involved so I'm not sure what effect that has.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 16, 2011, 08:56:20 AM
Once again, the 'made for TV' scale really galled me. The Ned/Jaime fight looked like it was done on a playhouse stage FFS.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2011, 09:02:20 AM
The tournament of the hand REALLY got the short end of the stick.  It was supposed to be a massive affair with spartacus type crowds and lots more jousts, not to mention the melee.  No Jamie getting embarrassed by Sandor, no Jory making it pretty far into the tournament, no Beric Dondarrion, no Thoros of Myr with his flaming sword winning the melee.  Sad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 16, 2011, 01:50:48 PM
One of the most hysterical scenes:


I can't be the only one who was thinking, "O Brave Sir Robin!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vision on May 16, 2011, 03:18:57 PM
Jamie and Ned never actually fought in the book did they? Ned took off some heads and then his horse fell on him and broke his leg.
I suppose I like the fact that Jamie kills Jory in the show, makes it more personal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 16, 2011, 04:17:10 PM
I don't think they ever crossed swords, no. I was wondering if they would include a broken leg in the fight, and then was like 'not canon, but that will definitely do'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 17, 2011, 07:20:08 AM
I like the TV show scene better than what went down in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 17, 2011, 10:20:18 AM
Quote from: George RR Martin
"It has come to my attention that a number of television viewers (mostly those who had not read my books and did not know what was coming)were shocked and upset by what befell Sansa's direwolf Lady at the end of the second episode of HBO's GAME OF THRONES.

Good. I mean, that was kind of the point.

But some people were reportedly so shocked and upset that they wrote angry blogs about it, and even declared that they would not continue watching the show.

Not so good. Obviously, I'm sorry to hear that.

I don't know if any of those people are reading my Not A Blog. But in case they are, perhaps it will make you feel a little better to know that Zunni, the Northern Inuit who played Lady, is alive and well, and has been adopted by Sophie Turner, the lovely young actress who plays Sansa in the show. We didn't really kill her.

(Rhodri Hosking, the young actor who played the butcher's boy Mycah, was not actually killed either, though oddly, no one seems quite so upset about him)."

Heh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 17, 2011, 12:25:35 PM
And again, ratings on the (slightly) rise!

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/05/17/game-of-thrones-ratings-climb/

Quote
Once again, HBO’s Game of Thrones ratings hit a season high Sunday night, climbing to 2.6 million viewers for its premiere airing.
Combined with its encore, Thrones was up to 3.3 million viewers for the night, with the show averaging 8.1 million viewers per episode across all platforms. After a somewhat middling premiere performance followed by a steady second episode, this is now the third week in a row Thrones ratings have gone up. And given the show’s storyline is picking up the pace for a dramatic second half of the season, these numbers could continue rising and turn Thrones into a bona fide hit. Intensely serialized shows like Thrones rarely climb like this, and when they do they tend to become titles that have healthy lifespans.

While, as you know, Season 2 already got the green light, steady and increasing ratings could also convince the HBO big heads to increase the budget and maybe (just maybe), increase the number of episodes as well (I'm thinking 12-13 max.), something that could mean even more great things for the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: AcidCat on May 17, 2011, 02:01:56 PM
Once again, the 'made for TV' scale really galled me.

That is my only real complaint so far, so many scenes seem smaller/less epic than they should. The tournament looked like some renfair sideshow. I've never seen a proper King's Landing scene that felt like it was a huge bustling city, it feels like a few courtyards and some interior sets thrown together. In the scheme of things it's kinda nitpicking though, I'm really enjoying the series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on May 17, 2011, 02:16:05 PM
Arrested Westeros (http://arrestedwesteros.tumblr.com/)

What happens when Game of Thrones meets Arrested Development

(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll8ru4klgr1qk2t5co1_500.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DLRiley on May 17, 2011, 02:43:05 PM
Once again, the 'made for TV' scale really galled me. The Ned/Jaime fight looked like it was done on a playhouse stage FFS.

It looked like those swords actually weighed something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vision on May 17, 2011, 07:42:57 PM
Quote from: George RR Martin
"It has come to my attention that a number of television viewers (mostly those who had not read my books and did not know what was coming)were shocked and upset by what befell Sansa's direwolf Lady at the end of the second episode of HBO's GAME OF THRONES.

Good. I mean, that was kind of the point.

But some people were reportedly so shocked and upset that they wrote angry blogs about it, and even declared that they would not continue watching the show.

Not so good. Obviously, I'm sorry to hear that.

I don't know if any of those people are reading my Not A Blog. But in case they are, perhaps it will make you feel a little better to know that Zunni, the Northern Inuit who played Lady, is alive and well, and has been adopted by Sophie Turner, the lovely young actress who plays Sansa in the show. We didn't really kill her.

(Rhodri Hosking, the young actor who played the butcher's boy Mycah, was not actually killed either, though oddly, no one seems quite so upset about him)."



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 18, 2011, 10:08:35 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 18, 2011, 10:09:20 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vision on May 19, 2011, 01:50:16 AM

Thanks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 22, 2011, 05:36:44 PM
15 minutes to go...

Can't wait for the rightful king of Westeros to get his Golden Crown (name of the episode), at last.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 22, 2011, 07:38:36 PM
Tyrion listing his crimes = so much fucking win.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 23, 2011, 06:56:01 AM
6 and 7  :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 23, 2011, 07:57:04 AM
I continue to be surprised about how fast they are moving the plot along.  It actually feels like they're going to get to the end of Book 1 before the season ends at this rate (4 more episodes).  Not sure if that means it will bleed over into book 2 a bit.  Still, I've been enjoying it so far, and the last episode delivered.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on May 23, 2011, 10:36:51 AM
Definitely getting better. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 23, 2011, 10:41:43 AM
Ugly? You need new eyes. Pity about the pace, could have done with a 14 episode season to pack the good stuff in. A solid episode, back up after a weak one in the 5th.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DLRiley on May 23, 2011, 10:53:50 AM
Seriously this show needs to be 2 hours long. Not having read the books but I can defiantly watch another two hours of this show every sunday. It has a spartacus feel to it, where the plot seems to just sprint and before you know it the episode is over and you had 5 episodes worth of plot dumped on your lap with this drug addicted desire for more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 23, 2011, 11:46:19 AM
Definitely getting better. 

Uh, she does (http://thefaust.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/500full-natalia-tena.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 23, 2011, 11:53:08 AM
Plot really zips along in episode 7, not sure what people who haven't read the books are going to think.  Now I have to wait 2 weeks to see 8.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 23, 2011, 11:55:52 AM
That was bugging me...I knew I recognized her from something. Now I pray they filmed the hot steam pools scene, because she appears to be quite ...buoyant.

I was disappointed they didn't have the direwolves take out some of the brigands/wildings, but apparently the dogs were tough to work with when the horses were nearby so they had to scrap that plan (or so I have heard).

Definitely a lot of differences/shortcuts from the books, but I am really enjoying the show in its own right. Peter Dinklage is smugging his way to an Emmy nomination imo.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mosesandstick on May 23, 2011, 12:02:06 PM
I had no clue she was Tonks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 23, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
They did do a good job uglying her up.  Specially her teeth, everything else is fixable with a long bath and a strong hair brush.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bungee on May 23, 2011, 01:21:10 PM
Uhm, did I muss anything in the books? Renly and Loras? Being gay? With each other? And no one even mentions it here?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on May 23, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
Uhm, did I muss anything in the books? Renly and Loras? Being gay? With each other? And no one even mentions it here?

You missed about 75,000 tons of subtext, yes. That said I don't think it is ever spelled out explicitly. Scenes like the one in the show weren't in the book because neither Loras nor Renly are POV characters. It is heavily implied, in any case.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 23, 2011, 01:36:19 PM
I am honestly shocked at the number of people for whom their relationship has been a revelation. I am not always the most astute at picking up nuances in novels since I tend to read so fast, and even I couldn't miss it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 23, 2011, 01:55:11 PM
It's the cock-sucking, right ?  It's always a giveaway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 23, 2011, 01:59:12 PM
Uhm, did I muss anything in the books? Renly and Loras? Being gay? With each other? And no one even mentions it here?

It was so obvious several characters throw it right in his face.  When Renly brags to Stannis that Margaery came to him a virgin Stannis responds "in your bed she is bound to stay that way", and Jamie threatens Loras to shove a sword so far up his ass not even Renly could find it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 23, 2011, 02:14:24 PM
Watched the latest and, yes, it gets better and better.

I didn't think I'd end up liking it this much, but what the hell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 23, 2011, 04:55:25 PM
Seven Hells, the seventh episode is simply fabulous, makes the sixth one look like amateur stuff. AWESOME  :drill: :drill: :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 23, 2011, 06:12:39 PM
Uhm, did I muss anything in the books? Renly and Loras? Being gay? With each other? And no one even mentions it here?

It was so obvious several characters throw it right in his face.  When Renly brags to Stannis that Margaery came to him a virgin Stannis responds "in your bed she is bound to stay that way", and Jamie threatens Loras to shove a sword so far up his ass not even Renly could find it.

Pretty much every comment with SPOILERED about Renly also adds to the joke.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 23, 2011, 09:03:42 PM
Ok, why are some people calling the last episode 7?  From everything I can tell, its episode 6.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 23, 2011, 09:05:42 PM
Episode 7 is available on HBO GO which is its new online service.  I'm holding off as I don't want to have to wait two weeks between eps.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 23, 2011, 09:51:24 PM
Indeed, the show has gotten much better. It saddens me that Camelot on the other hand has gotten so much worse. Minor points but problems with the show:

1) Needs more tits.
2)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 23, 2011, 11:08:16 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 23, 2011, 11:50:11 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 24, 2011, 12:00:24 AM
No, that's it to the end of the chapter.

Maybe there's a flashback later, I dunno.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 24, 2011, 05:09:46 AM
The first thing that scene reminded me of was Gandalf telling Frodo "your small fire couldn't even melt regular gold".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on May 24, 2011, 06:45:44 AM

Nope, that's as graphic as it got for that scene.

This episode was really good. I thought 5 was weak overall, but I quite liked this one. The Tyrion and Bronn show in the Eyrie was easily the best part of the episode, starting with his confession of his crimes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 24, 2011, 07:40:55 AM
I think metallurgical accuracy is pretty low on my list of storytelling necessities.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 24, 2011, 08:00:32 AM
It bothered me more that Tyrion didn't take the silver out of his purse before throwing it to Mord, as he'd only promised him gold.  It's a minor thing but the kind of detail that makes Tyrion interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on May 24, 2011, 09:04:44 AM
I'm still upset that so far the direwolves have had about 15 seconds of screen time the whole season so far. I remember them being much more prominent in the books. Even if not doing anything, constantly around the Stark children.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 24, 2011, 09:06:01 AM
They were supposed to have a large role in fighting off the wildings, but they just did not work out near horses at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 24, 2011, 01:16:18 PM
It bothered me more that Tyrion didn't take the silver out of his purse before throwing it to Mord, as he'd only promised him gold.  It's a minor thing but the kind of detail that makes Tyrion interesting.

Did that happen in the book ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 24, 2011, 01:20:48 PM
Yeah.
Quote
Bronn watched him across the fire. “You have a plan,” he said flatly, with a scrape of steel on stone.
 “A hope, call it,” Tyrion said. “Another toss of the dice.”
 “With our lives as the stake?”
Tyrion shrugged. “What choice do we have?” He leaned over the fire and sawed a thin slice of meat from the kid. “Ahhhh,” he sighed happily as he chewed. Grease ran down his chin. “A bit tougher than I’d like, and in want of spicing, but I’ll not complain too loudly. If I were back at the Eyrie, I’d be dancing on a precipice in hopes of a boiled bean.”

 “And yet you gave the turnkey a purse of gold,” Bronn said.
 “A Lannister always pays his debts.” Even Mord had scarcely believed it when Tyrion tossed him the leather purse. The gaoler’s eyes had gone big as boiled eggs as he yanked open the drawstring and beheld the glint of gold. “I kept the silver,” Tyrion had told him with a crooked smile, “but you were promised the gold, and there it is.” It was more than a man like Mord could hope to earn in a lifetime of abusing prisoners. “And remember what I said, this is only a taste. If you ever grow tired of Lady Arryn’s service, present yourself at Casterly Rock, and I’ll pay you the rest of what I owe you.” With golden dragons spilling out of both hands, Mord had fallen to his knees and promised that he would do just that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 24, 2011, 01:32:08 PM
He's just a cool motherfucker.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 24, 2011, 02:56:54 PM
Yeah, the lack of a job offer galled me more than the silver.  Mord is exactly the kind of guy the Lannister want working for them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Evil Elvis on May 24, 2011, 03:29:00 PM
He wanted him to come to Casterly Rock so he could kill him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 24, 2011, 04:23:53 PM
Yeah, thats exactly how I always read that line.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on May 24, 2011, 11:32:45 PM
Has this series already completely warped my mind or are they literally eating a child in that scene?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 24, 2011, 11:43:41 PM
Edit, Kid = young goat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on May 24, 2011, 11:55:47 PM
Phew, I was worried there for a moment that Tyrion won't remain the most awesome thing in the whole series.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 25, 2011, 06:02:17 AM
There's a fair bit of goat eating later on too.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 26, 2011, 07:38:42 AM
Somebody needs to update that "I've made a terrible mistake" picture to Viserys for episode six and Ned for episode seven.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 26, 2011, 01:25:51 PM
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llqk5p2mj21qk2t5co1_500.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 26, 2011, 01:51:37 PM
Perfect.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2011, 06:23:17 AM
http://store.hbo.com/game-of-thrones-i-made-the-eight-t-shirt/detail.php?p=300711&v=hbo_shows_game-of-thrones


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 27, 2011, 07:07:55 AM
You know, if you'd told me what that was, I wouldn't have bothered to click it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 27, 2011, 08:50:00 AM
"game-of-thrones-i-made-the-eight-t-shirt" wasn't clear enough?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 27, 2011, 11:19:06 AM
I thought it'd be interesting.  Or funny.  Or in any way click worthy.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 27, 2011, 01:06:07 PM
I don't get it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 27, 2011, 01:18:20 PM
If you didn't watch Ep 7 on HBO Go then it won't make any sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 27, 2011, 01:39:55 PM
If you didn't watch Ep 7 on HBO Go then it won't make any sense.

Fair enough.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2011, 03:24:24 PM
It was on episode six not seven.  Making the eight is fucking a girl from each kingdom and the riverlands according to King Robert.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 27, 2011, 04:25:37 PM
It was on episode six not seven.  Making the eight is fucking a girl from each kingdom and the riverlands according to King Robert.

Ah. That's not funny.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 27, 2011, 05:50:51 PM
It's pretty funny to think how big a nerd you'd have to be to wear a tv shirt saying you shagged 8 imaginary girls in 8 fictional kingdoms.  I think guys with plastic girlfriends would feel sorry for you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 27, 2011, 06:41:23 PM
Which plastic girlfriends? There's several subgenres these days.


It frightens me that I know that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 27, 2011, 07:33:27 PM
Which plastic girlfriends? There's several subgenres these days.


It frightens me that I know that.

All of them. Even the Japanese toddlercon ones.

Okay, some questions about the books/show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 27, 2011, 09:03:02 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arinon on May 27, 2011, 09:25:16 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2011, 09:39:29 PM
The nights watch is basically just criminals who didn't want to get put to death at this point.  Along with the occasional old knight from the losing side of a war, third or fourth sons from minor nobles who basically have no real futures, and bastards.  Mostly criminals though, and very few of them at that.  Gotta keep in mind its been something like eight thousand years since the white walkers were last seen, can't expect people to be all gung ho about it at this point, they exist merely because of tradition and because the wildings are still a mild annoyance.  BTW you can actually sail around the wall so it is not nearly as impregnable as it appears.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 28, 2011, 04:48:40 AM
Basically, the guys on the wall are the expendable people at this point.  Any training they get comes from those knights or nobles who are sent to the wall to get them out of the way.  As Threash said, Winter hasn't been around for so long that -as with all fantasy- the big baddie's been forgotten and turned into nothing more than scary tales to those in the South.  The real elite fighters are used for the political maneuverings and wars in the South.  Only the Starks maintain any semblance of wariness about the crap North of the wall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on May 28, 2011, 08:50:12 AM
At this point in the story, I think it's 3 out of 20 keeps are currently manned on the Wall? And those 3 aren't "full strength" either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 28, 2011, 01:31:01 PM
Basically, the guys on the wall are the expendable people at this point.  Any training they get comes from those knights or nobles who are sent to the wall to get them out of the way.  As Threash said, Winter hasn't been around for so long that -as with all fantasy- the big baddie's been forgotten and turned into nothing more than scary tales to those in the South.  The real elite fighters are used for the political maneuverings and wars in the South.  Only the Starks maintain any semblance of wariness about the crap North of the wall.

Correction, winter does come every few years, Tyrion mentioned he'd seen seven on the show i believe.  What hasn't been around are the white walkers, which are said to show up during the long winter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 28, 2011, 07:09:42 PM
Bob, regarding Cersei:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 29, 2011, 09:30:36 AM
Bob, regarding Cersei:

Spoiler contains comments from book 2 fyi.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 29, 2011, 10:13:20 AM
Bob, regarding Cersei:

Spoiler contains comments from book 2 fyi.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Aez on May 29, 2011, 11:37:42 AM
Random question : would reading the first 3 books give me a complete trilogy with decent closure or does every book leads to the next and you can't get any closure because the last books are not written?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 29, 2011, 11:42:38 AM
Random question : would reading the first 3 book give me a complete trilogy with decent closure or does every book leads to the next and you can't get any closure because the last books are not written?

(http://i.imgur.com/t8wGd.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 29, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
Yeah, its not a trilogy.  Each book picks up after the last, so you'd need to read the entire thing to get the story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 29, 2011, 08:09:22 PM
Holy shit! 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 30, 2011, 02:22:17 PM
Was the guy who came to get Ned Billy Boyd?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 30, 2011, 04:58:02 PM
Holy shit! 
Yeah, from here (near the end of the first book) and on out begins a long stream of "Holy Shit" moments.  First book was the slowest, so season 2 and beyond should be pretty good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 30, 2011, 05:36:10 PM
Oh, did they just get to that part of Book 1? Nice.

Basically, the guys on the wall are the expendable people at this point.  Any training they get comes from those knights or nobles who are sent to the wall to get them out of the way.  As Threash said, Winter hasn't been around for so long that -as with all fantasy- the big baddie's been forgotten and turned into nothing more than scary tales to those in the South.  The real elite fighters are used for the political maneuverings and wars in the South.  Only the Starks maintain any semblance of wariness about the crap North of the wall.

Correction, winter does come every few years, Tyrion mentioned he'd seen seven on the show i believe.  What hasn't been around are the white walkers, which are said to show up during the long winter.

That doesn't sound right but I'd have to reread the books to verify.  I did read that yeah, it's been 8k years since the White Walkers were seen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 30, 2011, 05:57:26 PM
Oh, did they just get to that part of Book 1? Nice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 30, 2011, 06:00:27 PM
Oh, did they just get to that part of Book 1? Nice.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 30, 2011, 06:26:00 PM
Holy Shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MournelitheCalix on May 30, 2011, 06:42:59 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 31, 2011, 08:09:40 AM

There are people here who have watched the show and are reading the books but aren't up to certain parts in the series yet.

Just say'in.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on May 31, 2011, 08:49:11 AM
Oh, did they just get to that part of Book 1? Nice.

Basically, the guys on the wall are the expendable people at this point.  Any training they get comes from those knights or nobles who are sent to the wall to get them out of the way.  As Threash said, Winter hasn't been around for so long that -as with all fantasy- the big baddie's been forgotten and turned into nothing more than scary tales to those in the South.  The real elite fighters are used for the political maneuverings and wars in the South.  Only the Starks maintain any semblance of wariness about the crap North of the wall.

Correction, winter does come every few years, Tyrion mentioned he'd seen seven on the show i believe.  What hasn't been around are the white walkers, which are said to show up during the long winter.

That doesn't sound right but I'd have to reread the books to verify.  I did read that yeah, it's been 8k years since the White Walkers were seen.


They have had winters but not very long ones nor very serious compared to what happened in the past. I vaguely remember them saying one winter was so long that the sun was not seen for 20 years and that is when the white walkers came. Their seasonal durations are very very random seeming at this point although george has hinted there is some actual mechanism or reason for when the long winters come.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 31, 2011, 07:14:56 PM
Introducing: Stupid Ned Stark. http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/introducing-stupid-ned-stark


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2011, 07:23:44 PM
"Lol don't be ridiculous sweetheart"  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2011, 08:20:40 PM
That comment section is delicious.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 01, 2011, 09:21:27 PM



This is why the TV series is failing. Too much stuff like this is being cut in order to keep things moving. Jamie and his sister are much more simple characters as a result. As are Twyin and Tyrion.

I found ep 7 to be a letdown. The quality of the episodes is still really up and down for me. One second I think the series is getting in its groove and is going to stay great, then next it's back to
Really pissed off about a few things... oh well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 02, 2011, 04:21:24 AM
What's your standard for "failing"? It certainly is doing fine in terms of viewership.

If it's "I don't like it", and the reason is, "because it's not 100% just like the books and doesn't have every single detail" I refer you to the already-retarded arguments about the LoTR movies and Tolkien ongoing in The Hobbit thread, you'll fit right in.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 02, 2011, 06:27:40 AM
His chat with the hookers was to set up his character's reasons for the events with Ned later in the episode, so it doesn't come out of the blue. They want to have characters with depth who are doing things for reasons, not just... SURPRISE!!!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 02, 2011, 07:34:19 AM
Kingsguard isn't supposed to be celibate, they just aren't supposed to marry.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 02, 2011, 07:38:39 AM
Not sure of that.

Quote
Bran was going to be a knight himself someday, one of the Kingsguard. Old Nan said they were the finest swords in all the realm. There were only seven of them, and they wore white armor and had no wives or children, but lived only to serve the king.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 02, 2011, 07:42:58 AM
This is why the TV series is failing. Too much stuff like this is being cut in order to keep things moving. Jamie and his sister are much more simple characters as a result. As are Twyin and Tyrion.

Really pissed off about a few things... oh well.

Dude, it's like you're actively trying to hate this show even though it's doing really well, getting a second season, and pulling in a lot of positive buzz with a solid 3.2 million viewers a show. It's almost like you made up your mind before the show even started.

I expect it will suck too.

Oh wait!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 02, 2011, 08:07:33 AM
You can smell his unwashed neckbeard from here.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 02, 2011, 08:08:26 AM
Not sure of that.

Quote
Bran was going to be a knight himself someday, one of the Kingsguard. Old Nan said they were the finest swords in all the realm. There were only seven of them, and they wore white armor and had no wives or children, but lived only to serve the king.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 02, 2011, 12:14:43 PM
I am pretty sure they talk constantly about how certain KG people are breaking their vows in book 4. It is possible I'm misremembering but I thought that's why a particular POV in that book is titled "The Soiled Knight".

Now I have to reread them AGAIN.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 02, 2011, 12:49:52 PM
I am pretty sure they talk constantly about how certain KG people are breaking their vows in book 4. It is possible I'm misremembering but I thought that's why a particular POV in that book is titled "The Soiled Knight".

Now I have to reread them AGAIN.  :awesome_for_real:
You are correct...read that chapter this morning, as it happens.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 02, 2011, 05:12:35 PM
What's your standard for "failing"? It certainly is doing fine in terms of viewership.

If it's "I don't like it", and the reason is, "because it's not 100% just like the books and doesn't have every single detail" I refer you to the already-retarded arguments about the LoTR movies and Tolkien ongoing in The Hobbit thread, you'll fit right in.

I guess I should elaborate the comment to "failing to capture as much of the books as I feel is possible/failing to write bridging scenes that are consistent with the characterisation in the books".

Wasn't Two and a Half Men one of the most popular shows on TV in the US? Dunno what real relevance viewer numbers have to this discussion.

His chat with the hookers was to set up his character's reasons for the events with Ned later in the episode, so it doesn't come out of the blue. They want to have characters with depth who are doing things for reasons, not just... SURPRISE!!!


Really pissed off about a few things... oh well.

Dude, it's like you're actively trying to hate this show even though it's doing really well, getting a second season, and pulling in a lot of positive buzz with a solid 3.2 million viewers a show. It's almost like you made up your mind before the show even started.

Did you miss the bit where I have said some episodes are really excellent and that I'm watching it? I'm annoyed because of the episodes that are falling down, not the show in general. Really pissed off by "a few things "is not really pissed off completely. It's possible to enjoy something without soiling my pants over it. The show pretty obviously a whole lot better than I ever expected it to be.

And yeah, the Kingsguard are meant to be celibate. No ifs or buts on that one. They aren't, sure, but the vow is to be so.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 02, 2011, 08:16:01 PM
You're right, SirBrucing the thread obviously proves you have perspective. Carry on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 02, 2011, 08:46:57 PM
You're right, SirBrucing the thread obviously proves you have perspective. Carry on.

Responding to different posters is not SirBrucing.  :why_so_serious:

Got a bee in your bonnet because I don't like some aspects of the show? So what? This is the show thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 03, 2011, 06:22:18 AM
Littlefinger tells Ned in the books not to trust him. He takes a certain palpable delight in the books too in being treacherous--that's what distinguishes him from the Spider, for whom it's all business.

If there's anything I dislike more than people who complain that adaptations aren't exactly like their source material, it's people who make that complaint but have an imagination of a character in the source material that isn't even a good reading of the source material.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 03, 2011, 07:19:01 AM
Got a bee in your bonnet because I don't like some aspects of the show? So what? This is the show thread.

I have a bee in my bonnet because your reasoning between liking or not liking so far is retarded. Does that clear it up?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2011, 08:28:27 AM
Yes, in the books you get a gigantic red flag with Littlefinger. In the show it's a bit more difficult to to put in all of the backstory without putting in some odd exposition parts. 

The voiced "explain this" stuff often comes from different characters and at strange times, but I can live with it.  I think they're going to have a hard time visualizing some things or even introducing them due to not being any payoff for a long time or without being just another info-dump. 

Looking forward to the end of this season.  I have a feeling the Dany stuff is just going to be a bit awkwardly done, however.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 03, 2011, 09:06:01 AM
Littlefinger tells Ned in the books not to trust him. He takes a certain palpable delight in the books too in being treacherous--that's what distinguishes him from the Spider, for whom it's all business.

If there's anything I dislike more than people who complain that adaptations aren't exactly like their source material, it's people who make that complaint but have an imagination of a character in the source material that isn't even a good reading of the source material.

Amyway I have no intention of offending people so I'll quit shitting this thread up with my criticism. Let the wanking continue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on June 03, 2011, 09:11:13 AM
This is a good show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 03, 2011, 09:31:09 AM




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2011, 09:39:22 AM
Utterly sick of people bitching about books not being done right in a different medium.

For fucks sake, if there were Dr Who books, even I'd shut up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2011, 10:01:29 AM
I'm really enjoying the series so far, and I'm overall fine with some of the changes between the books and film.  As a matter of fact, they've been very faithful overall.  I'd say the biggest flaw so far is that they are moving things a little to fast, so they are cutting out some extra stuff that would help deepen the characters a bit, and make the world a little more richer (for instance, they haven't bothered trying to explain the religion at all yet, be it new gods or old gods, and just sort of throw it out there.  The religion stuff was actually pretty cool).  This is mainly because each season is only 10 episodes, which is surprisingly short.  I think with even 3 more one hour episodes (making it a standard half season) they would have had enough extra time to flesh out things a lot better.  Not sure why they are only doing 10.

Other than that, I think the series has been pretty awesome so far, and every episode has been better than the last.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 03, 2011, 12:00:11 PM
This season is 10 episodes, they have not said how many episodes the other seasons will have.  They have made seasons longer for other shows in the past, and they are going to have to for this also or split books over more than one season because the first book is about the shortest one in the series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2011, 12:06:24 PM
This interview says they plan on 10 for season 2 as well:
http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/04/19/game-of-thrones-season-two-2/

Which worries me somewhat, but we'll see.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on June 03, 2011, 12:39:49 PM
Fans of good TV should be ashamed of complaining about hot lesbian whores practicing.  Whether or not the the show is tight with the books is not a factor in judging it a good TV series.  The books tell a complicated story in a format appropriate for that.  This HBO effort tells a similar story in a format appropriate for that.  Stop making them conjoined twins.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 05, 2011, 06:46:38 PM
It'll be interesting to see tonight's Episode.  According to the Wiki, George RR Martin wrote this episode (the only one listed that he does so).

Oh, and:
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llxgiuissy1qk2t5co1_500.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 05, 2011, 07:09:41 PM
I totally want to caption that "It's Baltimore. No one lives forever."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 05, 2011, 07:33:25 PM
How did they get a young Tom Cruise to play a Lannister spy?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 06, 2011, 05:46:08 AM
Hehe.

Some well delivered lines in this one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 06, 2011, 06:09:42 AM
I like how much Mamoa's managed to do with Drogo, considering he's only had three scenes with dialog, and none of them in a real language. He still doesn't look like Conan, but he certainly had the right intensity in that last scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 06, 2011, 06:25:03 AM
Drogo's scene was aaaawwwessome.  :drill: :grin:

The whole episode was fantastic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: devildog on June 06, 2011, 07:44:57 AM
Conan would come out of his gladiator pit with wolverine claws and shred him, but he is doing a good job in Thrones i think.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2011, 08:27:41 AM
Series is really hitting its stride. Even knowing what's coming, I keep watching and hoping that I'm wrong somehow--it has the trick of making well-known scenes and plot arcs feel fresh. Robb's assumption of command was a bit out of nowhere, given how little character work has been done with him, but that's ok.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 06, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Series is really hitting its stride. Even knowing what's coming, I keep watching and hoping that I'm wrong somehow--it has the trick of making well-known scenes and plot arcs feel fresh. Robb's assumption of command was a bit out of nowhere, given how little character work has been done with him, but that's ok.

Robb commanding was rushed, but the stuff between him and Catelyn was really well done. The first moment she sees him and refrains from rushing to her son, instead standing back to greet the Lord of Winterfel until everyone had left was good as was her spoken disagreement with letting the spy go and Robb's response to it.

Tyrion still is by far the best character in the show. The scene with Drogo was very well done too and was the first time I actually liked how they did the story arc on that side of the world.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 06, 2011, 10:20:52 AM
Damn, I got to read the books. Between wanting to know if the dancing teacher made it against all reason and wanting to see the old Kingsguard kick some impertinent youngling ass (probably not going to happen either), I have this urgent need to know right now what happens and not in a few weeks/months/years. I need my baddass quota.

Of course, the whole series is amazing as it is now, and maybe it will lose some of its shine if I have to compare it to the books in my head. For some here it seems to have ruined what is an awesome series for others.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 06, 2011, 11:01:41 AM
Reading the books has not ruined the series for me at all.  Barristan Selmy is not done.  Minor spoiler for that scene in the books .


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 06, 2011, 12:10:00 PM
Yah, they did a great job with Syrio.  I was really looking forward to him beating the shit out of a group of knights using nothing but a wooden sword, and it delivered.

On Syrio's fate, if you want to know (its a minor spoiler overall):


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 06, 2011, 12:14:16 PM
Fuck this, books here I come. Time to get me a kindle so I can read during the day outdoors!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Wasted on June 06, 2011, 12:46:29 PM
My set of the books just arrived today.  This show is awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 06, 2011, 01:09:56 PM
Somehow the only book in my house I can't find is "Clash of Kings".  :awesome_for_real:  Just finished Game of Thrones again and wanted to keep going.  Right in the spot where it should be is a WoT book.  GRRRR.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 06, 2011, 02:58:16 PM
Just finished watching "The Pointy End". The episode was written by the man himself, George RR Martin, and who else would have more confidence in the source material than the guy who actually wrote it? :P

Maybe it's because I already knew who wrote this episode, but it seemed to me that it had a more "straight", convincing cut than any of the others chapters shown 'til now. Definitely the best episode so far, total kickass. Greatjon Umber, of House Umber, was quite good, especially for a character introduced so late in the series (but all the North scenes were above average, this week)...And what of Timett, Shagga and Chetta, those wacky mountain clans? It's nice that the show actually managed to present them all: that scene with Tywin was great as well.

Syrio.... :ye_gods: :ye_gods:

The only thing that makes me mad is that...there are only two more episodes and then we're done for this season  :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 06, 2011, 04:19:19 PM
Yah, they did a great job with Syrio.  I was really looking forward to him beating the shit out of a group of knights using nothing but a wooden sword, and it delivered.

On Syrio's fate, if you want to know (its a minor spoiler overall):



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 06, 2011, 04:48:40 PM
So they get a better writer for the episode and the episode is better. Who'd have thought?

With energy and meaning in content and transition of scenes. And with some great lines. Joffrey was awesome.


Edit: Link in the spoiler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DLRiley on June 06, 2011, 05:08:15 PM
Some how you don't sound less of a neck beard tool when you praise the show lamaros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 06, 2011, 05:29:47 PM
 :heartbreak: Oh well. I guess every thread needs unfortunately gets one. I am truly enjoying it and I hope GRRM writes more episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 06, 2011, 06:42:10 PM
He's writing an episode for next season called "Blackwater", you know what that is going to entail.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 07, 2011, 02:21:58 AM
8 seemed a lot more polished, maybe it's just the point the story has reached but it really seemed to last longer than usual.  Didn't feel as rushed as 7.

Ironwood, you still watching, what did you think?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 07, 2011, 03:41:03 AM
Long audio interview with Miltos Yerolemou, AKA Syrio Forel !

http://castofthrones.com/2011/06/miltos-yeromelou-syrio-forel-inerview/

Also, a messy but simply beautiful map of Westeros...Crazy! :)  (hmm, no spoilers I think...Or anyway, if you haven't read the books, you won't catch a lot of references, especially for the areas north of the Wall).

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/037/f/e/westeros_by_other_in_law-d38yn2d.jpg


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: voodoolily on June 07, 2011, 07:14:57 PM
Drogo's scene was aaaawwwessome.  :drill: :grin:

The whole episode was fantastic.

When he flexed his pec against the blade, I got a little verklempt in my panty area.  :drillf: 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2011, 06:56:27 AM
The Greatjon is being played by Little John from the old BBC Robin of Sherwood  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on June 08, 2011, 07:16:27 AM
I've felt that the show has been improving steadily for the past 3 episodes. I'd agree with the fact that many scenes have been less grand than they might have warranted but nobody even puts half as much effort into tv as HBO so its hard to complain too much. I think its reasonable to imagine that they will pour a bit more cash into the second season.

As someone who has not read the books at all ever I've had no real trouble following anything. At first there were a bit too many people but the show has not let any faces fall completely off my radar then suddenly had them come important which takes talent when storyboarding no doubt.

I have my minor I didn't get this complaints and questions:
- Why do the northern guys in King's landing die like bitches every fight. Like the two guys who died in 1/10th of a second to thrown spears who were supposed to be his "two best swords". I've inferred that the Lion's troops are far superior and its hard to imagine Robb winning his fight without some kind of act of god, I've been hoping for the eldest Barathian to show up leading his army at just the right time and hopefully die in the process because he's just a name to me at this point. Then again the Mountain and his raiders should be around too and they also have the hill clan guys so even if he does show it feels like Robb is proper fucked.

-Its very fucking odd how whacked out of her mind the Queen of the Veil is. Was she always like that? I mean the old hand of the king John was supposed to be such a stand up guy, everyone loved him, salt of the earth blah blah but his wife is a fucking nutjob? While her sister is this awesome strong smart woman? Most confusing bit of the show so far. Honestly everything about her kingdom has been very odd and off putting but there has been no signal from the other cast members to let me know if this is just the way it is or if things are out of the ordinary.

-The John Snow bits truly are stretching the show too thin. At this point its like I get that he's going to be a big deal and have his little band of trusted friends and do something great at some point but I'd really like to focus on everyone else until winter shows up and I have no choice.

Those are my minor troubles but overall the show has been fantastic especially since Robert went down everything has been building and picking up steam nicely. I felt it when Ned gets owned in the throne room, even if I should have known it was coming it still hurt. So bravo to HBO yet again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 08, 2011, 07:29:40 AM
Lysa (of the Vale) has a history. It'll probably come out at some point. But what might not: Her husband was OLD and wasn't very good at getting her children. The one she has is sickly and hard fought. Again there is history, but it'll probably be touched on in time. She is not a queen btw, she is just in charge because her son is the lord of the vale now that her husband is dead. The vale bits are much longer in the books, explaining their politics and geography and significance with more detail. It is well cut out in the show though, as it's not a huge deal at this point.

I believe there were a few references in the tv show about how lysa had 'changed', and catelyn's shock on seeing her again was, I thought (with the benefit of the books), telegraphed well. There is a bit of recklessness when if comes to family in both women though, as cat's actions with tyrion showed; they are not hugely dissimilar. I also find that Catelyn Stark is much less of a crazy bitch in the show than the books, which I think is good. I don't really believe in GRRMs women as much as the men but I am finding her a deeper and more interesting person here. Score one for the actress and the writers ;)

Shit gets real with the bits of the story that are currently slower real soon, don't worry.

The Northmen fight well enough, but when you're in the shit position you die, no matter who you are, unless those attacking don't want you dead.

Tried to keep any spoilers out of there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2011, 07:39:16 AM
Yeah the northmen in King's landing are either ambushed like in the throne room or heavily outnumbered.  Jamies men killed those two guys before they even took out their swords, spears are ranged weapons after all.  Ned didn't bring an army with him, just a small retainer.  Also, he gave half of it to the city watch to help keep the peace and another good number to Beric Dondarrion to go hunt down the Mountain and his men.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on June 08, 2011, 07:41:38 AM
Actually on thinking about it more you are right the imp did tell her she had changed since Cat saw her last. I guess I forgot about that and whenever it goes back to her I'm left in headscratch mode.

As to the northerners I appreciate all that but I guess I'm sort of complaining about how quickly they seem to die in King's Landing at every chance they get. Also the Lannister troops have way cooler outfits so by that rule they must be more badass right?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2011, 07:50:01 AM
They die quickly because Ned has a knack for putting them in unwinnable situations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 08, 2011, 08:10:25 AM
I'm waiting for the first time they aren't outnumbered and ambushed to gauge their real strength. Right now they look like chumps that lose in everything but a straight fight.  Which would fit soldiers trained and maintained by people like Eddard "What do you mean people can cheat" Stark.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 08, 2011, 08:25:30 AM
They die quickly because Ned has a knack for putting them in unwinnable situations.
Yeah, this.  Though I've noticed in the show that you pretty much just see them dying instantly without much fight.  I would have appreciated them showing a little bit more of a drawn out struggle in the corridors, and taking some people with them.  But I can understand for editing and time constraints why the just showed a few quick shots of them dying to get the point across about what happened.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2011, 08:36:14 AM
They even went over this in the books, at one point Arya is worried about her dad and one of random Stark soldier tells her not to worry because each one of them is worth two lannister men.  Later on while she escaping she finds that guys body surrounded by dead Stark men and almost no dead Lannisters, i believe she kicks him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 08, 2011, 10:04:36 AM
Also the Lannister troops have way cooler outfits so by that rule they must be more badass right?

Or are backed by a house with a heck of a lot more money.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on June 08, 2011, 10:09:43 AM
There could be a poor but badass northern look instead it looks like they are wearing tunics made out of that stuff movers use to line elevators so they don't get banged up.

Brown ones no less, they look like low level mmo npc's.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 08, 2011, 10:15:03 AM
Fitting, since they die like that, too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 08, 2011, 10:17:14 AM
Starks are stark. This is known.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2011, 10:27:03 AM
Didn't read the books but the story so far kind of reminds me of Dune. You have this corrupt court full of mostly unlikeable people and factions (House Stark's bearing very similar to House Atreides, including the trap set up at King's Landing/Dune), and you have some interesting stuff going on but meanwhile you have this jihad of fremen (kal's mongol horde + dragon clan) building up about to be unleashed to purge it all (with a bonus spitroasting with the frost demon horde from the other end).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 08, 2011, 02:04:15 PM
Well the other stuff is a bit of stretch I think, but I did always feel that the setup between House Stark and Lannister, with Starks having to relocate down south to enemy territory, did channel Dune quite a bit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2011, 03:04:34 PM
The Stark/Lannister conflict is based loosely on the War of the Roses, it wouldn't surprise me if that was also the case for Dune.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 08, 2011, 03:11:52 PM
Even that is a stretch for me.  The Harkonnens lured House Atreides onto Arakis with the promise of power and money, but in Game of Thrones that doesn't happen at all.  The Lannisters don't want the Starks coming south, they just deal with them when Robert, a Baratheon, insists on it. Ned is just summoned south to be the Hand of the King; an inglorious job with status, but little else besides and he is never promised much.  Robert's offer was honest, it just got in the way of the plans of the Lannisters.  

There were rifts between the Lannister and Stark houses before the events of Game of Thrones, but it wasn't exactly a blood feud; they just happened to be on different sides during a large portion of the civil war a few years prior, and a lot of houses are in that same situation.  They didn't like one another, but they didn't go out of their way to destroy one another either.  It was Robert, not the Lannisters, that brought the Starks down to King's Landing.  

I've read both of the series and never thought they bared much of a resemblance to one another other than being good fantasy, which occasionally used a few of the same conventions, just as most good fantasy does.  The Stark position in King's Landing is similar to the Atreides' in the sense that they are fish out of water in a strange land, but honestly I think they are probably closer to the Clampetts arriving in Beverly Hills, if only Beverly Hills was run by sadists with basements filled with dragons' skulls.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 09, 2011, 12:38:57 AM
I just meant it in a very broad sense.  Good house is called down south against its will (they weren't lured to Arakis in Dune, they were commanded by the emperor, and the Atreides new they were walking into an ambush), gets totally fucked over by court intrigue from rival house.  
Basic structure of the story is similar, that's all.


Anyways, I figured it might be nice for people who haven't read the books to have a copy of the maps from the books to glance at.  Most of these places will mean nothing, but they've mentioned several of the other houses and cities in the series so far.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41488/north.gif)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41488/south.gif)


And here is a political map if you want to get an idea of what the kingdoms look like, what the house symbol is, and who's where (the Orange colored area around kings landing is the crowns lands, so that's why you count 8 instead of 7 kingdoms):
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41488/Map_Westeros_Political.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 09, 2011, 06:32:32 AM
I just meant it in a very broad sense.  Good house is called down south against its will (they weren't lured to Arakis in Dune, they were commanded by the emperor, and the Atreides new they were walking into an ambush), gets totally fucked over by court intrigue from rival house.  

Yeah, but the Emperor was in on the trap, wasn't he?  I recall them being ordered to go to Arakis by the emperor, but it was a scheme cooked up between House Harkonnen and House Corino because the emperor was afraid of Leto's growing power.  Or maybe I'm imagining that having read it so long ago.  You're right that the Atreides knew that some kind of trap was in the works, I forgot about that. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Wasted on June 09, 2011, 06:39:09 AM

And here is a political map if you want to get an idea of what the kingdoms look like, what the house symbol is, and who's where (the Orange colored area around kings landing is the crowns lands, so that's why you count 8 instead of 7 kingdoms):

I count 9 there, are the Iron Islands meant to be included?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 09, 2011, 06:43:42 AM
The iron islands used to own the river lands before the Targaryen conquest, but they resisted too much while the river lords bent the knee so they got split off.  Neither the riverlands nor kings landing were part of the original seven kingdoms.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Obo on June 09, 2011, 06:44:22 AM
I only just noticed this now, but if you mirror and flip the South, it's Ireland! (with a few bits tacked on).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 09, 2011, 06:50:12 AM
I'm pretty sure the Freys are Stark bannermen but that map shows the Twins as part of the river lands.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 09, 2011, 07:03:08 AM
I thought the Freys were simply Stark allies because they're bannermen to House Tully, but that they've always been dodgy and prone to calculating the odds and looking out for #1. Also there's a zillion of them because Walder Frey keeps changing wives and making lots of babies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 09, 2011, 08:11:41 AM
I'm pretty sure the Freys are Stark bannermen but that map shows the Twins as part of the river lands.

They're bannermen for Riverrun


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 09, 2011, 03:14:49 PM
So they get a better writer for the episode and the episode is better. Who'd have thought?

Exactly. The other night, I tried catching up on episodes 5-7 with my girlfriend, who found the early episodes sleep-inducing but was determined to take an interest. Episode 5 lost her again, so I ended up watching 6 and 7 on my own. I just watched episode 8 on my own, and felt she would have loved episode 8.

Until the end of episode 7, it was all backstory and opening moves.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 10, 2011, 04:11:13 AM
NO SPOILERS

Interview with Sophie Turner (Sansa):

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Game-Thrones-Sophie-Turner-1034079.aspx


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: KallDrexx on June 10, 2011, 08:43:31 AM
Side question.

If I'm bored after 100 pages of the first book, is it worth pressing on or will I be bored for the whole 750 pages?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 10, 2011, 08:49:16 AM
It's worth it. Book 1 is slow to start, since it has a lot of characters, places, histories, etc. to introduce.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 10, 2011, 08:49:46 AM
Side question.

If I'm bored after 100 pages of the first book, is it worth pressing on or will I be bored for the whole 750 pages?

I was bored initially.  It picks up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 10, 2011, 09:11:02 AM
Yeah, I understand you want to have fun now while reading it, but yeah, in retrospect, the first book is really just one big and kinda slow introduction, 'til shit hits the fan in the last few chapters (hey, guess what, kinda like the TV show! :P). From book 2 the REAL fun begins (after another kinda slow intro, but just the first few chapters)  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 10, 2011, 09:20:49 AM
Side question.

If I'm bored after 100 pages of the first book, is it worth pressing on or will I be bored for the whole 750 pages?

I just started reading the first book again and *I'm* bored.  I think the only reason I slogged through the first few chapters on the first read was everyone else kept going gaga about the series.  It does get a lot better but up until they leave Winterfell it's pretty dire.   Then it's just slow.. then it's "wait, what.. who.. what happened there.. FUCK.."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 10, 2011, 10:26:29 AM
I ordered the 4 book boxed set. I'm hoping to enjoy it but my big worry is that I read he introduces more characters later. I have visions of how Robert Jordan introduced so many characters in WoT that it dragged that series down because he stopped focusing on his core group. We'll see...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 10, 2011, 10:34:37 AM
I ordered the 4 book boxed set. I'm hoping to enjoy it but my big worry is that I read he introduces more characters later. I have visions of how Robert Jordan introduced so many characters in WoT that it dragged that series down because he stopped focusing on his core group. We'll see...

Book spoilers



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 10, 2011, 10:36:11 AM
Book 4 introduces a bunch of new POVs, the lion's share about which almost no one gives a shit. It is kind of a grind to read through some of them (doing it now for the 2nd time).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 10, 2011, 10:42:57 AM
There are a lot of characters but they all fit right.  I don't know how to explain it any better than that, the story just evolves in a way that more characters are not only necessary but welcome and interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 11, 2011, 04:52:32 PM
NO SPOILERS

Video interview with the lovely Emilia Clarke (Daenerys):

Link (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/s151/game-of-thrones/tubetalk/a324189/game-of-thrones-emilia-clarke-on-daenerys-dothraki-and-tragedy.html)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 11, 2011, 07:45:28 PM
Book 4 introduces a bunch of new POVs, the lion's share about which almost no one gives a shit. It is kind of a grind to read through some of them (doing it now for the 2nd time).
I'm just starting Book 4 for the first time and I'm beginning to notice this. I hope Book 5 does not have this problem, since it should be the other half of the characters, right? Is he continuing to separate each book into halves going forward, or is Book 6 going to cover everyone again?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 11, 2011, 07:47:59 PM
Depends on how it comes out as he's writing it, I suppose.  Initially 4 & 5 were to be one book, but when he hit over 1.1k pages the publisher was freaking.  It's not an easy task to bind books that large.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 11, 2011, 09:13:51 PM
Book 4 introduces a bunch of new POVs, the lion's share about which almost no one gives a shit. It is kind of a grind to read through some of them (doing it now for the 2nd time).
I'm just starting Book 4 for the first time and I'm beginning to notice this. I hope Book 5 does not have this problem, since it should be the other half of the characters, right? Is he continuing to separate each book into halves going forward, or is Book 6 going to cover everyone again?

According to GRRM

Quote
Back when I split A FEAST FOR CROWS into two books, I said in my infamous afterword, "Meanwhile, Back at the Wall..." that Tyrion, Dany, and Jon Snow would be back in the next book, and so they are. Those three characters dominate A DANCE WITH DRAGONS. Out of 73 chapters, 35 concern their exploits; sixteen viewpoints, aye, but just three of them make up almost half of the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 11, 2011, 09:22:04 PM
Yea, I know that much. I was wondering if he was going to continue to alternate characters like this going forward.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 11, 2011, 10:48:28 PM
Like Merusk said, it was done previously for editing purposes and due to the fact that some PoVs were complete while others weren't.

There are only supposed to be two more books though so it would be difficult to split them again.  Having two books which both end the series but are released years apart would kill the narrative by spoiling the ending in advance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 12, 2011, 10:31:31 AM
I forgot where I read it, but I did see that GRRM confirmed that book 6 would bring everybody back together again, and not be split.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 12, 2011, 12:01:58 PM
He says a lot of things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2011, 09:18:35 PM
There was a time they had maybe one great scene an episode that made it worth watching, episode 9 had three, the reveal of Aemon Targaryen, Tyrion's marriage story and the Baelor statue scene at the end.

Edit doh, fixed thanks Abagadro


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 12, 2011, 09:34:23 PM
Such a great episode.  The complete omission of any battle scenes is slightly worrying though.  If you are a non book reader and regular internet user who made it this far without being spoilered: congratulations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: harmonicker on June 12, 2011, 10:47:47 PM
Such a great episode.  The complete omission of any battle scenes is slightly worrying though.  If you are a non book reader and regular internet user who made it this far without being spoilered: congratulations.

That episode was the sex. Also, while I skim this thread, I just scroll "lalalalalalala" in large font across my corneas.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 12, 2011, 11:53:04 PM
There was a time they had maybe one great scene an episode that made it worth watching, episode 8 had three, the reveal of Aemon Targaryen, Tyrion's marriage story and the Baelor statue scene at the end.

This was episode 9 which unfortunately means it is season finale next week.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2011, 03:47:01 AM
Ahh, I didn't know what everyone meant by the Baelor statue and I just Googled to discover.  Apparently some folks WERE surprised.

Also, my search gave me this gem to add to the collective lexicon:

Quote
* HBO's habit of livening up the history lesson with a few randomly inserted porn scenes spawned a brand new word, "sexposition."



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 13, 2011, 05:19:34 AM
Such a great episode.  The complete omission of any battle scenes is slightly worrying though.  If you are a non book reader and regular internet user who made it this far without being spoilered: congratulations.

That episode was the sex. Also, while I skim this thread, I just scroll "lalalalalalala" in large font across my corneas.

Oh, i didn't mean here.  Nobody here would spoil something like that.  The IMDB forums are full of spoilers though, usually on the thread titles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 13, 2011, 08:01:43 AM
NSFW: Language, Ep9 Spoilers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owf6D2vfZqM&feature=youtu.be



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 13, 2011, 08:33:54 AM
Very well done with the scene at the Sept of Baelor. I obviously knew what was coming and still found myself very emotionally involved in the scene. Great writing/acting/directing/filming.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 13, 2011, 09:39:02 AM
I thought Ned seeing Arya and sending Yoren to get her was a nice touch and an improvement over the book, kind of a last good bye act.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 13, 2011, 10:28:27 AM
It was the only way to do it, I think.  Yoren hasn't been really well established yet, and his character is different somewhat from the book.  What they did fits well with what they have.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on June 13, 2011, 11:33:46 AM
NSFW: Language, Ep9 Spoilers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owf6D2vfZqM&feature=youtu.be

I still laugh out loud every time I think of this video hours after having watched it.  Hilarious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on June 13, 2011, 12:03:33 PM
I knew last night had to be That Episode because a bunch of people in my WoW guild were all:

WHO HERE WATCHES GAME OF THRONES
WHAT THE FUCK GUYS
SERIOUSLY
WHO DOES THAT


etc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on June 13, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
Haven't read the books and actually have managed to stay un-spoiled on the show. Last episode didn't really surprise me, I mean.. the events are fairly obvious, I thought. Don't know how so many seemed to be surprised at 'that' scene, I figured something like that would happen as soon as the King made his offer at Winterfell. Most of the big events so far have been like that; obvious a mile away.

Enjoying the show.. generally in spite of several characters/actors (all of which are still alive). Hopefully season 2 has a better budget, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 13, 2011, 12:39:56 PM
I gotta admit it was a bit more obvious on the show than in the book.  In the book it was already known that Jamie was captured and that Ned would likely be traded for him, the killing came completely out of nowhere.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 13, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
Yeah, the show didn't do as good of a job hiding it.  There was a lot of build up to how he was going to be sent to the wall instead during the book.  When I first read the book, I was under the impression Ned was basically the main character whom the series would revolve around (as most standard fantasy books would do), so him continuing in exile at the wall with his Bastard son would make sense.  That was a good dose wtf when that happened.

Still, Sean Bean was probably the most famous actor on the show, and playing the most major role, so I can imagine it surprised people just for that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on June 13, 2011, 03:41:38 PM
I had several friends message me on IM today with almost the exact same message.

"Game of Thrones. WTF"

I havent watched last nights episode, but knew what was coming.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on June 13, 2011, 04:03:50 PM
Need to catch the latest episode, but yes, my two minor complaints with how the show has handled the Ned plotline would be:
- less buildup of the expectation that he'd be allowed to take the black (which the book did a good bit of)
- ignoring the bit where Sansa effectively sells them out by going to Cersei when she's upset that Ned's sending them back to Winterfell

Though the handling of Sansa being bullied by Cersei and the small council to write the letter to Rob, etc, seemed very well handled.

Overall, they seem to just keep raising the bar.  I continue to enjoy the ride.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on June 13, 2011, 04:26:29 PM
Shae (Sibel Kekilli) has some RL surprises for you guys if you do the research.  Enjoy!  I recommend cocoa butter or sunflower oil.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 13, 2011, 06:03:51 PM
Shae (Sibel Kekilli) has some RL surprises for you guys if you do the research.  Enjoy!  I recommend cocoa butter or sunflower oil.   :awesome_for_real:
....wow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on June 13, 2011, 09:15:47 PM
They managed to muster a goodly number of people for the crowd scenes in episode 9.   Very nice episode -- well executed.  Lots of little, well-done pieces too, like Maester Aemon's answer to Jon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 13, 2011, 09:28:46 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 13, 2011, 09:31:18 PM
There was a time they had maybe one great scene an episode that made it worth watching, episode 9 had three, the reveal of Aemon Targaryen, Tyrion's marriage story and the Baelor statue scene at the end.

OTOH episode 8 had about 100 great scenes. To me as I haven't read the books, episode 9 felt rather slow after the swift changes throughout episode 8.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 13, 2011, 09:35:53 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on June 14, 2011, 12:34:56 AM
Wow.  The reactions from people who have never read the books (mostly in other, more 'mainstream' forums) is a bit crazy in places.

I mean, I was pretty shocked when it happened in the first book, but it more or less completely sold me on the series -- goddamn this is not yet another run of the mill fantasy story and major characters are not necessarily safe.

Will be interesting to see if it actually drives away some of the audience or it just pulls them further in after they digest things a bit...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 14, 2011, 03:46:01 AM
It's exactly what I was expecting. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 14, 2011, 05:16:44 AM
Apart from liking Tyrion a lot, I seem to remember the 1st book being pretty standard stuff, well written sure but I sort of knew what to expect.  Then it just goes off the rails and I remember rereading a few pages, because I wasn't sure what to think any more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 14, 2011, 05:40:46 AM
There's no way the ratings go down, the series only gets better


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 14, 2011, 07:00:48 AM
Shae (Sibel Kekilli) has some RL surprises for you guys if you do the research.  Enjoy!  I recommend cocoa butter or sunflower oil.   :awesome_for_real:

Ah, thats right. Fragile American heads might explode from some of the exposure. Lets just say she is uniquely qualified to play a whore, and its none of that "I was young and needed the money" softcore weaksauce  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 14, 2011, 07:43:21 AM
She's also a good actress if you have ever seen Head-On (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0347048/), I knew I'd seen her before.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 14, 2011, 07:47:28 AM
Like almost everybody else in this show. The casting is really top-notch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 14, 2011, 07:51:59 AM
I wasn't sure about the guy playing Jon Snow but he's sort of grown on me.

(http://i.imgur.com/X86HN.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on June 14, 2011, 08:37:22 AM
I'm trying to remember the initial Lannister force sizes, when the dad gives half* the host to Jamie he gave him what? 15k?

Overall it isn't clear what Robb has accomplished in episode 9 or how but as long as they talk about it for a second I'll be satisfied.

re: the big surprise from a non book reader.

I was more shocked that the threat to Sansa was enough to get Ned to cave than I was on the double cross. That was surprising too don't get me wrong but I honestly didn't think he would comply 100% with what they wanted him to say.

*durp not 'have'


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 14, 2011, 11:55:51 AM
The guy who protected the Arya was the Robert's bastard son, right?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on June 14, 2011, 12:07:59 PM
No, that was Yoren, the Night's Watch recruiter guy.  He was previously seen talking with Tyrion at the wall, and, uh, another scene I forgot I think?  With Catelyn at the inn maybe.  

He was in King's Landing on his recruit sweep and also conveniently placed to take Ned north when he gets pardoned & takes the black.

Not actual spoilers, just pictures:

Yoren:

Robert's bastard son (Gendry):



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 14, 2011, 12:17:59 PM
Yeah, he was at the inn.  He also let Ned know what happened at the inn once he arrived at King's Landing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2011, 12:19:50 PM
Still, Sean Bean was probably the most famous actor on the show, and playing the most major role, so I can imagine it surprised people just for that.

This was me. Right up until the end I expected him to make it out somehow. I thought maybe his daughter would run up and stick Joffry in the chao sack with Needle or something. Why? Because that's what you expect in fantasy. I definitely need to read the books then.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2011, 12:21:51 PM
Shae (Sibel Kekilli) has some RL surprises for you guys if you do the research.  Enjoy!  I recommend cocoa butter or sunflower oil.   :awesome_for_real:
....wow.

Hate to post twice in a row but WOW is right. Did not see that coming (but she did  :grin: )


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 14, 2011, 12:27:44 PM
I'm trying to remember the initial Lannister force sizes, when the dad gives half* the host to Jamie he gave him what? 15k?

Overall it isn't clear what Robb has accomplished in episode 9 or how but as long as they talk about it for a second I'll be satisfied.



Tywin said they had 60k soldiers and he gave Jamie half.  The battle we see in the book is exactly as was shown on screen, Cat sitting on a hill watching horses through the trees, it isn't until later that various characters describe what happened.  Theon should describe it in the next episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 14, 2011, 01:37:07 PM
(http://stopdialoging.tumblr.com/photo/1280/6514271969/1/tumblr_lmrneeYWiz1qk8oot)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Aez on June 14, 2011, 06:08:47 PM
I only watched the TV series.  I'd like a non spoilerish reply  :why_so_serious:

The Baratheon (deer?) kingdom should be as big has the Stark or Lanister Kingdom?  If Renly Baratheon (Robert's brother) comes back with his army, he can instantly win the war by siding with either the wolf or the lion?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 14, 2011, 06:23:21 PM
I holy watched the TV series.  I'd like a non spoilerish reply  :why_so_serious:

The Baratheon (deer?) kingdom should be as big has the Stark or Lanister Kingdom?  If Renly Baratheon (Robert's brother) comes back with his army, he can instantly win the war by siding with either the wolf or the lion?

I'm not sure about instantly win, but can definitely tip the scales pretty seriously one way or the other.

And don't forget Renly's older brother Stannis (has he appeared on screen yet?  I don't think so) - the one Ned said should be king.  He has an army too - so depending on who he sides with will affect it too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 14, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
I don't really see either Borathean brother siding with the Lanninsters since that pretty much means " I don't want to be King and would like to be poisoned to any threat I might pose".

Sibel Kekilli: I thought that was her, but she looks different to me than she used to. She's lost a lot of weight (Not that she was chubby) and it looks sort of like she had her nose thinned.

I've watched "that scene" a few times just to watch the smug look on that kids face while his mom and everyone else is going "WTF are you doing, stop this shit!". As big a weasel as he is, he should have went with Littlefinger's plan. Not because he wanted run things or he trusted littlefinger, but because that kid was a shit human being and was obviously going to be a shit King. Mad King the second sort of bad.

Also, spoiler question:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 14, 2011, 07:14:14 PM
I don't really see either Borathean brother siding with the Lanninsters since that pretty much means " I don't want to be King and would like to be poisoned to any threat I might pose".

Sibel Kekilli: I thought that was her, but she looks different to me than she used to. She's lost a lot of weight (Not that she was chubby) and it looks sort of like she had her nose thinned.

I've watched "that scene" a few times just to watch the smug look on that kids face while his mom and everyone else is going "WTF are you doing, stop this shit!". As big a weasel as he is, he should have went with Littlefinger's plan. Not because he wanted run things or he trusted littlefinger, but because that kid was a shit human being and was obviously going to be a shit King. Mad King the second sort of bad.

Also, spoiler question:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 14, 2011, 07:34:50 PM
Sean Bean stabbed in bar fight, orders another drink. (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Actor Sean Bean defends woman gets punched stabbed refuses medical treatment/4944428/story.html)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 14, 2011, 07:35:08 PM
I holy watched the TV series.  I'd like a non spoilerish reply  :why_so_serious:

The Baratheon (deer?) kingdom should be as big has the Stark or Lanister Kingdom?  If Renly Baratheon (Robert's brother) comes back with his army, he can instantly win the war by siding with either the wolf or the lion?

Remember also that Renly has the Tyrells on his side because of his boy toy backing him up.  That is actually quite a bit more than either Lannister or Stark.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on June 14, 2011, 08:03:18 PM
Really?

I realize that Highgarden is one of the big seven but does Loris (?) call the shots for them? I figured that the Lannistar's 30k was probably the largest army of the seven considering how they are touted as being so ridiculously wealthy.

I enjoy all this much as I enjoyed the Inner Sphere Houses machinations in the Battletech universe.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 14, 2011, 08:25:44 PM
Sean Bean stabbed in bar fight, orders another drink. (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Actor Sean Bean defends woman gets punched stabbed refuses medical treatment/4944428/story.html)

Platinum man-card.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 14, 2011, 08:54:25 PM
I realize that Highgarden is one of the big seven but does Loris (?) call the shots for them? I figured that the Lannistar's 30k was probably the largest army of the seven considering how they are touted as being so ridiculously wealthy.

A quick read of some wiki explains that the Tyrells land is the most fertile, most populated, and has the largest army. Sort of the breadbasket of continent. House lannister has a better equipped army, and most certainly the most bright red with lions on everything army. Which while looking titties, has lilited utility in sword and board warfare with both sides using steel. And regardless of technology/setting being used, having lots of food is critical before your guys marh out the front door.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 15, 2011, 06:57:30 AM
Really?

I realize that Highgarden is one of the big seven but does Loris (?) call the shots for them? I figured that the Lannistar's 30k was probably the largest army of the seven considering how they are touted as being so ridiculously wealthy.

I enjoy all this much as I enjoyed the Inner Sphere Houses machinations in the Battletech universe.

It's what Loras seemed to imply during the blowjob scene, "you be king and we'll back you up".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DLRiley on June 15, 2011, 08:24:53 AM

Hmm I found episode 9 very abbreviated. Too much material to cover all at once, 55 minutes wasn't nearly enough it felt. By the time I got my nerd boner the show ended and i'm left with a stiffy/  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 15, 2011, 08:34:15 AM
Yeah ep 9 was back to  :oh_i_see: after 8. It worked so well with the full on assault of stuff constantly happening in ep 8, I don't know why they went back to plodding through the first major battles of the war. The bits with Jon were done well, and they got value from the end, but they could have sped it up in between. Oh well.

The actors playing Jorath (spelling), the Lord Commander and Bronn are doing a great jobs, and the guy doing Varys is growing on me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 15, 2011, 10:01:30 AM
Jorah reminds me of a younger version of Dos Equis "most interesting man in the universe".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 15, 2011, 12:54:58 PM
Most interesting man in (exiled from) Westros?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 15, 2011, 02:28:43 PM
Jorah reminds me of a younger version of Dos Equis "most interesting man in the universe".

He sounds like Deckard Cain's lost son. "Stay awhile and listen, Khaleesi..."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 15, 2011, 03:53:09 PM
GoT does...Star Wars!!!  :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6803WzaxzX0

But then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUAfFNqm09o

 :grin: :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 15, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
GoT does...Star Wars!!!  :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6803WzaxzX0
At first I was like  :oh_i_see:
Quote

But then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUAfFNqm09o

 :grin: :grin:
Then, I lol'd.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2011, 09:53:26 AM
When Jeor Mormont gives Jon the sword does he mention at all what kind of sword it is?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 17, 2011, 09:56:48 AM
I believe it's mentioned when he slides it out of the sheath.  Whether it's with Jeor or his friends, I can't recall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2011, 10:02:22 AM
Not the Valyrian steel stuff, what kind of sword it actually is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 17, 2011, 10:04:05 AM
Nope. No "bastard" word play.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2011, 10:07:13 AM
Seems like a silly thing to omit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 17, 2011, 11:46:34 AM
Seems like a silly thing to omit.

 :grin:

In other news, HBO just confirmed that Season Two filming will start on July 25th, just one day shy of last year's start; also, there will be a Game of Thrones panel at Comic-Con:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/06/game-of-thrones-at-comic-con/

Interview with Emilia Clarke on nymag.com

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/emilia_clarke.html

Quote
What about the scene where you're eating the horse’s heart? What was that actually made out of?

That was one of those amazing scenes that you get as an actor that there’s just no acting required — at all. It was disgusting! They promised me that it would taste similar to a gummy bear and it definitely didn’t. It was kind of like … the best way to describe it is sort of a congealed jam kind of thing. On the outtakes, there will be me heaving into a bucket. It’s such a reflex, when you taste something that’s just so revolting, you kind of instantly just want to get rid of it. It’s safe to say that I didn’t eat lunch that day.

Ugh. "The things we do for acting".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 17, 2011, 12:17:33 PM
I'm going to be over in N. Ireland around that date for a few days, I was thinking of checking out Castle Ward either this visit or next.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2011, 01:41:40 PM
Wait, she ate a fucking horse heart for real? holy fuck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 17, 2011, 01:50:06 PM
No, she is saying it was stage craft effects (i.e. some sort of molded gelatin) but that it was disgusting anyways.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 19, 2011, 06:58:30 PM
Fucking perfect.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 19, 2011, 07:01:10 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 19, 2011, 07:18:25 PM
 :drill:  :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 19, 2011, 07:23:14 PM
You might want to spoiler that for a few days Lucas.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 19, 2011, 09:05:57 PM
Fuck, you mean I have to wait until next spring for this to continue. God... damnit.

Started reading the first book and am loving it so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 19, 2011, 09:46:10 PM
Fuck, you mean I have to wait until next spring for this to continue. God... damnit.

Started reading the first book and am loving it so far.
I started reading the series about 13 years ago, and have only gotten 2 additional books added in that time.  Your bitching about having to wait for Song of Ice and Fire material is quaint.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 19, 2011, 10:40:30 PM
Yea, I started what, ten years ago? Read all four one after another.

Very solid episode (minus maybe the 2 minutes seen of old Maester and Roz, aka the HBO sexposition scene)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 20, 2011, 02:03:35 AM
Loved it.  It's going to interesting to see if the buzz builds over the next year and what the viewing figures are for the start of series 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 20, 2011, 05:59:55 AM
Fuck, you mean I have to wait until next spring for this to continue. God... damnit.


Complaining about a 1 year wait? Oh my sweet summer child. What do you know of waiting? Waiting is for the long night, when GRRM hides for years and children are born and live and die all before the next book comes out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 20, 2011, 07:09:43 AM
I started rereading the series (I only read up to book 3 when book 3 first came out) and I'm coming up on book 4 and I can't wait.  So I still have two books of fresh story waiting for me.   :grin:

The season needs to be 12-15 eps long.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MournelitheCalix on June 20, 2011, 08:51:31 AM
Very solid episode (minus maybe the 2 minutes seen of old Maester and Roz, aka the HBO sexposition scene)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on June 20, 2011, 08:56:15 AM
The season needs to be 12-15 eps long.

This is my biggest complaint. Especially going forward as the books get longer. I would say that 16 episode season would allow for much more of the nuance from the book to be shown.

Great last episode, except for the Roz pat, which felt forced and pointless.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 20, 2011, 09:04:33 AM
Very solid episode (minus maybe the 2 minutes seen of old Maester and Roz, aka the HBO sexposition scene)


I honestly don't remember, its been ten years since I read it, so someone else will have to answer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 20, 2011, 09:15:53 AM
Very solid episode (minus maybe the 2 minutes seen of old Maester and Roz, aka the HBO sexposition scene)


I'm quite certain that was added in for the show.

I was unsure of the show after episode one, but it picked up quite nicely through it's whole run. I think a lot of the issues I found with it stem entirely from it only being 10 episodes.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 20, 2011, 09:41:04 AM
Exposition whore was entirely a show creation, but Maester Pycelle is more than he lets on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 20, 2011, 09:54:38 AM
Exposition whore was entirely a show creation, but Maester Pycelle is more than he lets on.

I think it was a good bit of addition. Not sure if old man wang through robe was necessary, but I liked that it showed even the old Master was acting a part. It gave a lot of weight to the earlier scene with Lord Bailish and the Eunuch, showing they aren't the only ones who are plotting in the court.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 20, 2011, 10:09:49 AM
Pycelle part really caught me off guard.  Makes me wonder.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 20, 2011, 10:22:01 AM
I did enjoy our sneak peak at Jaqen H'ghar, Rorge, and Biter as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 20, 2011, 10:22:33 AM
Exposition whore was entirely a show creation, but Maester Pycelle is more than he lets on.

I didn't read the book but that's what they showed, it was a bit subtle so maybe you guys missed it.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on June 20, 2011, 10:25:46 AM
It also has him talking about how Aerys started off as a charming and likeable fellow who eventally went bonkers and started burning people.

Cut to scene of charming and likeable princess relative of Aerys who, well, starts burning someone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 20, 2011, 10:35:36 AM
hehe I forgot about that, very nice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 20, 2011, 10:38:22 AM
Hay look, in that interview, they say they intentionally portrayed the weeding night as rape. Imagine that.

In other news, I'm only up to like Episode 3 or 4.

Having not read the books. Rome, Spartacus, and a number of others were better pilots.  I'm not felling this, seems like some generic fantasy, oh, and rapeings.

If you stick with it, I'd like you to post your feelings after the 6th episode has aired.  It's a dense plot with lots of characters so I'm actually kinda envious of people who haven't read the books.

Still MEH.

I feel like I have seen this story many many times before.


Also, They are still Elves.  :grin:  Just Dragon worshiping ones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 20, 2011, 11:34:43 AM
Weren't you suppose to wait until after you got past episode 6?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 20, 2011, 11:41:01 AM
You should stop posting until you finish the season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 20, 2011, 11:48:36 AM
You should stop posting until you finish the season.

This would be ideal  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 20, 2011, 11:50:40 AM
I seriously do not think the spoiler seen a mile away will change it. I do like the production though. The acting is good, but I already like many of the actors in it, its the really really generic story I have issue with so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 20, 2011, 12:53:59 PM
Which I cant really understand, since GoT is probably the least generic fantasy I've ever read.

Which is also why you should probably watch the whole season before passing judgement (not just for the spoiler you mentioned).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 20, 2011, 01:48:21 PM
I think I prefer links and no explanation to original thought.  Let's go back to that, MrB.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 20, 2011, 02:14:28 PM
Covering my eyes and not reading any of the rest of this thread because, as usual, I'm many weeks behind the rest of you with this.

Just watched 3rd episode and I am loving this, a lot. Beautifully filmed, superb sets, locations and costumes. Attention to detail is fantastic, the acting is excellent and the dialogue is funny and snappy and sharp. The story feels a tiny bit generic and predictable, but I'm hoping to be proved wrong. The characters feel slightly stereotypical and right from episode 1 you could tell who was a goodie and who was a baddie and in exactly what way, but again, hoping to be proved wrong with that. Doesn't mean I don't think the characters are well done, they are, they're just a bit transparent.

Regardless, it's highly enjoyable and has more quality and skill in a single scene than (for instance) the BBC manage in an entire series of any of their showcase productions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 20, 2011, 02:22:34 PM
The characters start out in their more obvious roles through book 1 (season 1 TV wise), but characters end up develop in different directions than expected (imo).  This might be a bit weaker with the TV series, however, since with the rush to cram the entire first book into 10 episodes, they've had to skip over a lot of the more subtle traits of each character, and their development.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 20, 2011, 03:38:04 PM
Great official photos from yesterday's finale (just hit the play button):

http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones#/game-of-thrones/episodes/1/10-fire-and-blood/slideshow.html

And here's the tune from the last scene, directly from the official soundtrack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-aPeKKP4Sk


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on June 20, 2011, 03:42:38 PM
Pycelle and whores...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 20, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
Court intriguey stuff


I did find it interesting how in a series which is so squashed for time, they added in a few scenes from book 2 (Catelyn and her prisoner, the final scene with Arya.  And no mention of the Riverrun scenes?  That seems an unusual omission to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tarami on June 20, 2011, 09:27:43 PM
It's funny how I agree with MrBW on many of these things.

I read the first book some years ago but never picked the next up because of primarily one thing - the utter dim-witted fuckstupidity of the characters and the plotting. I'll bring up some examples that as far as I remember were translated to screen:

- Let's assassinate a contender to the throne by planting a cask of poisoned wine. Let's not use a projectile weapon or anything that might may actually allow us to confirm the kill or has a chance of success greater than one in a zillion.
- I have a terrible secret and I'm going to spill it eventhough I'm convinced the same people tried to murder my son, a young child, in cold blood.
- Nobody has in almost fifteen years picked up on that none of my children carries any of my traits - not even myself.
- Let's arrest, no, kidnap, one of the members of the richest house in the land and brother of the queen, then take him far away. This is obviously going to go down much better than straight murder would. Long-winded excuse to murder makes all the difference to his relatives.
- I'm an educated young man, even familiar with the legal system, yet I've missed that only psychopaths and criminals end up in the Foreign Legion, I mean, Night's Watch.
- We captured a lawless clanswoman that tried to rob and murder our younger brother, then put her to work with light household chores, so that she can utter cryptic blurbs to that same brother when needed. She just seemed like the trustworthy sort.
- Being the sole survivor of an attack from an unknown enemy is grounds for having your head chopped off - no questions asked. Nevermind investigating his story regardless of how true it is, because that might be useful strategic information.
- Month-long patrols are the norm in inhospitable environments like north of the Wall, inner Sahara and the Siberian tundra. Turning up dead after six months is a mystery (and it is - the turning up part, not the being dead part.)
- Don't make us angry, because that might make us take up sailing and be capable of threatening an entire continent that is better equipped, has better supply lines, a long tradition of warfare and is familiar with the landscape. Oh, and has lots of castles and experienced commanders. We on the other hand are VERY ferocious, VERY stupid and VERY impulsive - the kind of shit that really matter in military campaigns.
- Winter is coming, but it's not in a hurry. It will arrive at Convenience station at plot-contrivance'o'clock.

There's also the foot-changing of "it's medieval, no, it's fantasy, no, yes, no, yes, it's both at whim and it's grimdark and everyone's exactly 50% morally grey."

I've wanted to like it but I can't. I want to believe that there's a payoff for all the rambling and digressions, I just don't from all the things I've heard. It just stands out to me that Martin isn't capable of actually weaving all this together, because he couldn't get through the first volume without having to patch up the leaky narrative framework.

Was that a better argument for why one wouldn't enjoy the show very much?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 09:51:47 PM
Must... not... SirBruce...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 20, 2011, 10:17:26 PM
 :facepalm:

edit: I mean, seriously, that's just got to be blatant trolling trying to push our nerd buttons.  Because otherwise.. see above.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 20, 2011, 10:36:38 PM
The characters start out in their more obvious roles through book 1 (season 1 TV wise), but characters end up develop in different directions than expected (imo).  This might be a bit weaker with the TV series, however, since with the rush to cram the entire first book into 10 episodes, they've had to skip over a lot of the more subtle traits of each character, and their development.

Well that's encouraging to hear. Tbh what I've seen so far has so many other redeeming features that it'd have to start fucking up in a major way for me to stop watching.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on June 20, 2011, 11:31:14 PM
I can agree with Tarami to a point, though not necessarily the examples he gave out. At times, as someone who hasn't read the books (so if there's actual reasoning that simply didn't make it to the screen, forgive me), but I found various characters hard to like, or take seriously (and the world itself) because of just how utterly fucking stupid they are. Cat being one of them. Cersei another, as well as Mr. Crown of Gold. I get people are stupid, but the degree of sheer stupidity from these, and a couple others, stretches the ability to take them seriously at all, or have much sympathy when shit goes awry because of it.

Ned Stark is one that, while stupid at times, I can see his rationale for his actions. His wife? Not at all. She's just utterly idiotic. Made the show worse, but I'm not sure if its because of the adaptation effect, or the characters are simply that dumb to kick of plot cascades and we're supposed to kinda glance past it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 21, 2011, 12:05:15 AM
And no mention of the Riverrun scenes?  That seems an unusual omission to me.

It probably would've placed further strain upon their budget to create yet another set for Riverrun, not to mention another set of actors/actresses, which would be excessive considering it would only be used for a single episode.  To create yet another set for an unproven series, and cast even more people for said unproven series, would have been spending good money after bad from the perspective of HBO.  They obviously won't have that same problem next season when it really counts, and have likely cast those roles by now.   I consider the decision negligible, really, as Riverrun doesn't play that big of a role until the second book anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 21, 2011, 03:09:17 AM
Hay look, in that interview, they say they intentionally portrayed the weeding night as rape. Imagine that.

In other news, I'm only up to like Episode 3 or 4.

Having not read the books. Rome, Spartacus, and a number of others were better pilots.  I'm not felling this, seems like some generic fantasy, oh, and rapeings.

If you stick with it, I'd like you to post your feelings after the 6th episode has aired.  It's a dense plot with lots of characters so I'm actually kinda envious of people who haven't read the books.

Still MEH.

I feel like I have seen this story many many times before.


Also, They are still Elves.  :grin:  Just Dragon worshiping ones.

I thought we cleared the rape thing up by saying the book portrayed things differently, mind you, I thought you already said you only intended to watch the first three episodes and you weren't impressed.  If you want my permission to dislike the show, it's granted, that's absolutely fine with me.  Just because I like it doesn't mean you have to.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 21, 2011, 07:06:32 AM
I can agree with Tarami to a point, though not necessarily the examples he gave out. At times, as someone who hasn't read the books (so if there's actual reasoning that simply didn't make it to the screen, forgive me), but I found various characters hard to like, or take seriously (and the world itself) because of just how utterly fucking stupid they are. Cat being one of them. Cersei another, as well as Mr. Crown of Gold. I get people are stupid, but the degree of sheer stupidity from these, and a couple others, stretches the ability to take them seriously at all, or have much sympathy when shit goes awry because of it.

The actual flaws such as stupidity, cruelty and madness of significant emperors, kings and dukes is well documented. Commodus, George III, Wilhelm II, etc. Dynastic succession during fat times produces some real winners.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 21, 2011, 02:06:48 PM
Great news regarding the ratings:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/06/season-finale-sets-a-ratings-high/

I think it's one of those series that could sell quite well as DVD/Blue Ray; to that, add the hype for the fifth book (yes, not the exact same audience of the TV series, in a way), people that will catch up with the first season, a couple big names for the new roles (especially Stannis and Melisandre) and we could very well have a season 2 premiere around, at least, 3.5 millions and an increase in subscribers.

It's very important, because it may convince the big heads over at HBO to green light the third season (which both the writers and George himself would love to see split in two seasons) and increase the budget.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morfiend on June 21, 2011, 02:28:37 PM
I can agree with Tarami to a point, though not necessarily the examples he gave out. At times, as someone who hasn't read the books (so if there's actual reasoning that simply didn't make it to the screen, forgive me), but I found various characters hard to like, or take seriously (and the world itself) because of just how utterly fucking stupid they are. Cat being one of them. Cersei another, as well as Mr. Crown of Gold. I get people are stupid, but the degree of sheer stupidity from these, and a couple others, stretches the ability to take them seriously at all, or have much sympathy when shit goes awry because of it.

The actual flaws such as stupidity, cruelty and madness of significant emperors, kings and dukes is well documented. Commodus, George III, Wilhelm II, etc. Dynastic succession during fat times produces some real winners.

I also think a lot the these characters flaws are more obvious and prominent because the show has such limited about of time to portray it all. They have to show the big stuff while cutting down on the small stuff. This goes back to my gripe that the season is only 10 episodes long. Making book 3 two seasons would be fantastic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 21, 2011, 03:32:15 PM
And no mention of the Riverrun scenes?  That seems an unusual omission to me.

It probably would've placed further strain upon their budget to create yet another set for Riverrun, not to mention another set of actors/actresses, which would be excessive considering it would only be used for a single episode. 

Yeah, good point.  I was thinking that a lot of characters etc which are important in Book 2 haven't been mentioned - but since series 2 has been greenlit it does make sense they'll get put in there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 22, 2011, 09:29:27 AM
Liked the last episode. Even the for the sake of it nudity didn't bother me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 22, 2011, 10:06:19 AM
And no mention of the Riverrun scenes?  That seems an unusual omission to me.

It probably would've placed further strain upon their budget to create yet another set for Riverrun, not to mention another set of actors/actresses, which would be excessive considering it would only be used for a single episode. 

Yeah, good point.  I was thinking that a lot of characters etc which are important in Book 2 haven't been mentioned - but since series 2 has been greenlit it does make sense they'll get put in there.

This season was already made and edited by the time the second season was greenlit so it wasn't possible for them to go back and add things due to its success and renewal.  HBO decided to produce a second season after the airing of the second episode, I think, or at least that's when I heard that they were starting their casting for roles like Stannis and the Tullys, etc. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 23, 2011, 12:07:32 PM
First official casting for Season 2!

Margaery Tyrell, sister of Loras Tyrell, will be portrayed by...

Natalie Dormer:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1754059/

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/06/natalie-dormer-to-play-margaery-tyrell/


(another thread for season 2, including pre-season casting & various multimedia, or we're fine as it is?)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Trippy on June 23, 2011, 12:41:17 PM
Yum.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 23, 2011, 12:41:55 PM
Man this is gonna be a long wait...

When does Sparticus come back on??


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2011, 12:47:01 PM
Next January.  :sad_panda:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2011, 12:59:59 PM
She was awesome in the Tudors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 23, 2011, 01:04:27 PM
Without spoiling anything, you may know that in the books she's supposedly just a little older than Sansa (in the books, I think she's 16), so there is already a little bitching going on about her being "too 'old' (1982) for the role". Personally, I don't care: I think we can agree that the acting in this show has been pretty *solid* at the very least, so I prefer to have a certain suspension of disbelief in order to get more proper acting. Oh, and by the way, just looking at the photos (I think I never watched a movie or a series with her) she looks a lot younger than a 29 yrs old.

Yum Yum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgWNjUHuq4A


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 23, 2011, 01:39:06 PM
I thought she was wonderful (and very easy on the eyes) in The Tudors. Even as I hated her character...until the end, when  I actually felt sorry for her. Not her dad though- fuck him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on June 23, 2011, 02:44:57 PM
Last episode (and the whole first season) was fan-fucking-tastic.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 23, 2011, 07:13:03 PM
Last episode (and the whole first season) was fan-fucking-tastic.


Do you want to be spoiled?  Cause the answer is out there if you want it.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2011, 07:21:43 PM
I thought his fate was left intentionally vague. Please, spoil away if you know something more than I do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 23, 2011, 08:00:49 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2011, 10:18:34 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 23, 2011, 10:30:25 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 23, 2011, 10:43:28 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 23, 2011, 10:48:59 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 24, 2011, 03:08:17 AM
Well, that was quick (unofficial photoshopped pic) :



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 24, 2011, 06:04:02 AM
I do love me some Natalie Dormer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on June 24, 2011, 07:00:20 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 24, 2011, 07:45:07 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 24, 2011, 12:52:17 PM

That would fucking rule.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 24, 2011, 12:59:48 PM
Some light Googling tells me that's just wishfull thinking and already contradicted in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 24, 2011, 01:21:12 PM

No that would be fucking retarded.  I much rather Syrio be some bad ass minor character who died in an awesome last stand than to completely ruin the character by that idiotic twist.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 24, 2011, 02:47:55 PM
Yeah, that particular theory is already dead since event timelines don't match up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on June 24, 2011, 03:16:10 PM
I'm pretty sure Martin scowled at some guy asking that question at a book signing and proclaimed him dead.  Syrio is dead.  Sorry.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 24, 2011, 06:14:30 PM
The implication in the TV series was that Syrio was sending Arya away so she didn't have to see him die. That is all. To a viewer who hasn't read the books it seemed clear that he was buying her time, as he knew he wouldn't survive fighting the more senior Lannister man who scoffed at the efforts of his underlings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 24, 2011, 08:05:34 PM
Wasn't a lannister man. Was ser meryn trant, a whitecloak (kingsguard). He's also the one who slapped Sansa around.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 27, 2011, 01:48:21 PM
Yeah, key difference is that he is Kingsguard, so hes suppose to be one of the best knights in the realm (though as Ser Barristan Selmy pointed out in his awesome "fuck you I'm out" scene, they aren't quite what they use to be).

Though I'm not sure the implication was as clear to common people as you make it Tale.  I've asked several people I know who watched the series but haven't read the books, and they're all certain that he's still alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 27, 2011, 02:27:34 PM
The book makes it pretty clear he's fucked, I think, as the last thing you see of him is him losing his weapon as I recall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 27, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
Yeah, key difference is that he is Kingsguard, so hes suppose to be one of the best knights in the realm (though as Ser Barristan Selmy pointed out in his awesome "fuck you I'm out" scene, they aren't quite what they use to be).

Though I'm not sure the implication was as clear to common people as you make it Tale.  I've asked several people I know who watched the series but haven't read the books, and they're all certain that he's still alive.

If you asked me that i would guess alive too, because there would assume you wouldn't be asking if he was dead.  In the book Syrio had already smacked the shit out of Trant several times to absolutely no effect before Arya ran away, the guy was wearing full plate armor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 27, 2011, 09:11:50 PM
It's ambiguous in the TV show, and it's really ambiguous in the book.  Martin usually kills people for you to see rather leaving you to "guess" at it.  He's not subtle about that.  I'm guessing alive as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on June 28, 2011, 06:55:52 AM
The only reason anyone would think Syrio is alive is because his character is likeable and therefore you want him to be allive.  If he was a shit, no one would give his survival a thought.  He had a wooden fucking sword against a guy in plate and he wasn't going to run away.  He is DEAD!  Use you brain, not your heart.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 28, 2011, 07:05:33 AM
1.) Syrio wouldn't have run away. "The First Sword of Braavos does not run"
2.) His enemy is seen in alive and unhurt in another scene soon after the confrontation

Draw your own conclussions from that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 28, 2011, 07:11:02 AM
And 3 the Lannisters will chop the head of absolutely everyone, even harmless septas.  There is no way for him to be alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 28, 2011, 08:17:09 AM
Good points.

But he's still alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 28, 2011, 08:43:16 AM
Even though the author says he's dead?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 28, 2011, 08:54:45 AM
Boy are you guys going to look foolish when he shows up riding a dragon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 28, 2011, 09:00:35 AM
OOOOH, maybe he killed Ser Meryn Trant and switched bodies through ancient Braavosi magic.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vaiti on June 28, 2011, 09:31:07 AM
Arya IS Syrio.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 28, 2011, 11:16:25 AM
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41488/syrio_hope.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 28, 2011, 11:25:37 AM
   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 28, 2011, 11:36:07 AM
   :why_so_serious:

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 28, 2011, 11:37:47 AM
Heh


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 28, 2011, 11:44:29 AM
Should be 'Not today'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on June 28, 2011, 11:56:06 AM
I think part of it is my inner nerd rage, having spent many countless hours debating that a master swordsman in light armor would be able to outclass even a moderately skilled foe in full plate, just by maneuverability alone.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 28, 2011, 12:18:51 PM
I think part of it is my inner nerd rage, having spent many countless hours debating that a master swordsman in light armor would be able to outclass even a moderately skilled foe in full plate, just by maneuverability alone.  :awesome_for_real:

Wait until book three  :nda:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 28, 2011, 12:31:35 PM
Even though the author says he's dead?

That's just a trick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vaiti on June 28, 2011, 12:45:17 PM
Ok, now for something that isn't about Syrio.
I don't want to be THAT guy, but having read the books and watched the series, one thing in the series that differed from the books bothered me alot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 28, 2011, 12:57:59 PM
Even though the author says he's dead?
That's just a trick.
Though, again, Martin hasn't actually said hes dead.

Ok, now for something that isn't about Syrio.
I don't want to be THAT guy, but having read the books and watched the series, one thing in the series that differed from the books bothered me alot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 28, 2011, 12:59:41 PM
Ok, now for something that isn't about Syrio.
I don't want to be THAT guy, but having read the books and watched the series, one thing in the series that differed from the books bothered me alot.

Not sure why you need to spoiler that.

I think they did the right thing.  In just about fight scene from the books that Tyrion is in, he comes across as an unbelievable badass.  So he's super smart and a dwarven killing machine at the same time.  OK.  :oh_i_see:

Playing him as a fool, was probably a bit much, but I think it's wise to steer clear of some parts of Martin's portrayal.

edit: and Whispering Woods is the battle where Jaime is captured.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 28, 2011, 01:13:39 PM
You are thinking of the battle of the green fork.  And yes it was 90% budgetary and 10% story driven, i agree that combat Tyrion is highly unbelievable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 28, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
I got the impression from the show he did get up and start fighting, and just trampling over him didn't knock him out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 28, 2011, 05:30:09 PM
Didn't Bronn specifically say "you missed the fight"? I might have imagined that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on June 28, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
Did he not smash someones face in a few episodes earlier ? With a shield if I remember correctly ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 28, 2011, 10:38:44 PM
Which also was a deviation from the book, where he killed the bandit with an freaking axe (Shagga Son of Dolf would be so proud).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on June 29, 2011, 07:37:49 AM
Finally saw ep10.  Excellent work, HBO.  I appreciated the gratuitous pan out of a hot, naked Dany.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 29, 2011, 11:00:27 AM
I'm hearing that spoilers about book 5 are starting to leak in places, so if you're worried about that sort of thing be very careful what you're reading on the Internet for the next couple weeks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 29, 2011, 11:17:48 AM
Cersi kills Dumbledore?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 29, 2011, 11:20:08 AM
Ugg.  I'm going to have to go into "Harry Potter release" internet mode.. again.  Yay.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 29, 2011, 11:20:17 AM
I just finished Feast for Crows this morning.  Good timing.   :drill:  

I would be pretty goddamn pissed if I'd read the book in 2005.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 29, 2011, 11:54:04 AM
/raises hand

2005 hardback suckers 4 Lyfe.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 29, 2011, 12:28:51 PM
/raises hand

2005 hardback suckers 4 Lyfe.

Just pulled out the hardback to give to my Dad who's reading the series for the first time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 29, 2011, 12:31:54 PM
I still can't find my copy of Clash of Kings.  I've scoured my entire house.  I'm going to have to buy a new version of the trade paperback.. it'll probably reference the TV show on the cover.  /barf


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on June 29, 2011, 12:35:05 PM
/raises hand

2005 hardback suckers 4 Lyfe.

Just pulled out the hardback to give to my Dad who's reading the series for the first time.

I'm actually torn on how I'm going to pick up Dance - kindle is super convenient, but I'm pretty sure the wife is going to want to read this when it comes out, so I might be better off just picking up the hardcover, so I don't have to buy it twice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 29, 2011, 01:05:07 PM
I never read the last book back in 2005.  Just started it last night for the first time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 29, 2011, 01:06:30 PM
I'll probably buy it for real AND on the Kindle, if I know myself.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 29, 2011, 01:09:11 PM
I just finished Feast for Crows this morning.  Good timing.   :drill:  

I would be pretty goddamn pissed if I'd read the book in 2005.

I waited for the paperback, but yeah, it's sucked.  I've given up re-reading since I don't have time and am instead re-skimming the series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on June 29, 2011, 03:06:13 PM
Finally saw ep10.  Excellent work, HBO.  I appreciated the gratuitous pan out of a hot, naked Dany.
Btw, did she lose her baby ? I remember something on the wiki about the dragon eggs "trading life for life".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 29, 2011, 04:07:44 PM
She did, but not for the reason you're thinking.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 29, 2011, 06:16:50 PM
Anyone who complained about aging up the children should be forced to watch Falling Skies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 29, 2011, 08:45:28 PM
I never read the last book back in 2005.  Just started it last night for the first time.

Me neither, but I bought an autographed copy of the hardback when it came out. So I'm reading it now (just finished re-reading the prior books).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 29, 2011, 09:21:02 PM
I never read the last book back in 2005.  Just started it last night for the first time.

Me neither, but I bought an autographed copy of the hardback when it came out. So I'm reading it now (just finished re-reading the prior books).
This is me too, except not autographed. I was really excited to read it until I heard none of my favorites were in there, so I put it aside until (now) Book 5 was almost out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 30, 2011, 09:51:19 AM
Pre-ordered ADWD yesterday, so expect the 'delayed indefinitely' announcement any day now. You're welcome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on June 30, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
Pre-ordered ADWD yesterday, so expect the 'delayed indefinitely' announcement any day now. You're welcome.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/224067.html

Quote
Yes, I know, Amazon Germany screwed up big time and started shipping A DANCE WITH DRAGONS before they were supposed to. I am told that about 180 copies got out before they were made aware of their mistake and shut down shipping.

I am not happy about this. My publishers are furious.

If we find out who is responsible, we will mount his head on a spike.

Some other retailers are making noises about releasing their own stocks early, using the Amazon error as a justification. They are not supposed to do this. If you hear of anyone actually selling or shipping copies in advance of the publication date, please inform me ASAP.

I know that the 180 readers who got advance copies are happy about this, but I assure you, my publishers are not. And thousands of other readers are now getting spoiled, most quite inadverently and unwillingly, as they stumble over the spoilers cropping up everywhere on the internet. (Some of the spoilers being posted are false, by the way). Most of those "lucky" 180 are keeping mum, to be sure, but there are always a few jerkwads in any group, and those are the ones who cannot keep their mouths shut.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 30, 2011, 09:59:45 AM
This is the same guy who told us that ADWD would be out in 2005, so I am not buying it until I get the delivery to my Kindle  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 30, 2011, 09:08:21 PM
Oh man, I haven't read the series in a long while, and I really wanted to reread it before getting to book 5.  Just been to busy until now to devote time to that.  Now I'm going to have to fend off god damn spoilers from this instant on as I try to read the entire series and get to the 5th book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 02, 2011, 01:53:23 AM
This is the same guy who told us that ADWD would be out in 2005, so I am not buying it until I get the delivery to my Kindle  :grin:

This is also the same guy that announced that the book was going to be released 2 weeks ago when they originally said "the book is done". They moved the date back to septamber not that long ago.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 02, 2011, 08:37:07 AM
Amazon is still showing a 7/12/11 release date for ADWD; is that incorrect?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 02, 2011, 11:34:50 AM
Amazon is still showing a 7/12/11 release date for ADWD; is that incorrect?

The local library shows a release date of 9/10. I have no actual clue when it will be released at this point and am waiting until I get an email saying my reserved copy is available to check out.

Of course, I could be wrong about all the release date stuff as I saw it was being released and mentioned to friends that hell was freezing over and promptly forgot about it so I may have gotten it confused with something else.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 02, 2011, 12:23:29 PM
The Library probably won't have funds to purchase it before that or pushed it off to 3rd quarter for other reasons (like huge demand for the book.)

Release date is still 7/12 and dealers already have it in-hand as the spoilers previously mentioned are coming from the ~7,000 people who Amazon accidentally shipped their copies to already.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 05, 2011, 08:07:51 AM
Since it appears Camelot is not going to be renewed Eva Green is going to be free and would make a damn good Melisandre.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DLRiley on July 05, 2011, 08:15:33 AM
Since it appears Camelot is not going to be renewed Eva Green is going to be free and would make a damn good Melisandre.

Hmm.......


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on July 08, 2011, 02:39:09 AM
One of the most beloved characters of the saga has been casted.

Brienne, the Maid of Tarth, will be played by british actress Gwendoline Christie (and yeah, she's TALL...6’3″):

http://grrm.livejournal.com/227044.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 08, 2011, 04:37:45 AM
She's not plain and horse-faced though.  Booo!

(Not that I expected them to follow-through on that in the slightest.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on July 08, 2011, 06:12:05 AM
I can see it. She's got a long face, just avoid the nice makeup and she'll be "plain" enough to pull it off. Never really thought of the character as that tall, but it makes sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on July 08, 2011, 06:19:54 AM
She's not plain and horse-faced though.  Booo!

(Not that I expected them to follow-through on that in the slightest.)

Make-up can make her plainer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on July 08, 2011, 06:29:44 AM
If I'm not mistaken, when we meet her in the books it is said that, beside the awkward muscular build, she easily towers  over most men.

Also, I love this description of her at the beginning of Book Four (not a spoiler, but just in case...):



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 08, 2011, 10:48:17 AM
Fantastic casting.  Getting someone that tall will go a long way toward making her believable as a badass female knight.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 08, 2011, 11:23:08 PM
She's not plain and horse-faced though.  Booo!

(Not that I expected them to follow-through on that in the slightest.)
Really?  I kind of thought from the pictures I've seen that  she is freakishly tall and ugly enough to fit. 


And I mean that in the nicest way possible.  But really:

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41488/Gwendoline_Christie.png)

She'll do fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 08, 2011, 11:40:16 PM
She's also meant to be super flat chested. Doesn't look unattractive enough, but makeup can do stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on July 09, 2011, 12:26:19 AM
Pretty sure some prosthetic horse teeth will do about 90% of the work, it is pretty easy to make yourself unattractive otherwise just by frowning a lot, etc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 09, 2011, 06:02:54 AM
Teeth will go a long way, yes.  I just think her face is the wrong l:w to really call her Horse Faced. 

http://blog.petegraham.co.uk/category/horse-face/

Yes, given the requirement of actually finding an actress to play the part, they did very well.  Hell, it was probably hard just finding someone that tall.   

I suppose my problem is I know of a woman locally who would have been perfect. Broad-shouldered, 6'-4", horsefaced and man hands.  She was a sales manager for a previous employer and who I always envisioined when I read about Brienne.  No, she was not a transexual, just a vicitim of genetics.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 09, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
One of the most beloved characters of the saga has been casted.

If that's true then I think the "why do nerds love cats?" thread was terribly misdirected. She's one of the most boring parts of book two. Also its TV she will be plenty ugly enough, its all about perspective and compared to everyone else she's no looker.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Azuredream on July 09, 2011, 04:53:13 PM
I liked her when she was serving as a counterpart to Jaime, but when she goes off on her own she's pretty boring. I'm more interested to see who they cast as Davos.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 09, 2011, 06:53:52 PM
Yeah, i don't think she is much beloved at all.  Certainly not one of my favorites.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 09, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
She was one of my favorite characters in book four.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 09, 2011, 07:56:44 PM
She was one of my favorite characters in book four.  :why_so_serious:

Considering that she was one of only like five main characters that had any time in book 4, that is not saying much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arinon on July 09, 2011, 09:18:50 PM
I'm more interested to see who they cast as Davos.

This goes for me as well.  A lot of Davos' appeal comes from his inner monologue and I'm hoping he doesn't get glossed over as he's one of my favourites.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 09, 2011, 10:38:36 PM
She was one of my favorite characters in book four.  :why_so_serious:

Considering that she was one of only like five main characters that had any time in book 4, that is not saying much.
That was kind of my point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 09, 2011, 11:17:33 PM
I'd say Arya, Tyrion, and Brienne are my top three favorite characters.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 10, 2011, 03:02:16 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 10, 2011, 03:15:32 PM
You never see Stanis or Davos much in book 2 anyway do you? Just the parlay where that thing happens and then nothing.  His army, sure, but no real long exposition scenes with him.  Book 3 is where you start to see all of Stanis' side of things play out.  Book 2 you have all of the Theon stuff.

And Tyrion. Lots and lots and lots of Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 11, 2011, 07:36:03 AM
Natalia Tena interview (http://skyatlantic.sky.com/videos/natalia-tena-interview).  I think I'm in love.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on July 11, 2011, 10:53:00 AM
Stupid hat.  A dumb hat never makes a lady better looking.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on July 14, 2011, 03:09:24 PM
Got garnered thirteen Emmy nominations:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/07/game-of-thrones-garners-13-emmy-nominations/

And also...This is frakkin' amazing: GoT theme fan-made mash-up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OWQXQgHgq8


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on July 14, 2011, 08:18:53 PM
Got garnered thirteen Emmy nominations:

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/07/game-of-thrones-garners-13-emmy-nominations/

And also...This is frakkin' amazing: GoT theme fan-made mash-up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OWQXQgHgq8
:heart:  :Love_Letters:  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on July 19, 2011, 02:13:19 PM
Melisandre of Asshai and Stannis Baratheon now both have a face;

(http://winter-is-coming.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/van-houten-and-dillane.jpg)


Melisandre will be played by Dutch actress Carice Van Houten; Stannis is portrayed by British actor Stephen Dillane

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0396924/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0226820/

Sorry, forgot to mention the original source, via fansite "Winter is Coming":

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/07/19/stannis-melisandre/

They should be officially announced during the upcoming GoT panel at Comic-con (maybe both of them will make a now not so surprising appearance :P)

I haven't checked myself (and I still have to receive my copy of the book), but of course if you read any comments section beware of possible "A Dance with Dragons" spoiler posted by ye usual, average internet moron :P


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 19, 2011, 02:19:42 PM
I approve!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 19, 2011, 04:10:41 PM
I wonder if they'll make him balder to be Stannis.  She looks great.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 19, 2011, 05:15:24 PM
I wonder if they'll make him balder to be Stannis.  She looks great.

Looking at his hairline, if he just goes for the "lowest setting on the trimmer" cut he will probably have just about the right amount of hair.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 19, 2011, 11:22:51 PM
Yeah, he has the perfect hairline for Stannis.  He wasn't straight bald.

Also, upon rereading the series, I'm finding there are many characters who are bald, but haven't had that translated to the screen.  Lord Tywin Lannister, Syrio, Mormont, ect.  I'm actually glad they didn't do that in all the cases.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2011, 11:29:32 PM
Pretty sure Stannis is supposed to just have a fringe around the edge, so they'll have to do some razor work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on July 20, 2011, 02:29:21 AM
....And more casting news!



- George R.R. Martin himself confirmed that Cressen, Maester of Dragonstone, willl be played by experienced British actor Oliver Ford Davies (he was the governor of Naboo in the SW Prequels, among other things) ;

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0203882/
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5TjoHMxwekA/TJTyofiNlXI/AAAAAAAAA20/HHTM4stEwcc/s400/Oliver+Ford+Davies+as+Sio+Bibble.jpg)

Source: http://grrm.livejournal.com/229097.html?thread=14353129#t14353129


- Davos Seaworth, The Onion Knight, Pirate Extraordinaire, will be played by Irish actor Liam Cunningham (formerly in Starz's "Camelot"):

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192377/
(http://images.askmen.com/photos/2008-sundance-film-festival-the-escapist-portraits/42920.jpg)


Source: http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/07/19/liam-cunningham-davos/


Dragonstone is filling up! I hope they won't cut Patchface, he's just too creepy :D





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 20, 2011, 05:23:56 AM
Pretty sure Stannis is supposed to just have a fringe around the edge, so they'll have to do some razor work.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Really like Davos' choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on July 20, 2011, 09:41:37 AM
That's a good Davos look.  I like.  And Patchface would be cool.

the shadows are coming to dance my lord, dance my lord, dance my lord. The shadows are coming to stay my lord, stay my lord, stay my lord...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zaljerem on July 20, 2011, 07:02:51 PM
I thought Stephen Dillane was great as Thomas Jefferson in "John Adams" ...

Season 2 can't come soon enough. Especially as I burned through A Dance With Dragons already ...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 22, 2011, 11:43:37 AM
Yeah, almost done re-reading Clash of Kings.  Great book, filled with action and political intrigue from the get go, unlike Game of Thrones.  Should be an awesome season, though I hope the budget doesn't constrain their ability to showing fighting to much.  There's a whole crap ton of fighting in this book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on July 25, 2011, 07:27:55 AM
So I finally acquired the first couple episodes and gave it a watch.  

Hell yeah, I'm on board.  Went and got the first book the next day.  Now I have to figure out which one I should spoil.

I actually didn't have too much trouble following who was who.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 25, 2011, 07:57:56 AM
I'd watch the show first.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 25, 2011, 09:30:43 AM
Yeah, the book definitely expands on the show quite a bit. I watched the show first and I think it's helped my reading immensely.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on July 25, 2011, 11:57:09 AM
Read the book first.  Show adds much more to the experience.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on July 25, 2011, 02:57:52 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 25, 2011, 03:00:44 PM
Your hoped for story is far too uplifting and happy for Martin to ever go in that direction.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on July 25, 2011, 03:04:22 PM
What's with the whole "here's a wall holding back a more epic threat" thing then? So-and-so could fuck his sister, push kids off walls AND have to fight the greater evil.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 25, 2011, 05:36:45 PM
So the wrights can all roll in at the end and kill all the humans and begin the reign of the cold.  The last sentence will be "Suckers."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 25, 2011, 08:04:48 PM
What's with the whole "here's a wall holding back a more epic threat" thing then? So-and-so could fuck his sister, push kids off walls AND have to fight the greater evil.

Pretty much.  :why_so_serious:

Honestly I think you have it sort of right, just GRRM got a bit full of himself and carried away and has added in 2-3 books of meh in there to draw things out. His verbatim excuse was "I realised the kids [Rickon is included as a key character in where the series was supposed to end up] weren't old enough to finish the plot arc yet". So he has to reach for another 5-10 years of crap to fill things out.

And then got writers block because he realised he is now committed to writing more boring bleh and doesn't have an escape plan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on July 25, 2011, 10:36:31 PM
What are you all talking about?  The supernatural stuff happening beyond the wall is, in my opinion, the least interesting parts of the story.  That's the humdrum generic fantasy literature that I could read anywhere else.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on July 25, 2011, 10:57:52 PM
What are you all talking about?  The supernatural stuff happening beyond the wall is, in my opinion, the least interesting parts of the story.  That's the humdrum generic fantasy literature that I could read anywhere else.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 25, 2011, 11:00:06 PM
What are you all talking about?  The supernatural stuff happening beyond the wall is, in my opinion, the least interesting parts of the story.  That's the humdrum generic fantasy literature that I could read anywhere else.


I agree that is is humdrum, however it is clearly the binding story arc. Dany and Jon are clearly meant to be the extremes of the world, in which everything else is contained, but at the moment there is little coherence (in the story, not the world). Everyone is just off doing their own thing, linked by the fact that they live in the same world and little else.

Which might make a more realistic world, but to be it also makes a boring story. I enjoyed the tighter focus of the first few books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on July 25, 2011, 11:33:00 PM
What are you all talking about?  The supernatural stuff happening beyond the wall is, in my opinion, the least interesting parts of the story.  That's the humdrum generic fantasy literature that I could read anywhere else.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on July 26, 2011, 12:58:04 AM
The TV show is probably why I see "winter is coming" as specifically meaning "the white walkers are coming, but it takes generations and you'll inevitably start thinking they're a myth, so here's a hand-me-down phrase that tells everyone to be ready to fight cold things". Other house phrases could have similar functions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DLRiley on July 26, 2011, 06:53:19 AM
House Lannister "hear us roar"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 26, 2011, 07:51:57 AM




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 26, 2011, 08:18:11 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on July 26, 2011, 10:10:43 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on July 26, 2011, 10:25:09 AM
Can we label spoilers with "Book 5 Spoiler" since I'm reading it right now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 26, 2011, 12:08:24 PM
Honestly I stopped reading in book three. Its just not that good but yeah if people could put what they are spoiling that would be cool.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on July 27, 2011, 12:13:56 PM
Well I'm not waiting, I'm watching the rest and then I can get through the first two books in time for season 2.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on July 27, 2011, 05:51:52 PM
Game of Thrones as a buddy comedy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvfDqF0-2yg).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on July 28, 2011, 05:56:19 AM
Regarding Peter Dinklage and the possible emmy award, I was thinking this: I liked his performance, but as far as the television medium goes, it was  overdone. Was that because of how the showrunners wrote it, or because of the actor himself?

Yes, of course Tyrion Lannister is a peculiar character, with his humor, sarcasm and all, but I think in this case it works more in the narrative realm. What I try to say is that Dinklage performance seems almost "detached" from the rest, like "Ok, here is the show, now comes Tyrion Lannister's show".

So, while the performance may be great on its own, I don't know, when he comes on, yes, you can look forward to some great acting skills, but somehow the "natural flow" of the show seems off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 28, 2011, 06:02:59 AM
Are you drunk?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on July 28, 2011, 06:51:25 AM
Lucas likes to hate what everyone else loves.  Then he makes up a story to explain it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 28, 2011, 08:05:38 AM
Dinklage doesn't have a chance against the Justified guy anyways, Walter Googins owns that award.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soln on July 29, 2011, 02:19:21 PM
EDIT: moving this to new General thread


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Talpidae on July 30, 2011, 09:01:45 AM
For Arthur :

Show started awful and ended sublime.  It was literally like watching a shitty car go from 0 to 88 miles per hour, at which point it transforms into Optimus Prime and travels in time.

Eagerly awaiting the next series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 31, 2011, 03:14:26 AM
I don't think 'literally' means what you think it means.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Talpidae on July 31, 2011, 03:54:02 AM
No, the show was pretty much like that.   :why_so_serious:


Don't be this Douchebag (http://youtu.be/6CiVRAH0Bb4).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on August 01, 2011, 01:08:26 AM
I didn't like book 5, if the TV series makes it to the end of book 3 I'll be happy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on August 05, 2011, 11:38:28 PM
Got through the series and about halfway through book one.

Old hat to everyone who's already watched or read but Ep. 9... :ye_gods:

That fucking ruled.  Need moar.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 06, 2011, 01:20:37 AM
I figure I'll ask here since I dont want to risk the Dance with Dragons thread.  I'm rereading the books right now.  I'm half way through book 3.  Does book 5 reference anything that happened in book 4 at all, or can I skip it, read book 5, then reread book 4.  I just want to get to the new shit I've never read before, haha.  However, its been forever since I read these books, and I'm remembering all sorts of shit I forgot as I read them, so if anything from book 4 is important to book 5, I should read that first.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vaiti on August 06, 2011, 01:51:25 AM
I'm on the third chapter of Dance with Dragons right now. I'd say the last half of the third book is more important as far as keeping up with the timeline. DwD seems to take place right after the end of the third book, basically it's the perspectives of the characters that were left out in the 4th.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 06, 2011, 08:18:00 AM
The first half or so of ADWD covers the same time as AFFC but from the other characters (Dany, Jon, Tyrion) perspective. The second half begins to include the characters from AFFC and the timeline goes past book 4 at that point. Honestly if you've read book 4 already, just skim a wiki summary and read book 5. Most of the big reveals/plot twists in AFFC are explained in detail in ADWD anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MournelitheCalix on September 28, 2011, 10:08:28 PM
Anyone see the promo for the second season featuring Stannis Baratheon?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on September 28, 2011, 10:23:43 PM
I know googling isn't hard, but at least you could have posted one of the many easy to get links  :-P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yci-rAanhs4

Doesn't show a damn thing, but I guess that was Stannis's voice?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on September 28, 2011, 10:27:05 PM
I've just been madly googling it too. Yeah, what was so hard about including a link?

Here, let me spoil the entire trailer for everyone: the night is dark and full of terrors.

Now you know everything.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on September 29, 2011, 11:15:39 AM
That was the lamest teaser EVER.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on September 29, 2011, 09:02:20 PM
That sucked mightily.  What a letdown.

I've finished Clash of Kings and am on to book 3.  I am really, really pumped about season 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on October 05, 2011, 12:32:42 PM
Really hard to know why they even bothered.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on October 05, 2011, 12:37:24 PM
Don't forget the original teaser for Season one: snow, some trees, something vaguely wolf shaped!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MournelitheCalix on December 15, 2011, 09:25:18 PM
A trailer released for season 2:  http://www.darkhorizons.com/features/1600/-game-of-thrones-season-2-trailer (http://www.darkhorizons.com/features/1600/-game-of-thrones-season-2-trailer)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on December 15, 2011, 10:15:25 PM
Direct link to the trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sBrsM_WlfV8)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on December 19, 2011, 09:27:01 PM
Is it just me or is that a really shitty trailer?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on December 22, 2011, 09:47:00 AM
Well it was probably done with whatever footage they had done at the time, any big action scenes are probably nowhere near done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 30, 2012, 01:35:54 AM
New, kickass trailer!

"Shadow":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOzXsqoJhtE

Sansa  :ye_gods:

Daenerys  :drill:

And more, juicy glimpses here and there  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 30, 2012, 01:57:02 AM
Nice, hopefully it will keep going till the end of book 3 and then I don't care if they cancel it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on January 30, 2012, 02:14:04 AM
Are the later books that bad?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on January 30, 2012, 02:59:42 AM
I'm about 20% into book 2 at the moment, can see why people like this stage of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yoru on January 30, 2012, 03:05:24 AM
When's Season 2 due to start airing? Anyone know?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 30, 2012, 03:16:00 AM
April apparently

Are the later books that bad?

It's not that they are terrible it's just he seems more interested in introducing new characters that I personally don't give a crap about, rather than continuing the story for the ones I do care about.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 30, 2012, 03:47:47 AM
April apparently

Are the later books that bad?

It's not that they are terrible it's just he seems more interested in introducing new characters that I personally don't give a crap about, rather than continuing the story for the ones I do care about.

Yep, 1st April; regarding the later books: book 1 to 3 seem to tell one,coherent and immensely detailed and gripping story from the beginning to the end. In book 4 and 5 Martin expand the universe, open new scenarios, there are highs and lows.

Unless ratings and subscriptions will show a drastic decrease (unlikely), we'll get the third book covered, and split in two seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 30, 2012, 04:07:39 AM
Book 4 and 5 are after he realized "Oh hell, they're all too young" and was thinking to skip ahead a few years, which hasn't happened yet.  He also seems rather bored with the narrative, if not the characters, and has been dallying with other projects.

It was his mistake to take on an epic when he's not that focused in the first place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 30, 2012, 06:32:56 AM
Are the later books that bad?

They are bad compared to the first three, they are still miles above almost everything else.  A lot of people don't like that the story has moved on from where it started to involve the other kingdoms, meaning different characters and slow pacing on the original storylines, but really the collapse of all seven kingdoms framed by the invasions of Dany and the Others was what it was meant to be about all along.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 30, 2012, 08:17:42 AM
Book 4 was pirates of the caribbean and don't get me started on Ali baba and the forty thieves.  Feel free to like it but don't tell me this is how it was going to go from the start, he's clearly got stage fright or lost interest in finishing it.  He reads what's people say about him on the internet and every time he gets pissed off he kills a Stark, I sympathise, but the last two books were scraps from the top table.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on January 30, 2012, 08:29:16 AM
Is there a hidden cache of Starks hidden somewhere? Because knowing the internet, all the original ones should be dead in the middle of season 3 then.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 30, 2012, 08:41:21 AM
Is there a hidden cache of Starks hidden somewhere? Because knowing the internet, all the original ones should be dead in the middle of season 3 then.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 30, 2012, 09:06:32 AM
I'd agree that Martin has been overwhelmed by his own creation. He reminds me a bit of JMS on Babylon 5, only without the garrulousness--someone who promised a tightly-built narrative with a vision and then got to the middle of the story and it was like that guy on Sesame Street who used to teach numbers by dropping a bunch of pies and cakes on his own head.

I thought after Book 3 that it was fairly clear what the sequencing of the story should be:



Instead, it's like reading what an alcoholic with serious ADHD would come up with if you put him in charge of a world-building epic. "Oh, let's see, I need a new viewpoint character, some other place I haven't been to, and, um, how about a character whose tongue has been ripped out who is forced to perform cunninlingus on a goat corpse. There we go."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on January 30, 2012, 09:29:40 AM
Once you hit the 1500 total pages mark on these multi volume epics authors invariably go pants on head. I can't think of a single epic fantasy that didn't go off the rails after the third or fourth book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on January 30, 2012, 09:33:19 AM
Khaldun nailed my thoughts spot on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 30, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
Game of Thrones RPG, Series 1 (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6579356/game-of-thrones-rpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 03, 2012, 01:09:44 PM
Err...Behold the Game of Ponies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uI1Y8B6L28

 :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on February 07, 2012, 06:00:10 PM
Err...Behold the Game of Ponies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uI1Y8B6L28

 :grin:

That was unimaginably awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on February 08, 2012, 12:47:06 AM
Haha brilliant!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on February 09, 2012, 12:19:50 PM
You guys are sad.  Fucking ponies?   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on February 09, 2012, 12:50:33 PM
Careful, it's considered unwise to rile up the Bronies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on February 09, 2012, 01:07:54 PM
I do not understand the latest Internet fascination with the goddamn My Little Ponies, and frankly, I do not want to. Therein lies madness... or at the very least  :pedobear:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: croaker69 on February 09, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
The show is really great.  The guys patting themselves on the back for enjoying it really grate.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on February 09, 2012, 01:16:03 PM
I don't get it at all, but I don't especially see a reason to be a dick to the people who do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on February 09, 2012, 01:21:38 PM
Other than "dick" being my natural state of being, I wouldn't either if they didn't feel it necessary to penetrate every goddamn thing with pony memes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on February 09, 2012, 01:29:21 PM
The show is really great.  The guys patting themselves on the back for enjoying it really grate.

Thank you for eloquently summing up my feelings on every self-identified "brony" I know.

It doesn't help that I've watched the show after being told how great it was and found it to be "meh."

So how about that Game of Thrones, eh?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 09, 2012, 02:09:22 PM
HBO has just published a bunch of official Season 2 photos:

(http://winteriscoming.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bran-Stark-and-Hodor-Issac-Hempstead-Wright-and-Kristian-Nairn-Helen-Sloan-1024x681.jpg)

Stannis and Melisandre:

Brienne of Tarth:

More at Winter is Coming website:
http://winteriscoming.net/2012/02/the-first-publicity-photos-from-season-two/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on February 09, 2012, 03:05:52 PM
Oh, man.  Brienne looks like she's about to bust some heads.  I can't wait.   :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on February 09, 2012, 03:08:26 PM
I just got to the part in Clash of Kings where Brienne is introduced. Yeah, that's a good casting choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 09, 2012, 04:33:18 PM
I always pictured Stannis with a beard.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on February 09, 2012, 09:45:43 PM
Yeah, they all look great, except Stannis looks like a bank manager. And I'm wondering how Bran is going to hit his head on door frames like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on February 10, 2012, 04:49:39 AM
I always pictured the red bitch having "Lucy Lawless in Spartacus" red hair for some reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on February 10, 2012, 06:10:12 AM
I'd pictured Stannis as a little more stocky, but otherwise I'm quite happy with those looks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 10, 2012, 06:34:32 AM
Can't wait to see an official picture featuring Rose Leslie as Ygritte  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on February 10, 2012, 09:28:02 AM
I always pictured the red bitch having "Lucy Lawless in Spartacus" red hair for some reason.
Me too.  But then you look at the color shift in that image and she probably DOES have much redder hair. There's a ton of color fucking in all those pics, not just the usual Teal/ Orange.  Grr.

I pictured Stannis as having less hair than that and Hodor as younger and significantly more muscled and less pudgy. 

Brienne, however, I totally eat my words on.  Well done transformation there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on February 10, 2012, 11:03:58 AM
Yeah, they all look great, except Stannis looks like a bank manager. And I'm wondering how Bran is going to hit his head on door frames like that.

Why except? The impression I get of Stannis a bit is a really severe, humorless, unlikeable if fairly competent boss.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on February 10, 2012, 01:03:59 PM
I was a little confused when I heard Gwendoline Christie was going to be Brienne and, well, she just looked too cute but I was sure they'd think of something.

That picture though.  Fucking damn.  Well done!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on February 10, 2012, 02:00:54 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 13, 2012, 11:15:31 PM
Iceland is REALLY north of the Wall, judging from this awesome,  just released production video (no spoilers):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONYVXbFiR4

Oh, and just like Brienne, looking at Qhorin Halfhand, he's basically jumped out of the book for me  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 14, 2012, 07:59:35 AM
Oh, and some cute cards to get your Valentine on! :D

http://blog.chrisbishop.com/post/17554357179/game-of-thrones-valentine-cards

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzcgd6oAOR1qb6vjt.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triforcer on February 20, 2012, 03:50:34 PM
Melisandre and Daenerys look good, Brienne, Bran and Hodor are perfect, but all the other guys are too bearded and dingy looking.  Renly, at least, should have that magnificent, oiled greek statue look to him.  They are all just bearded, kind of ugly dudes. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on February 23, 2012, 12:16:36 PM
I pictured Melisandre to be much sexier and more vibrant.  She looks like a nun in that picture.  :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 23, 2012, 12:25:30 PM
New video, "Invitation to the Set":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfPtTnaDbdk

Ok, at 1:38-1:39, Melisandre looks RED as she should :D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 23, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
Tyrion holding the jar of wildfire  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on February 26, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
...And here is a shiny, new trailer, with a lot of new footage, so don't watch if you don't want to be spoilered (no matter if you are a reader or not)

"Power and Grace" (new link, 720p official version):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01BsnBuvWBQ


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 01, 2012, 07:23:59 AM
First season DVD is now released; yesterday, HBO held a launch party, and some of the cast attended (Season 2 too!):

http://winteriscoming.net/2012/02/thrones-cast-steps-out-to-dvd-launch-party/
http://wicnet.tumblr.com/post/18514817255/tumblrofthrones-a-few-photos-from-the-game-of
http://wicnet.tumblr.com/post/18514580466/tumblrofthrones-more-photos-from-the-game-of
http://wicnet.tumblr.com/post/18514255115/fuckyeahwinterfell-consultingasshole-the
http://wicnet.tumblr.com/post/18514112252

Well, yes, the actress playing Brienne is TALL  :grin: . Oh, and the Stark family is entering puberty, no doubt about that (Isaac Hempstead-Wright, Bran, is the most evident example).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on March 01, 2012, 09:03:41 AM
Bran and Arya already look way too old, damn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on March 01, 2012, 07:26:30 PM
Yeah, Renly. Why?!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 02, 2012, 11:13:20 AM
Not as funny as the "Game of Ponies" video posted a couple weeks ago, but personally I liked this Disney one :)

http://www.dorkly.com/video/33331/disneys-game-of-thrones


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 08, 2012, 07:09:08 AM
Emilia Clarke poses for GQ magazine :heart: :heart: :heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ujY4ckQHLC4


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: ghost on March 08, 2012, 03:26:11 PM
The wife and I just got the blue ray of this.  Holy doggy-style-sex, batman.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on March 08, 2012, 05:20:25 PM
I did too, really nasty, filthy sexin' and schemin'.

Loooooovvvvinnnngggg iiiiitttttt!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on March 09, 2012, 09:07:21 AM
I'm reading Clash of Kings right now and I'm a bit worried for this season. Despite a lot of things happening, it feels like a lot of things AREN'T happening. The Jon Snow goes beyond the wall bit and the Dany in the East storyline feel like lots of setup that I hope becomes important but probably isn't at least in this book/season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on March 09, 2012, 09:41:00 AM
Tons of shit happens in both this book and the next, after that it becomes a bit plodding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on March 09, 2012, 02:24:24 PM
Yeah, 2 had lots and lots to go by based on my skim last year.  3 is where TONS of good stuff happens.  Hopefully they'll combine 4 &5 into one season.

Of course it will end after that as Martin will die/ become bored and never write book 6.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 09, 2012, 02:50:59 PM
Yeah, don't be worried about Clash of Kings/Season 2.  I don't know where you're at in the book, Haemish, but it definitely picks up if you're thinking that it is plodding right now.

Also, Storm of Swords is going to be Season 3 and Season 4 if you listen to Benioff and Weiss; they both said as much in an interview a few months ago.  Nothing official from HBO, but after the acclaim/viewership of the last season HBO will want to draw this out as long as they can before they hit book 4 and they probably won't argue with the creators.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: ghost on March 09, 2012, 03:08:31 PM
I'm reading Clash of Kings right now and I'm a bit worried for this season. Despite a lot of things happening, it feels like a lot of things AREN'T happening. The Jon Snow goes beyond the wall bit and the Dany in the East storyline feel like lots of setup that I hope becomes important but probably isn't at least in this book/season.

 :rofl:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on March 09, 2012, 09:14:12 PM
I'm about 150 pages from the end, during the


I'm not saying shit hasn't happened. The whole time I've been reading the book, I'll look at the page number and go "Fuck, I'm 400 pages into this thing... and I don't feel like ANYTHING has happened."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on March 09, 2012, 09:25:32 PM
You're trying to bait us into spoiling things for you!  It won't work!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on March 09, 2012, 09:46:03 PM
Hmm, yeah, I don't know man.  I think Clash of Kings was probably the fastest moving book of the series, followed closely by storm of swords.  And that's not to say the series is slow (though its kind of gotten that way), just that I read clash of kings and thought it moved very fast.  I originally read that book in High School, but reread it again recently when book 5 came out, and still felt the same way.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on March 10, 2012, 05:58:37 PM
Clash and Storm are chock fulla narrative movement. After that, we go off a steep cliff into nothinghappensville.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on March 11, 2012, 05:23:40 AM
Finished watching it last night.  I haven't read the books, but the series was excellent.  None of the storylines ended as I expected, that's good!  I'm so glad I didn't read spoilers about this show or this world.


The Blu-Ray version was excellent, great quality with lots of extras.  At $35 it was a great bargain for over ten hours of entertainment. 

HBO has a big, big hit here.  I look forward to the second season. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 11, 2012, 08:27:35 PM
Also, Storm of Swords is going to be Season 3 and Season 4 if you listen to Benioff and Weiss; they both said as much in an interview a few months ago.  Nothing official from HBO, but after the acclaim/viewership of the last season HBO will want to draw this out as long as they can before they hit book 4 and they probably won't argue with the creators.
I'm ok with that, as long as Books 4 & 5 together are Season 5.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 12, 2012, 12:11:56 PM
NO SPOILERS

From what I personally gathered:

- The authors will have no problems integrating some elements from book 3 to book 2 (and so on in the future seasons) if that serves the *Television* series and makes it more fluid to watch (and it already happend in Season 1 with Arya at the end) ;

- Infact, it looks like a certain story arc involving a couple characters, that only begins at the start of Book 3, has been moved toward the end of the second season ;

- It's not official yet, but if S2 will get even more viewers, HBO will green light season 3, split into two seasons (ending the first part with a certain, big event I won't even codename it 'cause it's a spoiler itself, IMO).

- Then, because of the particular structure of book 4&5, they will probably mix 'n match the events of those two with great liberty.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: ghost on March 13, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
NO SPOILERS

From what I personally gathered:

- The authors will have no problems integrating some elements from book 3 to book 2 (and so on in the future seasons) if that serves the *Television* series and makes it more fluid to watch (and it already happend in Season 1 with Arya at the end) ;

- Infact, it looks like a certain story arc involving a couple characters, that only begins at the start of Book 3, has been moved toward the end of the second season ;

- It's not official yet, but if S2 will get even more viewers, HBO will green light season 3, split into two seasons (ending the first part with a certain, big event I won't even codename it 'cause it's a spoiler itself, IMO).

- Then, because of the particular structure of book 4&5, they will probably mix 'n match the events of those two with great liberty.

What are they going to do with the parts he never finishes?   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on March 13, 2012, 10:12:51 AM
Write them for him as he's bored, I'm hoping.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 13, 2012, 12:03:26 PM
Have you guys already seen the character "featurettes" for S2?

Here they are (at the following link there are more beside the Dany one):
http://winteriscoming.net/2012/03/new-character-profile-video-for-daenerys/

More to come, presumably!

And here's the latest trailer, "The More You Love" with a very short, first glimpse of Ygritte!!!!  :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S14rYrSSW8


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on March 18, 2014, 11:49:06 PM
- It's not official yet, but if S2 will get even more viewers, HBO will green light season 3, split into two seasons (ending the first part with a certain, big event I won't even codename it 'cause it's a spoiler itself, IMO).

Game of Thrones returns to Northern Ireland for new series (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/game-of-thrones-returns-to-northern-ireland-for-new-series-16132929.html?r=RSS&google_editors_picks=true)

Quote
Television series Game of Thrones looks set to return to Northern Ireland for a further two series.

American TV bosses are said to have given the nod for author George RR Martin's book Storm Of The Swords to be adapted for the small screen for series three and four of the fantasy epic, which airs on Sky Atlantic in the UK.
...
HBO is keeping tight-lipped over the location of series three and four, as are Northern Ireland Screen.

But sources close to the production crew say they have been told to clear their diaries for the return of Game of Thrones to Northern Ireland this summer.

Extras NI also appears to have knowledge of the shooting of series three and four.

When asked by would-be actors on Facebook if it needed extras it revealed auditions would be taking place in the coming months.

Didn't see anything certain in the above but it looks positive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 23, 2014, 08:49:08 AM
Enjoy this official 22 minutes long recap of season 1/preview of season 2 (so, spoilers ahead!), just released by HBO. "You win or You die" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dku_Uya8Ygc


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on March 26, 2012, 03:35:11 PM
Now that this is out on DVD I'm finally watching it all the way through.  They really changed the early part of Dany and Drogo's relationship.  On the commentary it sounded like this was because the actors involved didn't think that they could portray the book's version believably.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on March 26, 2012, 07:43:46 PM
It made more sense to me than Drogo being tender and loving on their wedding night then plowing her like a cheap hooker every night after that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on March 27, 2012, 01:57:09 AM
So it's been a while since I read the first book, but my recollection was that it wasn't just the wedding night; he waited night after night until she got comfortable enough with him to be ready.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on March 27, 2012, 05:35:50 AM
No, not at all.  Every night after the first Dany rode all day without even seeing Drogo until late at night when he came over a plowed her from behind like on the show. It wasn't until Dany had the slave girl teach her sexing and took charge that things got better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 03, 2012, 09:42:01 AM
So second season premiered.

Boy did they ever compress the 2nd book, but in this case I think it was a really good thing. I felt the second book meandered a bit through the first 400-500 pages, especially the bits involving Jon Snow and Dany. The show just jumped halfway into the book with the Jon Snow/Night's Watch storyline. It was a good premiere and I really look forward to lots of Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 03, 2012, 09:53:02 AM
My wife had issues with the baby murder.  There was a lot of baby murder.  I think if they ever visualize the death of the Targaryen children during Robert's rebellion, she'll never watch the show again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 03, 2012, 10:05:16 AM
Now I'm forgetting book 2. Baby murder?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 03, 2012, 10:20:05 AM
They have a scene where they (city watch on behalf of the Lannisters) are culling Robert's bastards.  I don't remember it from the book.  It's a little disturbing, but my wife just tends to freak out about seeing children or animals being killed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on April 03, 2012, 10:23:26 AM
It's not quite as prolific as it was in the show, but a whore and her bastard child are killed by the City Watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 03, 2012, 10:34:25 AM
Ah.. yeah that's happening too late in the series.  I thought Eddard or someone else mentioned Cersi killing the bastards which is why they send Gendry off as fast as possible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 03, 2012, 10:42:33 AM
Good start. What I liked:

- Environments in general and camera work. Fantastic.
- Cersei humiliating Littlefinger on the meaning of power: now I recognize you, book Cersei :)

So and so:

- Dragonstone scenes: a tad rushed, IMO, dialogues and all. It resembled the moment when, last year, we met the King's Landing Small Council for the first time: everyone blurting out some lines in rapid succession and you could barely follow what was going on. I'm sure they'll flesh out everything in the following episodes, anyway.

Disliked:

- The relationship between Cersei and Joffrey: I don't recall it being so "extreme", with the latter abusing his mother like he did in the throne room scene.

But anyhow, I also "grabbed" the second episode and IMO it's *vastly* superior to the premiere. Just wait and see :)

By the way, ratings: 3.9 millions:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/game-thrones-season-2-premiere-ratings-307303

Season 3 announcement is a matter of a few days, if not hours  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 03, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Now I'm forgetting book 2. Baby murder?

Yup when Ceresi was freaking out due to all the accusations of her son being a bastard born of incest she had the yellow cloaks go around and murder all of the old kings bastard kids of which there were many. Mainly because every one of his bastards have dark hair and yet none of Ceresi's children do which makes it pretty obvious who the father was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 03, 2012, 11:41:41 AM
Actually Cersei had always been doing it whenever she could, there is mention of some bastards dying under mysterious circumstances back in Lannisport.  She was always personally insulted and bitter about Roberts cheating.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 03, 2012, 11:46:11 AM
Ah.. yeah that's happening too late in the series.  I thought Eddard or someone else mentioned Cersi killing the bastards which is why they send Gendry off as fast as possible.

It all happened "off stage" in the books. They showed this particular bit of baby murder so when Tyrion comes back to fuck Janos Slynt in the ass, everyone watching will know why and will sympathize.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 03, 2012, 01:18:07 PM
I'm liking how fast series 2 is moving.

Tyrion Slaps Joffrey For 10 Minutes To Achilles Last Stand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYNeT2nzEgA)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2012, 03:35:00 AM
Great Start.  Really, really great.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on April 04, 2012, 06:35:34 AM
- Cersei humiliating Littlefinger on the meaning of power: now I recognize you, book Cersei :)

I don't recall that scene from the book, but yeah I really liked that bit.

First episode was pretty compressed.  If I remember right, things get moving pretty quickly in King's Landing but the rest starts a little slow.  North of the Wall they jumped in a little more than a third of the way, which is fine since not a whole lot happens outside of introducing some characters I think.

Anyways, great start.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2012, 06:39:58 AM
She's still wrong tho.  I really hope Carcetti fucks up her day.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 04, 2012, 06:53:16 AM
Very compressed but good.  Melisandre is right on.  Craster was portrayed a bit less rough than I had imagined, but it worked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on April 04, 2012, 07:53:27 AM
The only thing I had real issues with was the interaction between Cersei and Joffrey - that went a different direction from how I read the books and conflict between them will make future stuff involving them and Tyrion have a bit less impact.

 The scene between Cersei and Littlefinger was great though, nice addition.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 04, 2012, 08:34:34 AM
I thought Littlefinger throwing the incest thing in Cerseis face was way out of character because it is such a dumb move. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2012, 08:45:09 AM
In fairness, he was provoked.  She started with the Ned wife thing first.  If she hadn't, I wouldn't have liked the scene so much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mosesandstick on April 04, 2012, 08:50:35 AM
I'm glad it's been such a long time since I've read the books and I don't have an eidetic memory because I can't remember at all what's changed and what hasn't.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2012, 08:56:26 AM
I've never read the books and I'm glad I haven't.  I found that reading The Walking Dead kinda skewed it for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 04, 2012, 09:17:16 AM
From time to time, yep, I think I would feel more engaged in the TV series if I hadn't read the books, but just like the writers hinted beforehand, it looks like they're (and will) mix 'n matching (and adding) a lot more as the series goes on, so it's still perfectly enjoyable for readers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 04, 2012, 09:37:20 AM
As long as the major "oh shit!" moments from the book aren't cut and people that don't die in the books don't die uselessly in the show, HBO can do whatever they think is best for series as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 04, 2012, 09:44:18 AM
It helps that everything they've added has been top notch and an improvement over the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 04, 2012, 09:54:30 AM
It helps that everything they've added has been top notch and an improvement over the book.

I am hoping when/if they get to the book 4/book 5 timeline that maybe do two seasons of it but don't do all one in the south and one in the north. I think it would flow better if they did it how he originally was planning a more integrated thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on April 04, 2012, 10:36:32 AM
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that book 3 is going to be broken into two seasons, but I have no links to back up my admittedly foggy memory.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on April 04, 2012, 10:52:44 AM
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that book 3 is going to be broken into two seasons, but I have no links to back up my admittedly foggy memory.

Yeah, I read somewhere where Benioff and Weiss said that they didn't think they could do Storm of Swords in a single season.  If you're keeping the same number of episodes, I agree.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on April 09, 2012, 06:29:42 AM
The suck was strong in this last one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 09, 2012, 06:41:45 AM
I should resist the urge to respond, but I will anyways. I disagree.

Several more new characters were introduced, yet several plots progressed as well - the Greyjoys, Craster's sons, the fallout on Slynt. You can only have so much ongoing plot in an episode that introduced, what, four or five more important characters?

A couple scenes were slow, such as the talk in the brothel - but it served to firmly establish Littlefinger's base motivations. I thought it was more than made up for with the sequence on the road with Arya/Gendry.

After having watched a season worth of people getting sliced open and magically healing five seconds later on Spartacus, I kind of liked the little talk about the Femoral artery and such.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 09, 2012, 08:37:16 AM
Yeah, i don't get that at all.  That was one of my favorite episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 09, 2012, 12:30:39 PM
Yeah, if you want last night was a setup episode, but a strong one; same story as last year anyway: things started to *really* move after the fourth episode.

And Pyke is fuckin' gorgeous. That octopus fireplace... :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: ShenMolo on April 09, 2012, 12:53:16 PM
Many HBO shows have pacing different from typical TV dramas. The Wire, Treme, Boardwalk Empire, etc build up slowly over the length of the season. It's also a style that works well with shows based on novels. Stories do not need to be compressed or re-arranged to get the highs & lows TV dramas usually shoot for.

Most TV dramas are written with payoff's at the end of every episode, if not before every commercial break.

I love the fact that they are really trying to embrace the books and am more than willing to give them time. Those of us who have read the books know what will come eventually!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 09, 2012, 01:44:11 PM
Ratings held up.

Quote
Last night’s second episode of Game of Thrones‘ second season drew 3.8 million viewers at 9 PM, retaining virtually all of the viewership for the HBO fantasy series’ second season premiere (3.9 million viewers), which was a series high. For the night, including the 11 PM encore, GOT averaged 4.9 million viewers. That is slightly higher than that 4.8 million viewers who watched the second season premiere at 9 PM and 11 PM last Sunday, though HBO also had a third airing at 10 PM then, bringing the total viewership for the night to 6.3 million

http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/hbos-game-of-thrones-holds-up-well-in-week-2-ratings/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 09, 2012, 02:03:39 PM
That's quite good considering it was easter sunday and the episode was leaked online for the whole week.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 09, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
Book 3 needs to be 2 seasons.  It shifts the entire tale.

It has the most meat out of any of the other books.  Re-reading it now and up to [edited due to spoiler]; it is a LOT.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 10, 2012, 04:57:36 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 10, 2012, 05:14:47 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 10, 2012, 06:19:14 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on April 10, 2012, 04:46:25 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 10, 2012, 05:48:10 PM
Does anyone else feel like Lena Headley is looking and acting better this season?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 10, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
Renewed, also confirmed book 3 is gonna be 2 seasons (http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/04/10/game-of-thrones-renewed-3/)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 10, 2012, 06:29:03 PM
Renewed, also confirmed book 3 is gonna be 2 seasons (http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/04/10/game-of-thrones-renewed-3/)

GOOD.  Thats the book with a ton of meat. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 10, 2012, 06:52:45 PM
I like Theon Greyjoy, he's such a tool.  Loving all of the storylines, though I wish there was a fight every now and then.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 10, 2012, 08:08:19 PM
There should be a good amount of that the next few seasons.  First book had the least amount of fighting in it.

Glad to hear its renewed, though I hope that means they start filming at a faster rate now that they've confirmed a few new seasons.  Took over a year between the premier of the first and second seasons.  Age of the child actors could also start to be an issue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 10, 2012, 08:11:28 PM
Bran definitely had a growth spurt after filming season 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 11, 2012, 01:32:31 PM
The actor playing Theon is doing a fucking great job of being a despicable wuss that you can almost feel sorry for. In two episodes this season, he's been a more interesting character to me than he's ever been in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 12, 2012, 09:56:05 AM
I really like the way the TV series is handling this book, moreso than the actual book. Some of the subtext with Stannis and the Red Priestess made abundantly clear, the compression of events, and of course, more Tyrion as done by Peter Dinklage. I don't remember


from the book, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 12, 2012, 10:17:46 AM
It was implied.  That was the reason they left him a lone and he was able to stay there when every other wildling had to flee.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 12, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
I really like the way the TV series is handling this book, moreso than the actual book. Some of the subtext with Stannis and the Red Priestess made abundantly clear, the compression of events, and of course, more Tyrion as done by Peter Dinklage. I don't remember


from the book, though.


I'm actually really not enjoying this season so far.  It's just too much shock value for shock value's sake. It's pretty much HBO series 101 dialed way up.   

And it's starting to bug me on a book nerd level, they're making a lot more small, yet significant deviations from the book.   Seems like they're making a lot of these just to avoid having to use more actors, or they're caught in a situation where the character that would have been in this scene was never introduced in season 1.   The way they're dealing with Littlefinger is going to make a lot of stuff in the future less surprising and impactful.  You're just going to expect it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 12, 2012, 10:28:54 AM
Not actors, characters.  Nobody in my family besides me has read the books, they all have trouble with how many characters the series has already and the cast WILL get bigger and bigger.  Trimming characters whenever possible is really unavoidable.  Yeah, i'll miss the Reeds but they are not really necessary, Bronn being the captain of the gold cloaks is a good change, and introducing anyone from Riverrun this season when they really don't do anything important until next would be pointless.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 12, 2012, 11:06:52 AM
The fish pie conversation with the eunuch was great.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 12, 2012, 11:21:50 AM
Not actors, characters.  Nobody in my family besides me has read the books, they all have trouble with how many characters the series has already and the cast WILL get bigger and bigger.  Trimming characters whenever possible is really unavoidable.  Yeah, i'll miss the Reeds but they are not really necessary, Bronn being the captain of the gold cloaks is a good change, and introducing anyone from Riverrun this season when they really don't do anything important until next would be pointless.

Yeah, one of the reasons I couldn't get into the first book is all the damn characters to remember, and that's just the first book! The series has been a godsend for understanding the actual story and paring down the cast to something manageable for a new viewer/fan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 12, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
Wait, the Reeds aren't going to be introduced in Season 2? WTF? Those 2 seemed really goddamned important to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 12, 2012, 04:13:18 PM
They haven't proven to be thus far.  Martin does  have a way of introducing characters and letting them hang around until zomg it's a good thing they were there, though, so their importance could increase.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: ShenMolo on April 12, 2012, 07:30:04 PM
Wait, the Reeds aren't going to be introduced in Season 2? WTF? Those 2 seemed really goddamned important to me.

They'll have to shoehorn them in at some point if they plan on filiming the most recent books!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 12, 2012, 07:40:44 PM
Even up through Book 5, I don't remember the Reeds doing anything important except wandering around with Bran and Rickon. Glorified babysitters, at best.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 12, 2012, 08:19:36 PM
Yeah, they are not really required at all.  They are not going to be introduced at all, rumor is they are going to be replaced by Osha and her part by the maester.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on April 12, 2012, 10:24:50 PM
Their most important role would be


As for Ep. 2, love the Greyjoys in the books, wasn't disappointed by Balon, Yara/Asha and Pyke.  Moar please.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 13, 2012, 07:50:29 AM
Simpsons game of thrones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUGzIfDRrLs)

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 13, 2012, 09:06:09 PM
Simpsons game of thrones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUGzIfDRrLs)

 :awesome_for_real:
This series really does have one of the best openings ever.  Heres the page from the company, fyi, and some of the other series they have done opening credits for:

http://www.elastic.tv/work/maintitles

Just got a chance to watch the second episode.  Very well done, and I'm happy with all the changes they've made.  Frankly it will help the storytelling in a lot of ways over trying to be more true to the books.  I don't think I'm quite on board with them killing one of Daenerys blood riders, since all three of them have fought and lived through all 5 books (an Amazing feat in this series, especially for none critical characters, considering the death rate of critical characters), but as with everything, I can understand the need to cut down on characters.  Other than that, I think my only gripe is that I wish they had gotten a hotter actress to play the red priestest.   :awesome_for_real:  Not that shes unattractive, but my teenage self was able to fill in the blank with a much hotter flaming red head fantasy sorceress chick.

Also, loved Salladhor Saan, great character, and I enjoy this take on him.
I really like the way the TV series is handling this book, moreso than the actual book. Some of the subtext with Stannis and the Red Priestess made abundantly clear, the compression of events, and of course, more Tyrion as done by Peter Dinklage. I don't remember


from the book, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2012, 06:51:35 AM
The guy playing Rhakaro got a part in a movie i believe, that's why they chopped him off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 15, 2012, 02:38:10 PM
Tyrion delivers as I would expect, but Gendry is becoming a close second. I assume that means he'll be dead before the end of the season or make a break for it and disappear from the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 15, 2012, 05:21:07 PM
Yeah, considering the shear length of the material they're working with, and the fact that the books aren't even done yet, I see almost no way for this series to actually be completed.  Unless they really can manage 8-10 seasons and not lose all sorts of important cast members, which I doubt.  Still, if they make it to the end of book 3 and stop there, they'll have created a great entertaining story for TV.
Also, with no real explanation of the white walkers.  Speaking of which, I'm not too happy with the series take on them.  In the books they seemed like a highly advanced race, with an alien intelligence.  With high end special armor, weapons, and stunning agility.  Basically Evil Ice Elves is what I got from the books.  In the series, they seem to be barbarian orcs with blue eyes.  Meh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 16, 2012, 08:11:44 AM
Well in the books you had the others who I kind of pictured as you are like evil ice elves but you also had the wights which were the risen folks running about and most of what we see matches the wights pretty well. It may be that they decided to just meld them together for sake of story telling in the tv show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2012, 08:22:02 AM
Bob you made me go look up what happens to Gendry because I'd forgotten. Nothing overly spoilery, but still spoilered



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on April 16, 2012, 09:15:47 AM
Saw one of these over the weekend.  Now I gotta have one:
The DireWolf Project (http://theamericanalsatian.tripod.com/direwolfproject/)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 17, 2012, 12:38:57 PM
http://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/online-gallery/on-line-gallery/obra/the-buffoon-sebastian-de-morra/

Look familiar?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on April 23, 2012, 04:07:15 AM
What the fuck did I just see ?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 23, 2012, 04:13:37 AM
"There's no cure for being a cunt."  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 23, 2012, 07:12:01 AM
The two Lannister guards at the beginning of the episode having the stereotypical "who's the best fighter" conversation you see on every single message board cracked me the fuck up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 23, 2012, 10:41:31 AM
boy shepard/malamute/english mastiff/great pyranees makes for one impressively big arsed dog. Should be a pretty friendly one though as all the breeds involved are good tempered.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: ShenMolo on April 23, 2012, 11:35:01 AM
What the fuck did I just see ?  :ye_gods:

A new HBO show called "Game of Boobs"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 23, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
Quarth looks like a very nice place to live. I bet they have a lot of fresh fruit there.

Two guards at the beginning were awesome. "How good could he be? He's been stabbin' Renly Boratheon for years now and he's still alive"

Tywin Lannister is awesome, or maybe it's just Charles Dance. Either way, the character seems like my grandfather - spends all his time cleaning up the shitpiles left by his children, grandchildren, and marginally competent employees.

Stannis Boratheon reminds me of Holly from the Red Dwarf TV show. I can take nothing he says can be taken seriously now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on April 23, 2012, 01:53:36 PM
What the fuck did I just see ?  :ye_gods:

A new HBO show called "Game of Boobs"
Probably true, but I was referring to final scene


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 23, 2012, 01:56:26 PM
God of light my ass. I would say burn it with fire but I'm not sure that would work!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 23, 2012, 02:13:04 PM
Wow.  Best episode of the season so far!  Joffrey is a devil-child indeed, that young man is, as Joe Pesci would say "a troubled yute".

So many great scenes, the torture scene, Robb Stark's scene, any scene with Peter Dinklage and the ending was  :ye_gods:

Boy, that came out of left field!  And no Jon Snow.  Sorry, but that's the weakest part of the show for me.  Just doesn't grab me. I forget why they are even north of the wall.  Show comes to a skidding halt every time I see snow.

Daenerys exile was just long enough and I look forward to her new storyline. 

Love Arya's new plotline, this show does have its twists and turns.  Surprised how concerned I am for her, but she's a little toughie. 

Love it love it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 23, 2012, 02:15:24 PM
Is Martin involved with the show script?  This is truly amazing- I was worried how the plots would pan out due to the deep nature of the books.  Whoever is designing the TV series is downright fabulous.

Outstanding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 23, 2012, 02:20:05 PM
Isn't he an executive producer?  Figured it was one of those appeasement titles, like John Hamm in Mad Men.

Haven't read the books, but wow, what a fascinating world he's created!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 23, 2012, 02:35:41 PM
Is Martin involved with the show script?  This is truly amazing- I was worried how the plots would pan out due to the deep nature of the books.  Whoever is designing the TV series is downright fabulous.

Outstanding.

He has a lot of contact with the writers and he does write some specific episodes himself. He has a lot of experience doing TV scripts as he did the old beauty and the beast show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 23, 2012, 02:52:20 PM
I gladly stand corrected.  That's pretty great that he has TV experience.  I hesitate to draw this parallel, but it's almost like if Tolkien were alive and adapted LOTR for HBO.   


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2012, 02:54:28 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 23, 2012, 02:56:57 PM
What the fuck did I just see ?  :ye_gods:

A new HBO show called "Game of Boobs"

Last episode was a bit more like "Game of Torture (guest starring Boobs)".  Glad they've moved on from Infanticide.

Still, solid episode, IMO.  Moved rather well. Tyrion's scene with Lancel was very well adapted.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 23, 2012, 02:59:22 PM
I gladly stand corrected.  That's pretty great that he has TV experience.  I hesitate to draw this parallel, but it's almost like if Tolkien were alive and adapted LOTR for HBO.   

Only if his wife had cheated on him with C S Lewis and murdered his cat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 23, 2012, 05:00:34 PM
Last episode was a bit more like "Game of Torture (guest starring Boobs)".  Glad they've moved on from Infanticide.

Still, solid episode, IMO.  Moved rather well. Tyrion's scene with Lancel was very well adapted.

They are knocking out concepts/character development that took hundreds and hundreds of pages.  Personally, I love the way they are portraying some pivotal plotlines (example, The mountain and Tickler scene). 

It makes me warm and fuzzy they will pull off book 3.  THAT is going to take some skill.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 23, 2012, 05:09:34 PM
I see why the skip a lot of stuff, but for example the mountain and tickler stuff was some of the best writing Martin has done and it really hurts to lose Aryas trip through the ravaged countryside with them.  You had a palpable feeling of hopelessness and despair while reading all those chapters, it was basically the most interesting part of all the Arya chapters in the entire saga so far.  I know they need to drop lots of stuff, but did we really need yet another "Joffrey is a sick fuck" scene?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on April 23, 2012, 06:37:05 PM
So...yeah...my wife and I were bored Sunday, so we finally jumped into this series.  I've been trying to get her to watch it with me for a while, because she likes the whole medieval-genre, but everytime I brought up the name, she thought it was some weird sci-fi/fantasy show based on title alone  :why_so_serious:

Six episodes of visceral sword fighting, jousting, and whoring later, and I think she's pretty hooked  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 23, 2012, 06:52:39 PM
How the hell do you get sci-fi out of the name "Game of Thrones"?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on April 23, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
How the hell do you get sci-fi out of the name "Game of Thrones"?

She's a bit...touched...when it comes to stuff requiring the use of one's imagination  :-P


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 23, 2012, 06:58:46 PM
So what was the scene everyone's all  :ye_gods: about?   I read the books and I'm not paying for HBO so there's no spoilers for me. Share away (under tags, of course)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 23, 2012, 07:21:26 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 23, 2012, 08:27:14 PM
Ooooh, yeah that's a good'un.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 23, 2012, 08:56:35 PM
When I read that scene in the book, I kept thinking "How the fuck are they going to show that on TV?"

What they showed was even squinckier than what I imagined in the book. That is a cringeworthy scene if ever there was one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on April 24, 2012, 12:36:44 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2012, 12:38:46 AM
"There's no cure for being a cunt."  :why_so_serious:

Yeah, that was my favourite line and should have been the title of the whole episode.  Have these guys not met a Sadist before ?  I'm thinking that the whole experience with 'The Mad King' might have taught them something but clearly not.

Also, I really get annoyed when people side with clear and present EVIL in order to gain power.  It's like they just don't think it through.  I mean, Shadow Demon Babies and shit.  How can you rationalise that away ?

Also, Desert woman is silly. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 05:19:27 AM
I don't see why creepy has to necessarily mean evil.  The direwolves are creepy too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2012, 05:29:50 AM
....

Seriously ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 24, 2012, 07:16:06 AM
Isn't he an executive producer?  Figured it was one of those appeasement titles, like John Hamm in Mad Men.


It is a title that can mean a lot of things or nothing as far as actual involvement in production.  What it almost always means is that the person is getting some % of the per episode production budget, usually 5-10%.

At least in the world of major network and non-HBO cable networks.  My kid brother is a TV producer and his pay is almost all out of "EP credits" as he calls them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 07:41:40 AM
....

Seriously ?


Hmmm...yeah? Melisandre hasn't done anything evil, she just happens to worship a religion that actually works.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 24, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
Wait, you don't think squeezing shadow assassins out of her hoo-hah to commit fratricide rather than fight a pitched battle to be pretty fucking evil? Seriously?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2012, 08:02:12 AM
I'm with IW and Haemish on this one.  Even reading the books they fail to explain exactly WHY Stannis is mucking about with Melisandre and R'hllor in the first place.   The trite explanation Melisandre gives is complete garbage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2012, 08:06:47 AM
Wait, you don't think squeezing shadow assassins out of her hoo-hah to commit fratricide rather than fight a pitched battle to be pretty fucking evil? Seriously?

Yeah, I'm not against assassination (you should see my linkedin history) but there's a difference between a dagger in the night or poison in the wine and actually giving birth to an avatar of hate.

And, personally, I think it moves the needle slightly above 'creepy' on the omgwhatthefuckometer.

Also, my original point was that you simply can't TRUST anyone who would do that.  There's no fucking point being allies with them.  None.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 08:23:59 AM
I'm with IW and Haemish on this one.  Even reading the books they fail to explain exactly WHY Stannis is mucking about with Melisandre and R'hllor in the first place.   The trite explanation Melisandre gives is complete garbage.

I think the fact that she actually DOES have power is a pretty damn good explanation for why he is with her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on April 24, 2012, 08:26:40 AM
I'm with IW and Haemish on this one.  Even reading the books they fail to explain exactly WHY Stannis is mucking about with Melisandre and R'hllor in the first place.   The trite explanation Melisandre gives is complete garbage.

Yeah, besides the army of shadow assassins she can shit out and the great head. (Cause I sure as hell wouldn't be putting my dick anywhere near that vag!)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 08:28:19 AM
Wait, you don't think squeezing shadow assassins out of her hoo-hah to commit fratricide rather than fight a pitched battle to be pretty fucking evil? Seriously?

Yeah, I'm not against assassination (you should see my linkedin history) but there's a difference between a dagger in the night or poison in the wine and actually giving birth to an avatar of hate.

And, personally, I think it moves the needle slightly above 'creepy' on the omgwhatthefuckometer.

Also, my original point was that you simply can't TRUST anyone who would do that.  There's no fucking point being allies with them.  None.


I don't see why not.  So she picked the right religion and that makes her untrustworthy?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2012, 08:29:12 AM
Not sure if serious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2012, 08:30:54 AM
I always thought Stannis was easy to understand, his brother was King, as the elder of the two remaining brothers he's rightful heir and therefore King.  He's all black and white, nothing he can do about it, all he has to decide is if he wishes to win or lose.  If it was just him he probably wouldn't be bothered but he can't abide traitors and by definition anyone opposing him is a traitor.

The magic is just a means to an end, he does have the best interests of the Kingdom at heart, as long as he doesn't have to make friends or be nice to anyone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 08:34:46 AM
Right, there is nothing inherently evil about what she did.  She didn't have to sacrifice babies or virgins or even a freaking goat to pop out her shadow thingie, she just fucked the guy.  And Stannis gave Renly ample opportunity to surrender.  Just declaring it evil because it looked scary seems a bit silly to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
Well I thought it was evil too, so I'd take issue with the "right religion" comment.  I was just commenting on how limited the options were for Stannis once he found out Joffrey wasn't Robert's son.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 09:12:29 AM
Dany burned someone alive in order to hatch monsters and nobody immediately dubbed her evil.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2012, 09:15:29 AM
Right, there is nothing inherently evil about what she did.  She didn't have to sacrifice babies or virgins or even a freaking goat to pop out her shadow thingie, she just fucked the guy.  And Stannis gave Renly ample opportunity to surrender.  Just declaring it evil because it looked scary seems a bit silly to me.

Ah..
Dany burned someone alive in order to hatch monsters and nobody immediately dubbed her evil.

A 'justified' death for her murder of Dany's  unborn child, Drogo and making Dany Barren.  Let's not forget overarching themes and traditional fantasy memes when looking at specifics.  Just because Martin enjoys twisting or perverting a lot them doesn't mean he doesn't follow some of them.

And while I see the logic of siding with Mel it doesn't mean it fits the character of Stannis. Sure, Mel gets results; but based on what you know of Stannis does it make sense for HIM to side with her?  No.  In the books Davos ponders this several times but always discards the thought because "he is my king and I am only meant to follow" or something like that.  Has he done it in the series?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 24, 2012, 09:16:13 AM
Right, there is nothing inherently evil about what she did.  She didn't have to sacrifice babies or virgins or even a freaking goat to pop out her shadow thingie, she just fucked the guy.  And Stannis gave Renly ample opportunity to surrender.  Just declaring it evil because it looked scary seems a bit silly to me.

If the sight of something happening is enough to make a strong man like Davos shit his pants with fucking fear, I'm thinking, Yeah, that's probably fucking evil. It's like death magic, or necrophilia. Maybe you could explain it away, rationalize it into something understandable, but really? Fucking a dead body? Raising soulless zombies from the grave to do your bidding? There's just some things that even in a fantasy world should not be considered as not-evil.

Fucking your sister to birth a bastard king, 3-ways with the self-proclaimed king, his wife and her brother so the king can get it up long enough to produce an heir, tying a bucket of crazed rats to a dude's stomach then lighting the bucket on fire so the rat chews his way through screaming dude's innard, and raising mystical shadow assassins out of king spunk? I'm thinking those could all classify as fucking evil no matter how you rationalize it or dress it up with religious overtones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2012, 09:23:01 AM
Dany burned someone alive in order to hatch monsters and nobody immediately dubbed her evil.

The person she did that to had been saved by Daenerys and still pissed her off by showing how poisonous and double edged blood magic was, she dabbled with the dark arts while Daenerys was in a "I don't give a fuck" frame of mind when she did it.  I think intent and context are important.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 09:28:22 AM
 I think intent and context are important.

Well yeah, that is in fact exactly my point.  You guys are saying what she did is inherently evil without any regard to intent and context.  And Davos shit his pants because that shit was fucking scary and magic is not something people see every day.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2012, 09:33:50 AM
I'm not speaking for anyone else but I think the magic is clearly evil,


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 24, 2012, 09:57:41 AM
If I remember right from the books, I don't believe Stannis knew what she was doing until after the fact. (Nor do I think he knew *how* it happened, ie shadow person thingy).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 24, 2012, 09:58:54 AM
I'm not ascribing evil to her MOTIVES, or to Stannis for that matter. But what she did? Yeah, that's fucking evil. You can do evil for good reasons, still don't make that shit not evil.

EDIT: Wanting to avoid a costly invasion that might kill millions? Noble. Doing so by dropping a nuclear bomb on a crowded city? EVIL.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2012, 10:34:11 AM
Dany burned someone alive in order to hatch monsters and nobody immediately dubbed her evil.

Wait, what ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2012, 11:25:32 AM
She tied the witch/priestess up during this bit, in the fire.

(http://i.imgur.com/SdhVf.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2012, 11:44:09 AM
Well, yeah, but I take issue with the whole 'She did it to release the Dragons'.

Context really IS fucking important.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 24, 2012, 12:30:53 PM
Yea, there was no intent to "wake dragons" in that scene. The intent was to commit suicide and join her vegetable husband in the afterlife, and she was bringing the wise woman along for the ride out of revenge.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2012, 12:35:26 PM
Indeed !  That's what I saw too !!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 12:37:25 PM
Which doesn't exactly make it any less evil.  Anyways since i am obviously in the minority in thinking there is nothing inherently evil about shadow babies i will drop it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on April 24, 2012, 12:59:27 PM
I'm with IW and Haemish on this one.  Even reading the books they fail to explain exactly WHY Stannis is mucking about with Melisandre and R'hllor in the first place.   The trite explanation Melisandre gives is complete garbage.

Uhh, yes they do.  Stannis' wife was a bit of a lost cause and Stannis near hated her, although she was the reason R'hllor was even considered (as it was her belief).  In comes a hawt redheaded priestess and voila.  Mucking about commences.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2012, 01:01:06 PM
Well, yeah, but I take issue with the whole 'She did it to release the Dragons'.

Context really IS fucking important.

Oh right I see what you mean, ok, carry on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on April 24, 2012, 01:06:43 PM
Well, yeah, but I take issue with the whole 'She did it to release the Dragons'.

Context really IS fucking important.

Oh right I see what you mean, ok, carry on.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on April 24, 2012, 01:18:02 PM
Her speech before she walked into the flames also suggested she was confident she would walk back out.  It was everyone else who assumed she was committing suicide.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2012, 01:21:13 PM
I think she was completely nuts at the time, but both other view points have merit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 24, 2012, 04:41:55 PM
I'm with IW and Haemish on this one.  Even reading the books they fail to explain exactly WHY Stannis is mucking about with Melisandre and R'hllor in the first place.   The trite explanation Melisandre gives is complete garbage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2012, 05:57:12 PM
Yeah, I know, but Ned never took-on the Seven and Caitlin never accepted the Old Gods, so "uh.. because of his wife" isn't going to work for me.   Not for as stubborn and prideful a man as Stannis is supposed to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 24, 2012, 08:01:47 PM
All other things being the same, if the shadow-baby had been a glowing white creature, would it still have been evil? How about a red fire creature? I really didn't take that as an inherently evil act.

Also I assume Stannis had to know what was happening, particularly because in the book:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 24, 2012, 08:08:42 PM
Yea, there was no intent to "wake dragons" in that scene. The intent was to commit suicide and join her vegetable husband in the afterlife, and she was bringing the wise woman along for the ride out of revenge.

It was entirely about hatching the three dragons. Dany often devises one solution to multiple problems. She had learned that "only death can pay for life", wanted revenge on Mirri Maz Duur for killing Drogo, needed a funeral pyre for Drogo, had been looking for a way to hatch the eggs, had figured out that unlike her brother Viserys she was an actual Targaryen dragon immune to heat (there are many cues throughout the first series - a too-hot bath, handling heated items including the eggs, Viserys reacts to heat while she doesn't), and she hatched the dragons in front of her khalasar to win their devotion and begin her campaign.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2012, 08:38:10 PM
Actually i am kind of confused as to where exactly Davos and Melisandre were sneaking into.  Renly's army was at a camp, surrounded by tents, on their way to King's Landing.  Not in a castle that needed sneaking into.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2012, 01:29:35 AM
Well, yeah, but I take issue with the whole 'She did it to release the Dragons'.

Context really IS fucking important.

Oh right I see what you mean, ok, carry on.


Please bear in mind I've only seen the TV Show.  And that really made it all look like an accident.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 25, 2012, 07:00:42 AM
In the show the witch tells dany she won't scream and dany answers "i don't need your screams, just your blood".  After the whole "only blood can pay for life" conversation they had that sounds like there was clearly some magical intent behind the whole thing.  She could've been trying to bring back Drogo also though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2012, 07:02:49 AM
Anorexic.

This is like the Animated Lord of the Rings which pretty much assumed the audience knew the books.  Boromir striding about saying 'Why all this talk of destroying this ring' when no-one on screen has mentioned it at all.

As I say, I really don't think it was terribly explicit, nor well done if that was the intention of the scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 25, 2012, 07:17:54 AM
In the show the witch tells dany she won't scream and dany answers "i don't need your screams, just your blood".  After the whole "only blood can pay for life" conversation they had that sounds like there was clearly some magical intent behind the whole thing.  She could've been trying to bring back Drogo also though.

See, I always took that as a vengeance talk.  "I don't need you to suffer, only to die."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 25, 2012, 07:40:18 AM
Actually i am kind of confused as to where exactly Davos and Melisandre were sneaking into.  Renly's army was at a camp, surrounded by tents, on their way to King's Landing.  Not in a castle that needed sneaking into.

Wasn't it to shadow kill the obstinate commander of stormclaw castle (forgot name) who would not surrender? The castle being very difficult to siege, taking too much time which Stannis did not have.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 25, 2012, 07:58:01 AM
Part of the fun I get from this is the reaction of people who haven't read the books, so please use spoiler tags if you've going to blatantly talk about what actually happens later in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arinon on April 25, 2012, 08:00:26 AM
If I remember right:

(minor spoilers)  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 25, 2012, 08:27:54 AM
In the show the witch tells dany she won't scream and dany answers "i don't need your screams, just your blood".  After the whole "only blood can pay for life" conversation they had that sounds like there was clearly some magical intent behind the whole thing.  She could've been trying to bring back Drogo also though.

See, I always took that as a vengeance talk.  "I don't need you to suffer, only to die."

Yeah, that was my take on it as well. I think Dany was so grief-stricken, she might have had a small hint of an idea that maybe she could be immune to the fire and MAYBE the dragon eggs would hatch, but really, she wanted to kill herself and the witch as much as anything. That she didn't die confirmed she was the dragon, but I don't think she was entirely convinced of that before going in, so much as not really giving a shit about life after her love had died and the Khalasar was gone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 25, 2012, 08:33:09 AM
If I remember right:

(minor spoilers)  



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Obo on April 25, 2012, 09:23:16 AM
I'd always assumed Dany did it intentionally, as she had been piecing together what was needed. She set up the pyre so there was a sacrifice for each of the dragons; Drogo, the witch and... was it a horse? As she was walking into the fire she had been thinking about how the brazier hadn't been enough to hatch the eggs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 25, 2012, 09:56:22 AM
I think the fact that you can legitimately read Dany's intent in different ways at the time and in retrospect is part of what makes that such a brilliant scene.  I already knew what was going to happen because I'd read the books, but it still gave me chills.  I lean toward the "she had an idea of what was going to happen, but also perfectly accepted the possibility of it not working" interpretation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 25, 2012, 09:58:46 AM

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 25, 2012, 10:10:25 AM
I'd always assumed Dany did it intentionally, as she had been piecing together what was needed. She set up the pyre so there was a sacrifice for each of the dragons; Drogo, the witch and... was it a horse? As she was walking into the fire she had been thinking about how the brazier hadn't been enough to hatch the eggs.

Yes, a Horse.  She mentions in the book that it's customary for the head of a Kalassar to be burned with his best horse.

She's also not immune to fire. Martin himself has said so and that the rebirth was a one-off miracle. Her intent was to die in the flames - which is also how I remember her mindset from the book.  I found a Q&A with him while searching for an online text of that chapter of ASoIaF

http://web.archive.org/web/20001005212114/eventhorizon.com/sfzine/chats/transcripts/031899.html



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 25, 2012, 11:51:40 AM
If I remember right:

(minor spoilers)  




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 25, 2012, 02:12:09 PM
Hadn't read the books so I just figured she was committing suicide and taking her things with her.  I was floored!  Iconic scene which will be one of the ones I remember.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 25, 2012, 02:16:12 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 26, 2012, 09:55:54 PM
Yeah, I know, but Ned never took-on the Seven and Caitlin never accepted the Old Gods, so "uh.. because of his wife" isn't going to work for me.   Not for as stubborn and prideful a man as Stannis is supposed to be.

Whatever. I do not see how you have any basis for comparison there at all. If you've read the books recall the Queen's knight faction in Stannis' court. I don't think this is even hinted at in the series.






Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 26, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
If I remember right:

(minor spoilers)  



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 26, 2012, 10:05:02 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 27, 2012, 07:21:55 AM
About Stormsend:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arinon on April 27, 2012, 07:43:59 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 27, 2012, 08:04:56 AM
Hadn't read the books so I just figured she was committing suicide and taking her things with her.  I was floored!  Iconic scene which will be one of the ones I remember.

The books reveal things in interesting ways. For example, the gay relationship between Renly Baratheon and Loras Tyrell, which is there on film in the TV series, is never directly talked about in the books. Because each chapter is written from the direct point of view of a character (it switches between several characters), and in their world homosexuality is very much in its closet. But the occasional clued-up third party makes some underhanded joke which goes over everybody's heads, like wondering whether the Knight of the Flowers gets around behind Renly as much as he does to tourney foes, etc. And when good or bad things happen to Renly, there's a reaction from Loras. And Margaery Tyrell (Renly's wife, Loras's sister) clearly isn't getting any, but the bedroom scene we saw isn't written. Sansa has the hots for Loras, and a hint is dropped for her that she really wouldn't be happy with him. It's left to the reader to add it up, unlike in the TV series.

Other things like Dany's plan are also revealed bit by bit. Unfortunately one thing the TV series skipped was Arya/Arry's response to the attack on the Night's Watch recruits she was travelling with. In the book she's much more involved and much more of a badass. It's an epic chapter, unlike TV Arya on that occasion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 27, 2012, 08:57:36 AM
Hmmm. Don't try to google any combination of "brotherhood" and "arya". Google helpfully assumes you forgot the "n". :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fabricated on April 27, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
I picked the first season of this up for sale and haven't read any of the books.

So uh, it's convoluted medival fantasy intrigue only with R-rated language, titties, and gore. No wonder it's so popular with nerds. I like the medival intrigue stuff but I have a feeling I'm going to need a fucking flowchart to know what the hell is going on as I watch it.

Also the dwarf is unironically a great character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 27, 2012, 11:33:29 AM
HBO's site has a good character/map guide that helps with sorting the various plotlines and figuring out what's going on.

http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/season1/ (http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/season1/)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Segoris on April 27, 2012, 11:37:01 AM
Or just pay attention in Mr Garrison's class during the South Park episode that aired a couple days ago :why_so_serious:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on April 29, 2012, 10:04:58 AM
I too just caught up to the current episode yesterday after watching seasons 1 and 2 up to now.  This thread and so many memes make so much more sense now  :awesome_for_real:

It's weird though, every episode seems to make the main plot even more convoluted and complicated than the last, with one epic event happening at the end of the episode.  It's like when you think shit can't get any worse, it gets fucking worse.  Fun to watch, of course, but it'll be interesting to see how it all comes together in the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2012, 10:17:17 AM
It is a supposedly seven book series, the show is about halfway through book 2.  So yeah, shit is gonna get worse for oh... about the next half decade.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 29, 2012, 05:52:03 PM
0
It's weird though, every episode seems to make the main plot even more convoluted and complicated than the last, with one epic event happening at the end of the episode.  It's like when you think shit can't get any worse, it gets fucking worse.  Fun to watch, of course, but it'll be interesting to see how it all comes together in the end.

Hint- it gets much, much worse.  Book 3 is full of a mixture of awesomeness and WTF JUST HAPPENED.  you ain't seen nothing yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 29, 2012, 07:27:38 PM
Well, crap that was some shit.  :ye_gods:  Really enjoying the storylines, even the Night Watch one now.  I really like this show because I have no fucking idea what will happen next.


The Tyrion line was weak this week and Cersei hitting the sauce seemed out of character, but what do I know.  Greyjoy is always, well a joy to watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 29, 2012, 07:39:07 PM
The Tyrion line was weak this week and Cersei hitting the sauce seemed out of character, but what do I know.  Greyjoy is always, well a joy to watch.

Cersei has no one controlling her directly; Robert Baratheon pretty much kept her docile.  


Spoiler 2, not for those who have want a sneak peek to the book:


Final edit: OK episode, defintely setting stage for rest of this season.  Cannot wait for shit to get real.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 29, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
It's like when you think shit can't get any worse, it gets fucking worse.

Having just read books 1-3 and started on 4, I'd happily retitle the whole series Shit Gets Worse. However, my theory is that it's all about creating the right people to lead humanity against the white walkers (speculation, not a spoiler).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 29, 2012, 07:55:48 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 29, 2012, 08:39:42 PM


 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 29, 2012, 11:48:29 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 30, 2012, 12:36:01 AM
Are these book spoilers or  last episode spoilers?  I thought we established the ground rules here about not talking about the books in this thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 30, 2012, 03:54:08 AM
I'd avoid all the spoilers if I hadn't read the books.

Maisie Williams is really outstanding as Arya Stark.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 30, 2012, 06:04:44 AM
I thought we talked openly about the show and put book spoilers under spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 30, 2012, 06:14:37 AM
That seems to be what most people are doing, I think you could argue for spoiling the most recent episode for a couple of days till it's broadcast in the UK, but if you're in the UK and reading this thread a day after US broadcast, you really get what you deserve.  Maybe a mod could update the title to say book talk in spoilers, or maybe not at all?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 30, 2012, 06:33:53 AM

I'm not sure how comparable Spartacus and Game of Thrones are.  Spartacus is low budget and not afraid to cut corners, with a heavy focus on the sex/violence thrill.  Game of Thrones will likely be a sumptuous period piece based on character and intrigue filmed on location (Westeros is basically reskinned British Isles) with a solid cast of actors.


Been rereading this thread and this one just leapt out at me as hilarious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 30, 2012, 07:15:03 AM
I think last night might have been the first episode of the whole series without sex/nudity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on April 30, 2012, 07:53:03 AM
That ranger dude was cast well. His face just looked of "I'm hard as nails and will pretty much survive anything." I haven't read the books, don't know if he will make it another episode, but I felt like he's a straight up badass.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 30, 2012, 07:56:12 AM
Quorin the halfhand? yeah i thought they did a pretty good job of setting him up as a bad ass.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 30, 2012, 09:41:29 AM
That ranger dude was cast well. His face just looked of "I'm hard as nails and will pretty much survive anything." I haven't read the books, don't know if he will make it another episode, but I felt like he's a straight up badass.

The ranger who was going to lead the small party that Jon Snow went with? Yeah, that guy really looked like he had spent most of his life with his face exposed to freezing cold wind. Good casting or makeup, whichever. I still haven't read any of the books, but the people that have been cast have done a great job making their characters believable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 30, 2012, 09:48:56 AM
So does the Halfhand actually have half a hand in the series- and did they explain why?  I saw some early production stills and they weren't using a prosthetic to make it appear that way so I'm curious if they CGI'd it or are just ignoring it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 30, 2012, 09:55:53 AM
I had a hard time understanding any of the dialogue during the nightswatch scenes, but they were talking about Qhorin when he was approaching so i assume they did explain it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 30, 2012, 09:11:29 PM
Note, this is a book spoiler I'm addressing (though he coded it so vaugly you wont understand wtf we're talking about anyways).  But yeah, I think series talk should openly be printed without spoilers.  I only spoil stuff that's in the books that hasn't happened yet.

Overall I love how they are handling Arya (and frankly, everybody) in the TV versions.  Do I want some more? Yes, but the short cut versions are still well done.  I am still a bit surprised they are going for such short seasons.  Even with just a few more episodes they could flesh out a lot of nice side stuff they've had to cut (let alone if they were actually going normal season length).  Still, I guess this keeps the story and pace moving fast, though I do see people here complaining about to much happening at once, which is direct fallout from that.

I also like how they made Loras not quite a dumb ass in this version, realizing that there was no way Brienne would have killed him.
That ranger dude was cast well. His face just looked of "I'm hard as nails and will pretty much survive anything." I haven't read the books, don't know if he will make it another episode, but I felt like he's a straight up badass.
Yeah, I was really happy with the casting.  They're doing a great job of translating my mental image of these characters to screen.  And yes, he's pretty much the last great bad ass left in the nights watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2012, 01:12:36 AM
role.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 01, 2012, 03:41:03 AM



Quote
Yeah, I was really happy with the casting.  They're doing a great job of translating my mental image of these characters to screen.  And yes, he's pretty much the last great bad ass left in the nights watch.


Ya the casting is definitely better than the location management though as the hill they are on bears not the slightest resemblance to the fist of the first men in the book though it certainly was more dramatic. I wonder if the guy with the goatee was supposed to be Dolorous Edd.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on May 01, 2012, 04:10:03 AM
I walked away from watching the latest episode with a distinct amount of 'meh'. 


Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, just not as much as I've enjoyed the previous episodes so far.  They at least kept certain bits going.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on May 01, 2012, 06:23:51 AM
I think the ending was supposed to be climatic, in that you now realize that this Jacqen (sp?) dude can actually deliver what he promissed, which opens up a whole ton of possibilities. Just how crazy a request might Arya get away with?

I have to say, I kind of like the fact that they are diverging from the book a little bit - at least it doesn't feel like I know every scene thats about to come. Plus, they can write around some of the more pointless decisions that Martin made, like killing off Dany's Lysian Handmaiden in the march through the Red Wastes (a very minor book spoiler, that would have happened three episodes ago if it was going to happen)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 01, 2012, 06:50:13 AM
I think the ending was supposed to be climatic, in that you now realize that this Jacqen (sp?) dude can actually deliver what he promissed, which opens up a whole ton of possibilities. Just how crazy a request might Arya get away with?

Yeah, Stanis has all this power, strong (if you believe Robert was the rightful king, the strongest) claim to the Iron throne, massive army, Fire Mage girlfriend with shadow assassin spawn.  Yet, Arya achieved the same result while being a virtual slave just because she helped a guy out of a cage.  I think it's a nice contrast as the "everyone dies" scene between Arya and Tywin is in the same episode, I don't think it's brilliant but it worked ok for me.  We've seen it in the earlier episode but it's worth pointing out that Arya goes to sleep every night chanting the names of all the people she intends to get even with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2012, 08:54:55 AM
I also thought it was quite a good cliffhanger due to her reaction to it.

She's not a little girl anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 01, 2012, 09:42:42 AM
Maisie Williams is really outstanding as Arya Stark.

Yes, she is. That scene with Tywin Lannister really gave me a lot of appreciation for that kid's acting chops. That was a perfect scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on May 01, 2012, 10:21:46 AM
Nice little touch they do with updating the intro sequence with the new locales that we go to in the episode, though I felt like I was getting whiplash when the camera jumped from The Wall to Qarth  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 01, 2012, 10:30:59 AM
I liked the nice touch of actually showing some repercussions to leaving a little kid parentless for long periods of time.  Almost forgot Rickon existed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 01, 2012, 04:14:06 PM
Besides my minor nerd rage I found it to be a great episode.  We have been spoiled with the OMGWTFBBQ and expect it at every turn.

This episode is setting the stage for the epic OMGWTFBBQ to come.  Can't.  Wait.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 02, 2012, 05:28:54 AM
Maisie Williams is really outstanding as Arya Stark.

Yes, she is. That scene with Tywin Lannister really gave me a lot of appreciation for that kid's acting chops. That was a perfect scene.

I've also admired the awkward lumpiness of Brienne brought to life. And frustrated, crippled Bran lording over his people.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on May 02, 2012, 07:29:01 AM
The creative camera angles alone are really making Breanne work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 02, 2012, 08:31:20 AM
You know what I appreciate about the way the "Brienne flees after shadowbaby assassination" scene plays in the book AND the film? That we're spared the cliched plot of "innocent person protests that a magic thing happened that no one saw, is treated as a lunatic, must eventually break free and go on a quest to prove their innocence". Brienne isn't an idiot, and Caetlyn drives the point home: no one will ever believe that a magic shadowbaby did it and disappeared instantly, there is no point to trying to prove that a magic shadowbaby did it, just get the hell out of there and if you get a chance to kill the motherfucker who was responsible someday, do so. It shoves what might be a central plot engine in another story into the background, makes it just a part of Brienne's reputation from that point on. It's a more subtle example of how Martin takes conventional fantasy tropes and deflates them by putting real human beings with real human societies in the picture. "A wizard did it" even in a society where people concede magic isn't altogether impossible is roughly like saying that you didn't run over those folks on the highway, a UFO did.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
Your argument falls down slightly there when the chap in the next scene doesn't believe she did it for a second.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 02, 2012, 12:42:32 PM
Maisie Williams is really outstanding as Arya Stark.

Yes, she is. That scene with Tywin Lannister really gave me a lot of appreciation for that kid's acting chops. That was a perfect scene.

Agreed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2012, 12:51:37 PM
Your argument falls down slightly there when the chap in the next scene doesn't believe she did it for a second.


I thought that was more of a "she might have stabbed him but she did it for Stannis" than anything else.  Specially since Littlefinger kept nudging him in that direction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2012, 04:06:44 PM
In the books that chap fully believes it was her and vows to hunt her down and kill her.  I liked the change in the TV version personally.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 02, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
In the books that chap fully believes it was her and vows to hunt her down and kill her.  I liked the change in the TV version personally.

Eh?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 02, 2012, 07:00:37 PM
In the books that chap fully believes it was her and vows to hunt her down and kill her.  I liked the change in the TV version personally.

Eh?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on May 02, 2012, 08:12:47 PM
I thought we were talking about the other guy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 03, 2012, 01:07:36 AM
I thought he was talking about Loras.  Guess only Ironwood can clear this up!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2012, 04:38:36 AM
I don't really know names, but I'm going to go with 'Guy who regularly got bummed by the chap with the crown of twigs who's now dead.'

I think that's Loras.

I too welcome the change from the books, since I actually think the whole thing was a little retarded.  Why on Earth would she kill the chap and why now ?  I can tell that she wouldn't really have a problem with people saying she's FUCKING NUTSO LOYAL to the guy, so the whole 'let's run away' angle actually bothered me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 03, 2012, 05:39:04 AM
Nobody knew she was crazy loyal to him yet though, as she had only just become a member of his Kingsguard (at the tournament where she beat Loras and won it as her wish).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2012, 05:49:23 AM
Yeah, because that kind of devotion, training, focus and beating the fuckery out of every other contender springs up overnight.

 :oh_i_see:

 :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 03, 2012, 06:14:24 AM
Women shouldn't wear swords and fight, that's for men only, also where is the king who are all these dead people on the floor?

One of the women, probably both would have been executed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2012, 07:00:23 AM
Yeah, yeah.


 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on May 03, 2012, 10:33:00 AM
Can't wait to see if the show reflects what Brienne looks like underneath all that platemail. 
My main gripe the last few epis. has been the lack of focus on the religion of the IronLands.  I thought that was a very cool part of the novel and it was barely glossed over in the show; unless they plan on drowning someone later.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on May 03, 2012, 11:43:05 AM
I don't think that the drownings really came up until later...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on May 03, 2012, 01:11:49 PM
Yeah, the detail on that religion is a Feast of Crows subject.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 03, 2012, 03:16:46 PM
My main gripe the last few epis. has been the lack of focus on the religion of the IronLands.  I thought that was a very cool part of the novel and it was barely glossed over in the show; unless they plan on drowning someone later.

I've just started book 4 and I don't think that religion was really detailed until now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 03, 2012, 03:40:06 PM
I've only read the first two books and no, none of the religions were explained that much at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 03, 2012, 04:20:48 PM
It starts up next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 03, 2012, 08:11:14 PM
So the drownings are really just a baptism like what was done with Theon a few episodes ago? Or are they actual drownings like some sort of sacrifice? I wouldn't see that for the Drowned God who's supposed to be the good guy in his pantheon, but you never know.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 03, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Both. People from the Iron Islands are baptized like Theon was, but it's also how they execute their enemies (literal drowning) to offer them up as a sacrifice to The Drowned God. Finally, their clergy are literally drowned then CPR'd back to life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 04, 2012, 04:56:18 AM
So the drownings are really just a baptism like what was done with Theon a few episodes ago? Or are they actual drownings like some sort of sacrifice? I wouldn't see that for the Drowned God who's supposed to be the good guy in his pantheon, but you never know.

I didn't think there were any other gods in their pantheon.  I don't remember any being referenced at least.   The DG is like any other sea god in fantasy;  the god is a mercurial, bi-polar sonofabitch because of the nature of the sea.  Helpful one moment providing sustenance and transport then drowning villages and breaking boats in half the next.

Ed: Also, don't confuse the religion with the culture.  "The Old Ways" are somewhat separate from following the Drowned God.  Theon's experiences should have explained a bit about that by now if you're where I think you are in the storyline.  At least in the book he went on about saltwives, & the feudal setup a bit.  You learn more and more about that as time goes on and he spends more time with his former people but the religion stuff comes in book 4.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on May 04, 2012, 12:16:52 PM
Plus, you know, vikings. Human sacrifice wasn't exactly unknown to the real world version either. Modern conceptions of good and evil don't really map well to this kind of thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 04, 2012, 01:34:09 PM
This is a big thing for Martin. He's really trying hard to write fantasy in a pseudo-historical setting where violence simply doesn't mean the same things to people that it does in the modern world. Nobody liked getting killed, raped or maimed by Viking raiders, but Viking raiders did not think of themselves as evil motherfuckers out to kill, rape and maim because they loved being evil. It's not just that Martin is trying to do the POV of different characters, but he's also trying to put all his characters in a world where being human is just...different. Now I think by book 4 & 5 he's failing at that because there's stuff going on that feels much more like consciously attempting to shock a modern sensibility, and characters who had much more modern POVs, but leave that for another day (or another season).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 04, 2012, 05:16:23 PM
Both. People from the Iron Islands are baptized like Theon was, but it's also how they execute their enemies (literal drowning) to offer them up as a sacrifice to The Drowned God. Finally, their clergy are literally drowned then CPR'd back to life.

I think in book 4 it goes into how the "traditional" baptism was drowning and artificial respiration by the priest.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 04, 2012, 05:21:44 PM
Hey it worked most times, well a majority of the time at least.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 04, 2012, 10:23:03 PM

I didn't think there were any other gods in their pantheon.  

I found a refference (A Feast for Crows, Chapter 19) to The Storm God, The Drowned God's eternal equal and enemy. His main role appears to be a being a giant dick and trying to kill Iron Islanders and The Drowned God with guess what? Storms.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 06, 2012, 07:19:14 PM
Tonks full frontal = win.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 07, 2012, 10:46:45 AM
I'm glad I haven't read the books. This series is great. I'm going to be so sad in like 6 weeks when the season is over....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 07, 2012, 11:28:47 AM
You are gonna be even sadder after i tell you there's only four episodes left.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 07, 2012, 11:49:34 AM
I hate HBO sometimes.

I hate you more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 07, 2012, 12:06:30 PM
Whoa, fantastic episode, IMO the best of the season by far. If you read the books, you'll know they made a pretty BIG change compared to the books; I think I know how that will end, but it will be still interesting to see how they will show it.

The boy playing Bran Stark is getting better and better, he's almost on par with Maisie Williams (Arya), IMO.

Addendum: oh, and Ygritte, my beloved Ygritte  :heart: . So far, it looks like that both the writers and the actress totally nailed the character. So happy, since she's  among my favourites of the book series (if not THE favourite).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 07, 2012, 12:26:04 PM
Hm.. some big changes to the details from the summary I just read.  Nothing that shouldn't keep the larger points from being completed, but it certainly will change a number of things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 07, 2012, 02:22:59 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 07, 2012, 02:39:42 PM
Where the hell are they getting all the ladyshaves from ?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 07, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
I think the dragon theft is just a better plot device to get Danerys somewhere that she was already going to have to go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 07, 2012, 06:56:03 PM
I think the dragon theft is just a better plot device to get Danerys somewhere that she was already going to have to go.

She cannot kill in the town unless they break the rules.  Which they did.

Bu-bye.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 08, 2012, 04:48:20 AM
I think the dragon theft is just a better plot device to get Danerys somewhere that she was already going to have to go.

She cannot kill in the town unless they break the rules.  Which they did.

Bu-bye.

I'm thinking here of a particular House...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 08, 2012, 09:01:30 AM
Where the hell are they getting all the ladyshaves from ?


They must have a hell of a merkin budget.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nyght on May 08, 2012, 01:33:34 PM
Where the hell are they getting all the ladyshaves from ?


They must have a hell of a merkin budget.

Oh man. Can't you just let fantasy live?     :tantrum:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 14, 2012, 01:31:58 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/MmH9b.gif)

I think that's the first time I've fully appreciated that line from the story, really well delivered.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 14, 2012, 07:23:56 AM
Squee!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 14, 2012, 10:46:46 AM
I really find myself enjoying the Tywin/Arya dynamic, though I know it can't last much longer. Decent episode all around!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 14, 2012, 03:22:35 PM
I think that's the first time I've fully appreciated that line from the story, really well delivered.

It was amazing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 14, 2012, 03:23:58 PM
I've always been in love with the character, but now I think I also enjoy the actress: love that husky tone of voice and how she delivers the lines  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 14, 2012, 11:42:55 PM
I just love how brazen she is without sounding like a drugged up hooker looking for enough cash to score another hit.  Not that I know what those sound like.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 15, 2012, 08:55:16 AM
I must admit, after the last two episodes taking a somewhat drastic veer off from the books, I got a bit worried - especially when the dragons were stolen. But the more I think on the changes they are making, the more I'm actually liking them better than the book. I especially think the dragon hostage story makes a lot more sense than what was shown in the books. It gives Dany more reason to go to the House of the Undying in the first place. I'm still not sure how they are going to resolve the Jon Snow thing, but the interaction with Ygritte is interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Segoris on May 15, 2012, 09:21:50 AM
As someone who hasn't read the books, Snow being lost with Ygritte is the first time I've given a shit about the Wall (and North of the wall) storyline. Really enjoying those two.

Arya and Lannister is awesome. Arya may end up as my new favorite character over the imp, but not quite yet.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on May 15, 2012, 09:22:59 AM
At this point, since I read the first 2 books so long ago, it is hard for me to distinguish.  I remember that the dragons were never stolen, but the Ygritte subplot escapes me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 15, 2012, 09:45:32 AM
At this point, since I read the first 2 books so long ago, it is hard for me to distinguish.  I remember that the dragons were never stolen, but the Ygritte subplot escapes me.

It was quite a bit different.  It is possible that it ends up similar.  

Depends if he ends up doing a certain deed (non bone related).

They're really diverging on some points.  If they go the way it looks like they're going with Robb, it'll change a certain HUGE EVENT in the future and make some of the political intrigue surrounding that event somewhat less shocking.

Edit: the actress playing Ygritte is doing awesome. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 15, 2012, 07:06:22 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 15, 2012, 07:59:49 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 15, 2012, 09:07:12 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2012, 07:11:30 AM
Episode 8 was the cunt episode. At least three conversations involving the word.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 21, 2012, 11:43:22 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Nothing happened. Besides Robb's hottie getting naked (Damn.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 21, 2012, 12:38:49 PM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Nothing happened. Besides Robb's hottie getting naked (Damn.)

That was a pretty big happening for me.  :awesome_for_real:

It was a setup episode. A well done setup episode, but yeah, the next two episodes will see some serious shit kick off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2012, 02:15:28 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/33985_10150831323417734_74133697733_9873711_897526013_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 21, 2012, 02:16:52 PM
I enjoyed the episode. 
Like Mad Men, this show ramps up over the season and I'm really enjoying it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2012, 02:22:27 PM

Of all the changed storylines compared with the books, that's the only one padded out rather than condensed. Weird.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2012, 03:18:50 PM
Didn't know this about the Battle of the Green Fork not being shown in the first season.
Quote
Benioff: This whole story of Blackwater goes back to the first season because we were supposed to have that battle with Tyrion and we ended up not able to shoot it. And so we had him go down to friendly fire early. We always promised ourselves, we’re gonna have our major battle.
source (http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/05/20/game-of-thrones-blackwater/)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 22, 2012, 05:47:35 PM
Next episode is titled "Blackwater".  Martin himself wrote it.  Gentlemen, prepare yourselves.   :drill:

I'm fine with the Rob Stark love changes.  If anything, because of the actress casting.  Dear god she's hot, and I'd risk the wrath of any Frey and his bridge for THAT.  Seriously.

I'm sad that weasel soup didn't happen, and I guess I lose on that prediction (as discussed earlier in this thread).  I can understand why they didn't do it the way it was setup in the books, considering the entire layout of how many northern prisoners where held at the castle and other factors weren't fleshed out in the series, but still kind of sad.  Wont make much of a difference story wise though, in the long run, so that's why I can understand.

Also not too happy with the change of direction in the Jon Snow Story line:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 22, 2012, 07:22:54 PM


Also not too happy with the change of direction in the Jon Snow Story line:

The problem with doing it that way was that it would push all of the Igritte/Jon stuff to next season, you would have cast a main character and then given her five minutes of screen time for a whole season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 22, 2012, 07:56:40 PM
Whole lot of spoilers, beware!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 23, 2012, 11:14:34 AM
Whole lot of spoilers, beware!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 23, 2012, 11:30:55 AM
Ok, I had a question about the Rob/nurse storyline



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 23, 2012, 12:18:56 PM
Ok, I had a question about the Rob/nurse storyline




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on May 24, 2012, 07:40:26 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 25, 2012, 11:19:02 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on May 25, 2012, 11:29:36 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 25, 2012, 05:02:28 PM
This (http://wicnet.tumblr.com/post/23655576387/tywinning-the-rains-of-castomere-by-the) is freaking awesome.  It's "the rains of Castamere", it says from the season 2 soundtrack so i guess we will get to hear it at some point this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 26, 2012, 01:26:27 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Ok that was fucking awesome.  I never thought i'd be calling Stannis a bad ass but he kicked mayor ass.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 27, 2012, 08:09:46 PM
Yeah, I gained a lot of respect for him.  Tyrion too.  This episode clearly separated the men from the shitheels.  Cersi's scenes were really great and Sansa impresses me again.  I didn't expect the battle to turn out the way it did and I'm glad I can't predict this story.  It was a good idea for the show to focus on Kings Landing, it was a welcome change of pace. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 28, 2012, 04:53:00 AM
I'm not sure how I felt about it. They hyped it up so much, and for anyone who's read the books, that was a tiny battle compared with what Martin wrote about.

There was no point to the flaming arrows, only one use of wildfire, some pretty terrible combat acting, but otherwise some great scenes. My reactions kept varying between "pffft" and "awesome". I'll have to watch it again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on May 28, 2012, 06:00:47 AM
Tbh, the battle wasnt that great.  I dont know what you guys are lookin' at but I thought it was pretty sophomoric, especially when compared with what was written in the book   Look, the producers haven't shied from the fact they really dumbed down the battle scenes to the point of uselessness; Blackwater Bay was no exception.  Extremely abbreviated with lackluster action performances.

I dont mind it really because I know they've got a looooong way to go and a lot of battles to simulate.  Cant do them all perfectly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 28, 2012, 06:05:46 AM
Yeah well, the producers themselves said that, while on the planning stages for S2, they pondered the possibility of letting the battle go on off-stage, while guards and whatnot delivered news to Cersei in the "panic room".

When it comes to this kind of big scale battle scenes in a television show, budget has a huge influence: I just looked up on boxofficemojo.com how much a movie like "American Reunion" costed: reportedly, $50 million dollars.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=americanreunion.htm

From what I read on the net, the producers of GoT season 2 *only* had to work with a budget between 50 and 60 million dollars (for the WHOLE season), just to give you some scale. Then of course no amount of budget can justify lousy writing/coreography and direction in general.

Another example? The recent Tim Burton's "Dark Shadows" costed $150 million dollars (info got from boxofficemojo.com)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on May 28, 2012, 06:32:02 AM
It really wasn't a battle that deserved that much attention tbh anyways.  So I was kinda glad they didnt blow their entire budget on it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 28, 2012, 07:21:39 AM
They did blow almost their entire budget on it, and went and asked for more but got turned down.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 28, 2012, 09:43:37 AM
While I knew it was momentous in the books, about the only thing that was HUGE in scale "on-stage" in the books was the chain and river thing. That was one of the disappointing things for me in the book. The battle actually felt very small in scale despite it not really being that way. Given budgetary constraints, I thought they did a fantastic job with the battle in this episode. The use of wyldfire was explosive enough for me. The actors playing the Hound, Sansa, Cersei, Joffrey and Tyrion hit their parts out of the park.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xuri on May 28, 2012, 09:54:40 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 28, 2012, 10:03:55 AM
Yeah, i really wish we could be watching the show they would have made if they had the budget they wanted but that's simply not going to happen.  They had to film an entire season with about a third of the budget of a movie, if it means the show won't get canceled for being too expensive like Rome was i can deal with it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 28, 2012, 10:08:33 AM
I thought the show was excellently done.  Sure there could have been all kinds of awesome with unlimited budget, but that's like bitching that the blowjob was only from a model and not a SUPERmodel.  FOr fucks sake. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xuri on May 28, 2012, 10:31:51 AM
As a payi... uhm... as a custom... err... as someone who hypothetically downloaded this off the Net I feel I have a right to complain when the show doesn't live up to the impossible standard I've set for it in my mind.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on May 28, 2012, 12:42:17 PM
After a million seasons of shows like Star Trek, Seaquest, BSG, etc. I fail to see how budget is really a factor for GoT aside from perhaps having to pay whiny actors too much money.  Really, where is all this money going?  Seems to me it's more of an issue of getting stuck on a premium cable channel with no commercial revenues.  Had it been PG enough for basic or network cable I'm sure we wouldn't be having this money discussion no?  Also, do not forget that HBO posted around a 50% increase in revenue from 3yrs. prior, somewhat due to GoT.  Srysly, they shouldn't be complaining about budget.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 28, 2012, 01:54:51 PM
Had it been PG enough for basic or network cable I'm sure we wouldn't be having this money discussion no? 

Yes, we would. Scores of shows on network TV have been canceled for being too pricey at the peak of their success. Shows that run about $1 million an episode are considered pricey - for a 22-episode season that's $22 million on top-rated shows. Budget is a huge concern on TV production.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 28, 2012, 03:35:41 PM
This one was 60 million for 10 episodes i think.  That might have been season 1 though, i know season 2 cost more and they went back and asked for even more and got turned down.  Rome was 100 million or so per season and it doomed it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 29, 2012, 12:44:05 AM
Oh fuck.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 29, 2012, 12:55:04 AM
That.....is a frightening picture to behold.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on May 29, 2012, 08:21:30 AM
They look about 4 years younger than they are now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on May 29, 2012, 09:12:52 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/3PiKQ.gif)

 :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 29, 2012, 06:38:45 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/mqXlO.jpg)

Reminded me of

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Hxb96F3NM7U/TwSq7FM09fI/AAAAAAAADZ0/ng1dvQtzqlE/s1600/AbsolutelyFabulousPR300811.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 29, 2012, 07:08:25 PM
Cersi:  "Come heer my little dovesssh."

Sansa:  "You know what?  Imma gonna break that wine glass and shove it down your Kingspipe."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 29, 2012, 09:10:18 PM
Oh fuck.


Wow, it took me a while to figure out who the guy wearing the glasses was. Also, the guy who plays Theon:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rtOXMZlMTkg/S9OGIVDjB8I/AAAAAAAADEU/Ow9aL4QVy-o/s1600/Supervillain.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 29, 2012, 09:24:50 PM
Also, the guy who plays Theon:

... is the subject of this song by his sister. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RgOm_WJKpE)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 29, 2012, 09:35:21 PM
Preliminary list of new characters for (Spoiler) Game of Thrones season 3 (http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/05/29/game-of-throne-season-3-cast/).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on May 30, 2012, 06:11:37 AM
Theon does look strangely pissed off in that picture.  Or is that just how his face always is?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 30, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
He just found out that he didn't get the part in a Harry Potter spin off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2012, 01:29:06 PM
I'm not sure why they list Beric as a new character; he was in Season 1 for a few minutes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 31, 2012, 03:22:13 PM
Because they are probably not gonna use the same guy.  Keeping a guy on stand by for three seasons only works in books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 01, 2012, 02:43:18 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/555406_10151802724680512_894573820_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on June 01, 2012, 05:56:19 PM
Good god no.  This show cannot survive both his and Tyrion's egos  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 02, 2012, 11:44:10 PM
Tyrion riffing with Tony Stark would be so awesome, no screen could contain it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 03, 2012, 08:35:24 PM
That really was a great speech.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 04, 2012, 12:09:19 AM
That really was a great speech.
I feel so sorry for him, he seems to be written as someone always having bad luck, despite being capable.
On the other hand that blonde dragon slut without personality or charisma has everything thrown into her lap. So unfair.  :heartbreak: :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2012, 06:51:18 AM
If he was capable he would have taken Bran and Rickon and gone home.  Showing up in Pyke with the Stark boys and presenting them to his father with a "the Starks took your sons so i brought you theirs" would have completely redeemed him with his family and immediately gotten him reinstated as heir.  Instead he wanted to play at being prince of Winterfell and completely blew what really should have been a war winning death blow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 04, 2012, 07:42:45 AM
If he was capable he would have taken Bran and Rickon and gone home.  Showing up in Pyke with the Stark boys and presenting them to his father with a "the Starks took your sons so i brought you theirs" would have completely redeemed him with his family and immediately gotten him reinstated as heir.  Instead he wanted to play at being prince of Winterfell and completely blew what really should have been a war winning death blow.

Pfff, if he was someone else it would have worked...because of dragons, mysterious assasin which talks in 3rd person, last minute help by dad and his army or shadow ghost that stabs your enemies. Fact is he is written as a loser and most probably wont have any luck in the 3rd season either.

Which is a crime against humanity in my eyes as I really, really like the actor!

Edit, as I don't want to start a new post for this:

If I was R. R. Martin the saga would end like this: All throne pretenders meet in Kings Landing to talk things out, then suddenly die when the ceiling caves in, execpt Theon and Shae, who marry and have lots of kids and rule the kingdom ever after. THE END!

*gets another glass of wine*

Edit 2: Funfact I just learned:

Quote
Sibel Kekilli, currently starring in HBO’s Game Of Thrones as the prostitute Shae, has a past as a performer in porn.

Kekilli, a German of Turkish descent, appeared in at least nine adult films using the name “Dilara.” Her past was revealed in Germany after being cast in the film Head-On.

http://www.nationalconfidential.com/20120423/game-of-thrones-actress-sibel-kekilli-has-porn-past/ (http://www.nationalconfidential.com/20120423/game-of-thrones-actress-sibel-kekilli-has-porn-past/)

Edit 3:

Totally SFW picture:


If you want to know what happens next, google 'Sibel Kekilli (Dilara) - Das Beste Aus Teeny Exzesse 8.avi' you sick perverts!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on June 04, 2012, 08:55:10 AM
I KNEW she looked familiar.

(I saw her in Head On and her other non-adult movies)  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2012, 10:34:59 AM
She looks much better now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 04, 2012, 12:16:09 PM
Episode 9 was great, 10 was just awesome, not a single scene wasted and it seemed to last ages.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2012, 12:42:42 PM
It did go on about ten minutes longer than usual.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 04, 2012, 02:16:03 PM
Quote
Sibel Kekilli, currently starring in HBO’s Game Of Thrones as the prostitute Shae, has a past as a performer in porn.

When she first appeared in season one, this thread celebrated these things. But feel free... :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 04, 2012, 02:17:55 PM
I enjoyed it.  A lot more conclusions than I was expecting.  Dragon-girl's story was better than I expected.  Again.  I loved Qarth; such a mirage in the desert!

Finally, finally the Jon Snow story line has some great payoff.  Actually look forward to that next season. 

Enjoyed the nice theater Joffre and his court put on for the people.  He's so noble!  :awesome_for_real:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 04, 2012, 03:14:40 PM
I just bought A Storm of Swords to start reading once I'm finished with Anathem. I don't know if he reappears again, but I really dug the actor they had for Jaquen Hakar (yes, I have no idea how to spell that these days). The resolution of Dany in Qarth was better and more understandable than the book, IMO.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2012, 05:21:35 PM
I just bought A Storm of Swords to start reading once I'm finished with Anathem. I don't know if he reappears again, but I really dug the actor they had for Jaquen Hakar (yes, I have no idea how to spell that these days). The resolution of Dany in Qarth was better and more understandable than the book, IMO.

Have you read the first two books? if not i would recommend you start from the beginning, the basic plot is mostly the same but so many of the details are changed you are probably going to be a bit lost.  Also season 2 does not fit book 2 quite as neatly as season 1 did book 1.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on June 04, 2012, 06:06:08 PM
And the best surprise of the night for me:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 04, 2012, 07:48:17 PM
Good episode!  God I wish they would make this thing faster (or at least give a few extra episodes per season).  Going to be a long slog to season 3. 

I also thought their new take on what white walkers look like to be MUCH better than the pilot.  Still barbarian monster in rags (to me, there is just something neat about an advance looking sophisticated armor wearing scary race coming out of the depths of barbarian land), but much more other worldly and foreboding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 04, 2012, 11:05:00 PM
I didn't really like what they did with the scene in Qarth compared to the books.

Other than that, great episode. Cannot wait for Season 3.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on June 05, 2012, 07:12:29 AM
At last two great television franchises unite!

(http://www.musicalsparks.com/images/whitewalker.jpg)
(http://blog.newsok.com/nerdage/files/2010/11/Rick_517x3071.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on June 05, 2012, 07:24:12 AM
Bran/Winterfell questions/musings under spoiler




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Segoris on June 05, 2012, 07:35:54 AM
Bran/Winterfell questions/musings under spoiler




As for Jon Snow and the wall....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2012, 07:39:15 AM
Re Bran and Winterfell



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2012, 07:43:38 AM
That's exactly what I said.  In the books, it doesn't go down that way, so it makes sense.  Here, not so much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lac on June 05, 2012, 08:02:45 AM
I was confused by this too. What happens to the camping army in the books after they knock out Theon? Do they pack up and leave when they see the fire (as I understood from wachting the ep.) or where they still there when Bran decides to go North?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2012, 08:21:42 AM
I think they have chosen to deliberately make the sacking of Winterfell mysterious as a set-up for the introduction of an important secondary character in the next season, so it's a bit hard to know what to say re: the books.

But...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 05, 2012, 08:33:21 AM
I think they have chosen to deliberately make the sacking of Winterfell mysterious as a set-up for the introduction of an important secondary character in the next season, so it's a bit hard to know what to say re: the books.

But...


Actually, no.    THAT makes a lot of sense.  What they showed on TV was a result of not being able to cast a main character for one single scene so everything is left up in the air until the third season when he has more than a bit part.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2012, 08:35:25 AM
Oh, right. Getting the series rewrite a bit confused with the details of the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 05, 2012, 10:14:38 AM
I think they have chosen to deliberately make the sacking of Winterfell mysterious as a set-up for the introduction of an important secondary character in the next season, so it's a bit hard to know what to say re: the books.

But...


Actually, no.    THAT makes a lot of sense.  What they showed on TV was a result of not being able to cast a main character for one single scene so everything is left up in the air until the third season when he has more than a bit part.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 05, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Bran/Winterfell questions/musings under spoiler


Others have posted book spoilers instead of answering you tactfully.

Here is an answer for TV viewers: the final view of Winterfell was a result seen through the eyes of Bran and Rickon. The explanation for that result is presumably being saved up for season 3, whereas book readers already knew why at that stage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on June 05, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
Bran/Winterfell questions/musings under spoiler



Things aren't as they seem.  The reason is laid out in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 05, 2012, 02:07:08 PM
The show didn't explain what happened well at all. As others have said, you'll see in Season 3 why Bran/Rickon had to leave and hopefully at least hear about what happened to Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2012, 04:16:23 PM
Ok, but as a result of having to remember the complicated shit in the book, I have to say that no matter how they explain it, they aren't going to be explaining it the way the books explained it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 06, 2012, 12:43:17 AM
To be honest, I worry less about explaining it to the audience and more about the logic as seen by the characters.

I mean, they have no fucking idea what went on either.  Why the fuck did they run ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 06, 2012, 01:15:54 AM
It didn't really bother me, there's 4 of them, an idiot, 2 young kids and a woman, Winterfell is destroyed.  None of them are going to be taken seriously by anyone, so they need someone they can trust, with the North being stripped of the the majority of the Nobles they know, Jon Snow is fairly close and due to his oath, his location should be certain.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2012, 04:55:48 AM
Luwin explained it that way to them, pretty much: Jon is the only person nearby you can trust. Can't go south, too dangerous, who knows what the heck is going on in the north with the ironmen running around. Luwin doesn't know that the Wall has its own problems, so it seems like a safe place to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 08:42:15 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 08, 2012, 10:56:28 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 10, 2012, 07:33:52 PM
I thought the Theon storyline in the books was really interesting.  I don't know why you all hate fun.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 11, 2012, 06:30:58 AM
Up to this point, sure. But now?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 11, 2012, 11:13:13 PM
Not sure why you guys (who have read the book) are having a hard time seeing exactly whats going on and how they are handling Winterfell:

Edit:  Woops, fixed.  Thanks Rendakor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 12, 2012, 12:00:09 AM
I assume you didn't mean to type Jon there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Dark_MadMax on June 12, 2012, 01:37:24 AM
Season2 was such a huge disappointment for me :(

-I expected them to show all the horrors of war (burned villages, hanged folk, torture etc). To show how much of a monster Gregori Clegane and Amory Loch were. It was  really dark and depressing depictions of all of this in the book

-Whole Renly Baratheon "gay" angle and  they  for some reason showed Margery to be a  power hungry ambitious bitch (while she was in fact just young innocent flower -all the more horror to be married to Joeffrey).Totally botched for no reason

-Battle of a blackwater-  the worst. It was supposed to be epic. More epic than anything I read so far. Thousands of ships clashing .The chain trap and wild fire . Firestorm on the water .  Instead it looked like weekend skirmish of drunk guards.   Come on nowdays make a thousands ships in CGI is not that expensive.


 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2012, 01:54:26 AM
Actually, it kinda is without it looking like utter ass.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2012, 02:32:25 AM
-Whole Renly Baratheon "gay" angle and  they  for some reason showed Margery to be a  power hungry ambitious bitch (while she was in fact just young innocent flower -all the more horror to be married to Joeffrey).Totally botched for no reason

Renly was gay in the book, it's just easier to miss, with the limited TV time available Margaery Tyrell is representing the whole Tyrell clan and the Rose plays the game differently to the Stag, Wolf, Lion or Dragon.  She is less likeable but I can see it was going to be difficult to add yet another major house to the TV show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 12, 2012, 06:30:13 AM
Book Margery was pretty much useless, and had little point beyond her last name - I like the fact that the TV show has changed her in to character with her own motives. As for Blackwater - we're going to have to accept that you are not going to get any LotR scale battlescenes in a tv series - I thought they did pretty well with what they had. Probably would have helped to have a couple smoke obscured, wide shots of Stanis's army invading the beach to give it a better sense of scale.

As to the Renly thing - he was so inconsequential in the books that I barely remembered him outside of his death scene. Where as I thought the TV show did a great job of presenting him as an important player with an actual story - which made killing him off suddenly so much more effective.

Book readers are going to have to accept the fact that the show is going to diverge from the books quite a bit. Personally, I prefer it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 12, 2012, 07:50:19 AM
Show Margaery is much better than book Margaery. How her character already behaves will make events in season 3/4 make more sense imo. I think, overall, the show has a done a really good job where it's deviated from the book. Starting with Eddard's fight against Jamie in King's Landing, right into some of the things they've done for season 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2012, 08:32:10 AM
Also, she's the hawt as fuck woman from Fades.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 12, 2012, 08:41:50 AM
Or, the other role where she practiced getting fucked by a mad king, Anne Boleyn in the Tudors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2012, 08:45:49 AM
Or when she snogged Steve Rogers after he became Captain America and the other British woman was all like 'oh, Poor Show, Chaps.'


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 12, 2012, 08:04:36 PM
Or, the other role where she practiced getting fucked by a mad king, Anne Boleyn in the Tudors.
This is where I remember her fondly from. They've sort of projected a lot of her father's character onto her, which I'm fine with since I'd rather see a pretty lady than a fat man.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 12, 2012, 11:43:22 PM
Season2 was such a huge disappointment for me :(
-Whole Renly Baratheon "gay" angle and  they  for some reason showed Margery to be a  power hungry ambitious bitch (while she was in fact just young innocent flower -all the more horror to be married to Joeffrey).Totally botched for no reason

So yes, I'm very happy with what they've done with the character.  And the actress they picked who seems so in love with side boobs from a quick GIS.  Thank you Ironwood, I hadn't realized she was the hot chick in Captain America.  She looks better as a Brunette though. :sad:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 13, 2012, 12:00:46 AM
There are a lot of things strongly implied but unsaid in the books, which must become more clearly said on TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on June 13, 2012, 10:35:12 AM






Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on June 13, 2012, 10:38:20 AM
To be honest, I worry less about explaining it to the audience and more about the logic as seen by the characters.

I mean, they have no fucking idea what went on either.  Why the fuck did they run ?


In the book the dreams were having a much greater influence on Bran than in the series. That combined with the 2 missing character's influence made Bran's decision to head north and find the 3 eyed crow much more reasonable. Bran sees this as his salvation from being a cripple.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on June 13, 2012, 10:47:57 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 13, 2012, 11:27:49 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 13, 2012, 11:36:33 AM
Every other board were this show is discussed has some standard rules, we are basically just winging it here and some people are assuming we are all book readers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 13, 2012, 11:37:16 AM
Why would you not spoiler that?

edit: I have the power.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 13, 2012, 11:39:10 AM
To be honest, I worry less about explaining it to the audience and more about the logic as seen by the characters.

I mean, they have no fucking idea what went on either.  Why the fuck did they run ?


In the book the dreams were having a much greater influence on Bran than in the series. That combined with the 2 missing character's influence made Bran's decision to head north and find the 3 eyed crow much more reasonable. Bran sees this as his salvation from being a cripple.

Hmmm.  OK.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on June 13, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Ya I'm kind of curious why the complaint about my post in spoiler tags. If you're reading something labled spoiler I really think it should come as no surprise if it's a spoiler. Please someone explain the rules for spoilers in this thread.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 13, 2012, 09:51:35 PM
Beside Ned Stark's head was George W Bush's. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158950/Fury-HBOs-Game-Thrones-shows-President-George-W-Bushs-decapitated-head-impaled-STAKE.html)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 14, 2012, 12:00:49 AM
Ya I'm kind of curious why the complaint about my post in spoiler tags. If you're reading something labled spoiler I really think it should come as no surprise if it's a spoiler. Please someone explain the rules for spoilers in this thread.

You forgot the spoiler tags, Rasix edited it to add them.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 14, 2012, 01:15:13 AM
 :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on June 15, 2012, 07:44:08 PM
Ya I'm kind of curious why the complaint about my post in spoiler tags. If you're reading something labled spoiler I really think it should come as no surprise if it's a spoiler. Please someone explain the rules for spoilers in this thread.

You forgot the spoiler tags, Rasix edited it to add them.




Ah crap I must have mucked it up then cause I thought I put in spoiler tags.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2012, 10:01:43 AM
So I only just watched this. Caught the second season, then went back and watched the first on dvd.

I actually think it was better that way, watching the first season as a prequel meant the slower story with too much exposition was interesting as filling in background on shit I'd already seen in season 2. Not sure I'd have rated it as highly the other way around.



Also there is a fair amount fantasy-author-first-book-bullshit in season 1. By the second season there are enough plates spinning that nobody has to fill pages with, for example, everything that happened in the eyrie and overlong scenes where nothing happens to the Targaryans. And the first season defines too many people as unambiguously good/evil as you meet them.

A lot of moaning I've seen about season 2 seems to basically be that they couldn't fit everything in. Well tough shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on June 16, 2012, 10:42:50 AM

Also there is a fair amount fantasy-author-first-book-bullshit in season 1. By the second season there are enough plates spinning that nobody has to fill pages with, for example, everything that happened in the eyrie and overlong scenes where nothing happens to the Targaryans. And the first season defines too many people as unambiguously good/evil as you meet them. .

I think the first novel bullshit is all in your head though because it was far from RR Martin's first novel or screenplay. Plus I didn't get that from the book in the slightest.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2012, 10:56:27 AM
I haven't read the book.

I was referring to a general tendency of fantasy novel authors to fill their early work and especially first part of a series, with too much fantasy and not enough novel. First season came across the same way after watching the second season before it.

If it didn't come from the book, fair enough.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 16, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
With A Song of Ice and Fire the fantasy actually increases with each book.  The first book has the least fantasy.  I don't know if that has been translated into the series though; I've lost perspective.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 16, 2012, 02:16:15 PM
Oh no, the second season had far far more fantasy elements than the first so i don't know what hes going on about.  We had shadow babies, face changers, multi warlocks, poison drinking witches and zombie armies.  First season only had Dany being fire immune and dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 16, 2012, 08:21:49 PM
There were some white walkers in the first scene of the pilot as well; however I agree that season two had much more fantasy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 17, 2012, 07:46:06 AM
I think eldaec was trying to explain something using inappropriate terms.  When he was referring to fantasy it wasn't magic and such, it was that any first book in such a series to to try and set the EPIC tone with over-long exposition and details fleshed-out unnecessarily.   Instead of feeling like a world and epic things feel overblown and ponderous because the author has tried to vomit too much into the setting instead of just letting things happen.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 17, 2012, 08:24:54 AM
Merusk covers it better. By fantasy I don't just mean zombies, I mean how much of the time is spent saying 'look at how fantastical this world is', even in entirely non-magic areas, instead of telling a story about characters that happen to have an unusual set of tools and situations in front of them.

The first season lingered too long on how amazing the wall & night watch is, how weird and nuts the community in the eyrie is, how Targaryens were just hanging out with mysterious horse nomads who were really fucking mysterious and have I mentioned in last 5 minutes how they never crossed the seas?

In the second season, the story had got up enough speed that when a witch gives birth to a shadow who kills a guy they do it with a couple of meaningful looks and it doesn't seem unreasonable. The script doesn't spend time fantasising about wildfire, they mention it once in a scene primarily about Tyrion being smart and Cersi being a damn fool, then they just blow some shit up.

I'm not saying any of it was bad or anything - just this is why I preferred the second season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2012, 09:19:49 AM
Interview with Natalia Tena (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/06/13/interview-with-game-of-thrones-star-natalia-tena/).

Quote from: Natalia Tena
I was a bit upset about the fact that they showed my minge without hair because I think my character would have a massive bush. I would have muff, like a muff coming down the thighs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 17, 2012, 10:32:38 AM
She sounds delightful.

Seriously.

Is she Scottish ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 17, 2012, 11:20:30 AM
Apparently, she's British but of Spanish descent.

Definitely sounds like a contender for Ms. Scotland.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 17, 2012, 06:19:09 PM
 
Interview with Natalia Tena (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/06/13/interview-with-game-of-thrones-star-natalia-tena/).

Quote from: Natalia Tena
I was a bit upset about the fact that they showed my minge without hair because I think my character would have a massive bush. I would have muff, like a muff coming down the thighs.

 :heart: :heart: :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ubvman on June 17, 2012, 09:58:38 PM
Interview with Natalia Tena (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/06/13/interview-with-game-of-thrones-star-natalia-tena/).

Quote from: Natalia Tena
I was a bit upset about the fact that they showed my minge without hair because I think my character would have a massive bush. I would have muff, like a muff coming down the thighs.

Damn budget cuts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin)

She's Nymphadora Tonks in the Harry Potter movies, in keeping with the majority of the cast from the UK.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sickrubik on June 20, 2012, 09:21:22 AM
A velvety merkin is always delicious.

(http://aleheads.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/merkin.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 21, 2012, 12:06:43 PM
As good as Dinklage has been i hope this year it's Alfie Allen who gets an emmy.  And then i hope he rubs it all over his sisters face.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 21, 2012, 08:36:04 PM
He really did do a spectacular job this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on June 26, 2012, 01:14:17 AM
 :awesome_for_real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j7lp3RhzfgI


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 26, 2012, 01:17:29 AM
Ha, the Great Bearded Glacier.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 26, 2012, 01:34:12 AM
Interview with Natalia Tena (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/06/13/interview-with-game-of-thrones-star-natalia-tena/).

Quote from: Natalia Tena
I was a bit upset about the fact that they showed my minge without hair because I think my character would have a massive bush. I would have muff, like a muff coming down the thighs.

I also liked this quote from the interview:

Quote from: Natalia Tena
"I think it’s really unfair, every actor, any actress has had her tits out. Every single actress I know. Blokes it’s like, let’s see some cock. Do you know what I mean? Let’s make it more even."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 26, 2012, 06:40:10 AM
Ha, the Great Bearded Glacier.

And no one will ever let go on the four page descriptions of meals.

Still trying to figure out why Vork was in that video though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 26, 2012, 06:47:17 AM
Maybe if you are on Geek&Sundry, you get an complimentary castmember of the Guild loaned for your first video as introduction present?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 26, 2012, 07:40:38 PM
There's a new Game of Thrones RPG out. This Aussie review of it is very funny (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/video/default.htm?src=/tv/goodgame/video/xml/20120626_2030.xml&item=06) - especially when they get to the archer combat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 27, 2012, 09:08:51 AM
Wow, that game looks terribad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 27, 2012, 10:48:25 AM
Oh man the end of that review vid had me rolling at the hand on hip  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 28, 2012, 02:23:36 PM
Wow, that game looks terribad.

Cyanide.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 28, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
Wow, that game looks terribad.

Cyanide.

That would certainly fix the problem, but only if we could get the developers to take it.  :why_so_serious:

Yes, I know Cyanide developed it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 28, 2012, 02:55:11 PM
On rewatch i just noticed that Tyrion is whistling the rains of Castamere on the first episode of season 2 as he walks in the small council meeting.  That's awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on July 13, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
Video of some of the new cast members for season 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpSDSgChsaI


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on July 13, 2012, 09:17:24 PM
Diana Rigg as Olenna is just a really odd bit of casting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on July 13, 2012, 10:29:29 PM
Diana Rigg as Olenna is just a really odd bit of casting.

I don't think so at all. That's how I would have cast her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mosesandstick on July 14, 2012, 12:09:13 AM
Gareth from the Office  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2012, 05:46:07 PM
Diana Rigg as Olenna is just a really odd bit of casting.

I don't think so at all. That's how I would have cast her.

As a woman far too tall and somewhat too young?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on July 16, 2012, 10:27:02 PM
Diana Rigg as Olenna is just a really odd bit of casting.

I don't think so at all. That's how I would have cast her.

As a woman far too tall and somewhat too young?

I don't know about her height but from this 2006 photo it looks like they won't have much trouble making her look old enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Rigg'



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 17, 2012, 06:22:27 AM
Maggie Smith would have been the perfect choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 17, 2012, 08:54:25 PM
Who the heck is Orell? That guy looks like a Vargo Hoat or maybe a Ramsay Snow to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 17, 2012, 09:12:38 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on July 17, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Ya kind of curious to see how he's going to make an appearance in season 3. Would have thought they'd just skip him seeing as he should, as you say, be dead by now.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on July 17, 2012, 10:49:13 PM
Possibly he will be replacing Varamyr since it is probably cheaper to have a trained eagle for a few episodes than Varamyr's stable of animals.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on August 10, 2012, 03:03:59 AM
Tight security as top TV series is filmed at Gosford Park (http://www.ulstergazette.co.uk/articles/news/28705/tight-security-as-top-tv-series-is-filmed-at-gosford-park/)

Quote
GOSFORD Castle will feature heavily in the third series of the hit television show Game of Thrones.
Filming at the castle and the surrounding forest started last Tuesday and continued well into the weekend.
But only a few lucky members of the public were able to catch a glimpse of the cast as a blanket of security descended upon the immediate area.

Dozens of lorries took up car parks throughout Gosford while numerous cameras have been placed on and around the castle.
And this isn't the first time that Gosford has featured in Game of Thrones following a brief appearance in season two.
As well as that staging was set up in the picturesque gardens while scenes were also shot deep within the forest.

The return of Game of Thrones has been greeted with plenty of excitement from local fans of the show. But as well as that, fans have travelled from across Northern Ireland in a bid to catch a glimpse of the action.
But a veil of secrecy has been placed on everyone involved in the show, from lead actors, extras and production staff.

The show, based on the books by George R R Martin and brought to the screens by Home Box Office (HBO), has reached phenomenal levels amongst fans worldwide.
While little secret has been made that the show is mainly based in Northern Ireland, the exact whereabouts of filming has remained a tight-lipped secret.
But what is known is that, given filming has been continuing for almost a week, the Co Armagh landmark is set to play a key role in the latest season of the show.
However, for those avid fans of the show, it is believed that Gosford will will be the setting for Riverrun - the seat of the House of Tilly.

The pilot programme and the first two series attracted funding of £6m from Invest NI, but that money has been shown to have brought in £40m to the Northern Irish economy. And another £3.2m of public money will go towards the series currently being filmed.

The third season of Game of Thrones is due to hit the television screens in March next year.

So odd this, we used to walk round Gosford Castle nearly every weekend.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 20, 2012, 09:43:16 AM
Ciaran fucking Hinds cast as Mance Rayder.  A bit old for the part but a great actor non the less.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on August 20, 2012, 04:30:52 PM
Osha fans might want to check out Tonight You're Mine. I saw it the other night and it was quite a fun movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1672845/ Also known as You Instead according to IMDB.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on November 14, 2012, 01:47:53 PM
Jesus, this fell off the first page  :ye_gods:

Back up you go.  Season 3 starts 3/31/13.  BE THERE!  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on November 14, 2012, 06:59:52 PM
That's four and a half months away, well after the birthday I'm in denial about. Might as well be talking about the release date of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit lol... oh, wait.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on November 16, 2012, 07:03:38 AM
My wife will be 9 mos pregnant then.  Hard to imagine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on December 19, 2012, 10:29:49 AM
Looks like the third season's episodes will be a few minutes longer each.  Yay. :heart:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/showbiz/tv/game-of-thrones-season-three/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on January 17, 2013, 09:44:19 PM
Apologies in advance for the de-rail...

So when I finished watching series 1 I started on the books - got sidetracked by 6 months of study and am now finishing ADWD.  To sate me for 2 months until season 3 comes out; can any of you recommend a good series of fantasy/high-fantasy books which I can purchase and start?  My only requirement is that it needs to be more than 2-3 books long; I've read WoT and Malazan already.

Also going back to page 46 of this thread:


Also the actor cast as Missandei is AMAZING  :drillf: :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on January 17, 2013, 10:59:55 PM
I'm not sure Cook qualifies as high fantasy, but you could look at either his Dread Empire or Black Company series.  Sanderson's Mistborn series.  Wheel of Time.  I think Feist's Magician series goes on longer than the 2 I read (didn't care for it).

Sorry, I got nothing exotic. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on January 18, 2013, 05:49:59 AM
Apologies in advance for the de-rail...

So when I finished watching series 1 I started on the books - got sidetracked by 6 months of study and am now finishing ADWD.  To sate me for 2 months until season 3 comes out; can any of you recommend a good series of fantasy/high-fantasy books which I can purchase and start?  My only requirement is that it needs to be more than 2-3 books long; I've read WoT and Malazan already.

Also going back to page 46 of this thread:


Also the actor cast as Missandei is AMAZING  :drillf: :drillf:

First six books of the Thomas Covenant if you haven't read those.  I have a soft spot for Tad Williams and his Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 18, 2013, 07:33:45 AM
I've had those books for nearly 15 years now and I still haven't made it past the first one.  Something about it simply bores me to tears, even though it's better written than Jordan's books.  The whole storyline just feels ponderous.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on January 18, 2013, 10:36:48 AM
I've had those books for nearly 15 years now and I still haven't made it past the first one.  Something about it simply bores me to tears, even though it's better written than Jordan's books.  The whole storyline just feels ponderous.

That's basically the issue with Williams summed up right there. He obviously loves the English language, which is a bonus. The problem is his sense of pacing is shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 18, 2013, 10:43:56 AM
I saw an interview with GRRM not so long ago which firmly hinted that this season goes as far into book 3 as the 2 *HOLY SHIT* events in Kings Landing and in the other place, which, given they are three quarters of the way through SoS, means covering a ton of ground in ten episodes - possibly too much.

That said, if they get there in one piece then retiming the two events to happen simultaneously in the final episode could be a hell of a way to go out.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 18, 2013, 11:11:46 AM
You also have to remember that the last season had a few bits that weren't covered until book 3 and a number of chapters of book 3 were people wandering around in the rain.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on January 18, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
I'm not sure Cook qualifies as high fantasy, but you could look at either his Dread Empire or Black Company series.  Sanderson's Mistborn series.  Wheel of Time.  I think Feist's Magician series goes on longer than the 2 I read (didn't care for it).

Sorry, I got nothing exotic. 


To sate me for 2 months



C'mon man.  Don't be mean.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on January 18, 2013, 01:16:00 PM
I've had those books for nearly 15 years now and I still haven't made it past the first one.  Something about it simply bores me to tears, even though it's better written than Jordan's books.  The whole storyline just feels ponderous.

Here is a secret.  You don't have to read every word.  Most of us on these forums can skim/read quite well, I imagine.  Adapt to ponderous prose.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on January 18, 2013, 04:17:12 PM
Read the first three Covenant books after high school and The Lord of the Rings.  Fantasy took a dark turn there.  Overall they were good but that writer really likes rape-rape and it really stained the trilogy to me. 

Looking forward to GoT:3


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on January 18, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
I couldn't get through Memory, Sorrow and Thorn either, despite loving Williams' Otherland series to death. L. E. Modesitt's Recluse saga is pretty good fantasy, although each book is sort of stand alone set at different places/times in the same universe rather than a linear narrative.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on January 18, 2013, 11:27:15 PM
I'm not sure Cook qualifies as high fantasy, but you could look at either his Dread Empire or Black Company series.  Sanderson's Mistborn series.  Wheel of Time.  I think Feist's Magician series goes on longer than the 2 I read (didn't care for it).

Sorry, I got nothing exotic. 


To sate me for 2 months



C'mon man.  Don't be mean.

He could be unemployed or something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 19, 2013, 07:11:12 AM
You also have to remember that the last season had a few bits that weren't covered until book 3 and a number of chapters of book 3 were people wandering around in the rain.

And thinking about it, they can stretch events north of the wall, I'd probably end the season with the arrival at Queenscrown or possibly even the climbing bit. In the book the characters in the far north seemed to be racing through their arcs far faster than anyone else, letting that phase of Jon's story remain open till season 4 would help it seem more believable that he develops as much as he does.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 19, 2013, 12:11:19 PM
The Mistborn trilogy by Brandon Sanderson.  You are welcome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on January 20, 2013, 03:03:25 PM
I'm not sure Cook qualifies as high fantasy, but you could look at either his Dread Empire or Black Company series.  Sanderson's Mistborn series.  Wheel of Time. I think Feist's Magician series goes on longer than the 2 I read (didn't care for it).

Sorry, I got nothing exotic.  


To sate me for 2 months


C'mon man.  Don't be mean.

He could be unemployed or something.

Hah I'm going to get Memory of Light from a mate and finish off the series; have read the rest.

Also I have an hour each way commute to work and usually read for 30 minutes before bed, so I take the view that anything less than a trilogy isn't big enough to get me involved.  :awesome_for_real:

Edit: Thanks for the suggestions all!  I really gotta change my profile pic, it's even more annoying than Threash's  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on January 20, 2013, 03:46:36 PM
I couldn't get through Memory, Sorrow and Thorn either, despite loving Williams' Otherland series to death. L. E. Modesitt's Recluse saga is pretty good fantasy, although each book is sort of stand alone set at different places/times in the same universe rather than a linear narrative.

My feeling about those two series is the exact opposite; liked MS&T quite a lot, but Otherland was a boring slog.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on January 20, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
(http://latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/game-of-thrones-dinklage.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 20, 2013, 04:10:05 PM
I think Feist's Magician series goes on longer than the 2 I read (didn't care for it).

The first book was good, but I liked his work more when he wrote with Janny Wurts,  Daughter of the Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughter_of_the_Empire) is the first of Empire Trilogy


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 20, 2013, 04:13:59 PM
I liked Memory Sorrow and Thorn a heck of a lot more than Otherland, and his third series Shadowmarch was worse than those two.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on January 20, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/05/petyr-ned-game-of-thrones-21649282-1024-576.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on January 20, 2013, 09:23:21 PM
Can you post that upside down? I'm having trouble grasping your meaning.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on January 23, 2013, 10:13:06 AM
I think he's trying to say that Australia deeply desires to be just like the US.    :awesome_for_real:

Interesting opinions on Williams.  The only stuff of his that I've read is Otherland, which I thought was fantastic from start to finish.  Since some of you seem to think his other stuff is worthwhile, maybe I'll give it a shot (I've always been warned away from his non-Otherland stuff by other people before).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on January 23, 2013, 11:18:40 AM
I think he's trying to say that Australia deeply desires to be just like the US.    :awesome_for_real:

Interesting opinions on Williams.  The only stuff of his that I've read is Otherland, which I thought was fantastic from start to finish.  Since some of you seem to think his other stuff is worthwhile, maybe I'll give it a shot (I've always been warned away from his non-Otherland stuff by other people before).

Shadowmarch starts well, but ends poorly.  I like Memory, Sorrow, Thorn, but god is it long.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on January 24, 2013, 01:12:56 PM
I couldn't get through Memory, Sorrow and Thorn either, despite loving Williams' Otherland series to death. L. E. Modesitt's Recluse saga is pretty good fantasy, although each book is sort of stand alone set at different places/times in the same universe rather than a linear narrative.

My feeling about those two series is the exact opposite; liked MS&T quite a lot, but Otherland was a boring slog.

Agree.  I just had problems liking the main character which was an important part of enjoying the books, I think.  I don't recall why exactly so don't ask.  I read it when it first came out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on January 24, 2013, 05:02:38 PM
I think he's trying to say that Australia deeply desires to be just like the US.    :awesome_for_real:

Interesting opinions on Williams.  The only stuff of his that I've read is Otherland, which I thought was fantastic from start to finish.  Since some of you seem to think his other stuff is worthwhile, maybe I'll give it a shot (I've always been warned away from his non-Otherland stuff by other people before).
I liked MS&T -- it was a bit different sort of fantasy to me when i first read it, lo these many years ago. Their fae folk are a bit more old fashioned (immortal, incredibly bitchy and hair-trigger, and absolutely alien to humans at best). I mean still had a fairly stock Cambell-esque story, but I enjoyed the setup and world.

The magic was fairly low-key and more in the "Knows things" varient than in the fireball stuff. The story was good enough, the characters were decent, and it was a solid if somewhat unwieldy trilogy.

Took me two or three times to get into it, but I blame being a teenager at the time. (I think I was a teenager at the time. Early 90s, right?). Otherland was okay, and I never got past book one of Shadowmarch.

As to Game of Thrones -- totally happy with what I'm paying for HBO just for that. :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on January 28, 2013, 02:50:37 PM
Mance Rayder, in all his HD glory:


Smaller pic:

More official images:

http://winteriscoming.net/2013/01/first-season-three-photos-released/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on January 28, 2013, 04:38:42 PM
I like them all. Meera Reed isn't how I imagined her, but she'll probably be awesome anyway, and every other casting choice is outstanding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 28, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
I never caught what Tyrion looked like with his scar as I don't watch the show regularly, but that's not a bad compromise.  Not like they could have actually done the "lost half his nose" thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on January 28, 2013, 05:03:23 PM
Mance doesn't look "charming bard" enough.  He looks closer to Stannis' character - I always got a more rogueish vibe from Mance.

I like that actor though; assuming he is the villian from Tomb Raider 2...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 28, 2013, 06:41:52 PM
Yeah, I can't see him sitting around strumming a lute convincing others he's a harmless buffoon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on January 28, 2013, 11:25:52 PM
I never caught what Tyrion looked like with his scar as I don't watch the show regularly, but that's not a bad compromise.  Not like they could have actually done the "lost half his nose" thing.

Tyrion is kind of like two different people for me.  The book version and the tv show version.  Appearance is a big part of it...in the book version he is supposed to be extremely ugly (and extremely scarred after the accident, obviously), and far more repulsive in general.  What charisma he has only a few people seem to recognize and appreciate.  In the TV version, he is generally very charming, witty and likeable (and not repulsive looking).  Other than being a dwarf, and whatever stigmas go along with that, you never really understand why people don't like him more than they do - at least in the books, you know that people are judging him negatively for his appearance alone. 

That said, they didn't need to scar the tv version too badly, because being fugly is not important to this version of the character.

I could go on, but I won't.  I like both versions...easily my favorite character in both.  But yeah, I have to separate them in my head.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 28, 2013, 11:50:07 PM
They also brought out his prejudices and weaknesses more in the book.

Tyrion, like a few of the 'good' characters, tends to dismiss 'idiots' and think of them in the same one dimensional way the reader is encouraged to. Or when he does see that others can hurt him there is some neat stuff about being unable to turn away from provoking people - all his significant enemies are people he antagonises as much as they go after him.

His refusal to believe in 'snarks and grumpkins' also seemed more important and gave him actual character flaws.


I don't really see it as a fault of the TV show though, it is all there if you look closely enough, and the TV show can't/doesn't take you in anyone's head.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on January 29, 2013, 12:17:06 AM
I might be mixing TV and book, but I came away with the impression that Tyrion actually does believe in "snarks and grumpkins"...or rather, whatever it is that might be happening beyond the Wall.  Didn't he ultimately allow the Crows to raid his dungeons for more able bodies whilst he was Hand?  I seem to remember thinking that he was just publicly ridiculing the idea, because that was what nobility in the south is supposed to do, but in his own mind he thought there must have been something to it.  I think he respects the Wall, and surely there is a reason for that, other than the majesty of the Wall itself and the character of the men guarding it.

Whatever.  Not terribly important.  Except, maybe it will be once he comes back to Westeros and claims his birthright.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 29, 2013, 03:05:26 AM
He respects the watch (not least because if his fondness for cripples, bastards, and broken things), but sees it as a defence against wildlings and believes the only difference between them and people of westeros was being born on the wrong side of the wall.

He pointedly ignores the wight hand that Thorne brought south and even made fun of Mormont for mentioning white walkers.

He refuses to believe in any form of magic, his PoV narrative is pretty firm on that.

Given how underestimating or failing to respect enemies is one of two things in SoIaF that generally get you killed (the only other consistent harbinger of death is oath breaking) I doubt this will end well for him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on January 29, 2013, 03:38:42 AM
He pointedly ignores the wight hand that Thorne brought south and even made fun of Mormont for mentioning white walkers.

It is exactly this scene that I was thinking of.  Can't remember if it was the book or the tv show, but I remember him explaining to somebody (probably Bronn) after Thorne and the court were dismissed, something to the effect of "yeah, I made fun of him and treated him with contempt in front of the nobles...but I also gave him exactly what he requested.  Had to keep up appearances, and stuff, but it is clear there is a threat that needs dealing with.  Win-win."  I think he did that because he probably either believed Thorne, or believed enough that something (other than Wildlings) was fucked up enough that he had better give him some men.  He is so far the only one since Robert died that has given any sort of aid of that kind (I guess Stannis kind of did, too, but with giant strings attached).

As far as not believing in magic...I mean, not many do at this point, do they?  It is only just coming back into the world with the birth of the dragons.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 02, 2013, 12:00:18 PM
He pointedly ignores the wight hand that Thorne brought south and even made fun of Mormont for mentioning white walkers.

It is exactly this scene that I was thinking of.  Can't remember if it was the book or the tv show, but I remember him explaining to somebody (probably Bronn) after Thorne and the court were dismissed, something to the effect of "yeah, I made fun of him and treated him with contempt in front of the nobles...but I also gave him exactly what he requested.  Had to keep up appearances, and stuff, but it is clear there is a threat that needs dealing with.  Win-win."  I think he did that because he probably either believed Thorne, or believed enough that something (other than Wildlings) was fucked up enough that he had better give him some men.  He is so far the only one since Robert died that has given any sort of aid of that kind (I guess Stannis kind of did, too, but with giant strings attached).

As far as not believing in magic...I mean, not many do at this point, do they?  It is only just coming back into the world with the birth of the dragons.



He gave him what he asked for because he had promised Mormont he would do what he could, by the time anyone even saw Thorne the hand had rotted away.  If he had actually seen something "supernatural" he would have been a lot more interested in the issue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on February 06, 2013, 12:09:25 PM
I couldn't get through Memory, Sorrow and Thorn either, despite loving Williams' Otherland series to death. L. E. Modesitt's Recluse saga is pretty good fantasy, although each book is sort of stand alone set at different places/times in the same universe rather than a linear narrative.

My feeling about those two series is the exact opposite; liked MS&T quite a lot, but Otherland was a boring slog.

This is my opinion as well.  I think I've reread MST a few times.  Otherland I couldn't finish.

I liked Memory Sorrow and Thorn a heck of a lot more than Otherland, and his third series Shadowmarch was worse than those two.

Shadowmarch was dreadful, but I did finish it.  It just wasn't good at all.  As far as MST and magic, I think originally Simon (I think that was the main char) was supposed to do magic.  You can seem him alluding to it at the end of Dragonbone but they never went back to it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 07, 2013, 10:36:59 AM
This back on yet?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on February 07, 2013, 10:47:24 AM
1st of April next season starts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 07, 2013, 01:45:14 PM
31/3/13 in America.

That's 3/31/13 for adherents to middle-most-significant-bit first terminology.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on February 07, 2013, 01:48:08 PM
Oh, yeah, it's just the TV Calendar showing the US air time in my local timezone :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on February 09, 2013, 11:47:10 AM
31/3/13 in America.

That's 3/13/13 for adherents to middle-most-significant-bit first terminology.
I've really never understood you crazy foreigners hatred for the way we do dates.  We match it along the same way everybody talks!  It flows logically!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetor on February 09, 2013, 12:15:59 PM
Pfff, the only logical date format is yyyymmddThhmmssZ. :why_so_serious:


fake edit: 1st of april? Interesting date... if I were them, I'd open with a fake episode!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on February 09, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
I've really never understood you crazy foreigners hatred for the way we do dates.  We match it along the same way everybody talks!  It flows logically!

But we say the first of march. You say march first, which is an instruction to do a military style walk before anything else.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on February 10, 2013, 02:30:20 AM
No no no, when I talk to non Americans they'll still react to "Whens your birthday" with "March 31st" most of the time.   :-P

People only tend to say it the other way around when being very formal it seems.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on February 10, 2013, 04:18:59 AM
I've adjusted to yyyy-mm-dd because when naming job directories they automatically sort by date that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on February 10, 2013, 03:52:29 PM
Amen to that.

Have to retrain the coops every 6 months when they swap out.  They all start mm/dd/yy so shit gets lost.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 15, 2013, 04:14:47 AM
Personally, I would say "31st of March", but saying "March 31st" is perfectly legitimate MSB first behaviour. It only gets all weirded up if you then add a year at the end and say "March 31st 2013", because what the fuck is that?


Also Merusk, Apoc, I feel your pain. Further, it amazes me how many IT professionals are unable to grasp the concept.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on February 22, 2013, 09:18:58 PM
Trailer OMG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzI9v_B4sxw)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mosesandstick on February 23, 2013, 01:11:10 AM
Was that a song by Florence?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on February 23, 2013, 12:14:07 PM
Sounds like it, but no.  Article I found on the trailer says its "Bones" by MS MR.

Can't let Florence have TWO trailers, after all.  Seven Devils was in the S2 trailer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mosesandstick on February 23, 2013, 01:26:47 PM
Ha, thanks for the detective work! I was thinking that I was suffering from deja vu.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on February 25, 2013, 03:50:01 PM
That trailer was AWESOME.

Great music, to boot.  Christ, I hope they dont screw up this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on March 07, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Soooo looking forward to this season!  I even broke down and read the first book and enjoyed it.  I am excited about all the storylines, even Sansa and Bran.  Those Lannisters are dirty rotten scoundrels, but I can't get enough of them!  Tywin Lannister=JR Ewing.

Hopefully I'll finish the second book before the 31st. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on March 08, 2013, 10:04:06 AM
Soooo looking forward to this season!  I even broke down and read the first book and enjoyed it.  I am excited about all the storylines, even Sansa and Bran.  Those Lannisters are dirty rotten scoundrels, but I can't get enough of them!  Tywin Lannister=JR Ewing.

Hopefully I'll finish the second book before the 31st. 

Charles Dance is the guy playing Tywin and yeah, he's one of my favourite parts.  He just hits it right out of the park.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 08, 2013, 11:06:03 AM
Brother Numspa!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on March 08, 2013, 11:16:30 AM
Ok that took me a while to figure out.  But my google is strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o50HHf9f_SQ


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on March 08, 2013, 02:15:29 PM
Oh yeah, he was in that.  Wow, dude has aged gracefully.  I can't wait to see him bring his errant children to fucking HEEL in King's Landing.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on March 08, 2013, 02:37:00 PM
Can I speak to the Drug Dealer of the House please ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on March 08, 2013, 04:22:10 PM
Haha, awesome.  I got the reference right off.  I watched that movie so much when I was a kid it burned itself into my mind.  Later on in college I was riding around with some friends and the song  Gone, by Kayne West (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc65hFCls8E) started playing, which I had never heard before.  It made that exact same reference (wait for the 20 second mark in that link) and I started laughing my ass off and pointing out how they just made a Golden Child reference.  Everybody else looked at me like I was psychotic.  Probably am.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on March 11, 2013, 12:25:10 AM
Golden Child was awesome.

"Can I have the knife......please.....?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on March 11, 2013, 03:10:18 PM
Now for the real Golden Child diehards...

"Chunky Asses???"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sickrubik on March 13, 2013, 11:20:37 AM
Note the first, Game of Thrones on HBO, 1995 Style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fPgIIB67bw&buffer_share=145af&utm_source=buffer).

Note the second, Fantastic Mondo Poster of the Wall on sale tomorrow (http://io9.com/mondo-art-lets-you-put-the-wall-of-westeros-on-your-wal-453530439).

Edit: Actually TWO different posters will be on sale tomorrow (http://e2.ma/webview/t6age/f5031699946e567cf212c8cbca84e8c5). The Raven one is quite nice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on March 13, 2013, 11:50:27 AM
Damn you, just beat me to the awesome 1995 style GoT intro!  The added VCR quality screen effects are particularly  :why_so_serious:




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on March 15, 2013, 05:48:37 PM
And have another trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AFOXCfoKO1k#!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on March 16, 2013, 02:48:16 AM
Rewatching season 2 on bluray, and never stop being impressed how well shot this is on a TV budget.

Aside from the comedy CGI dragons anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on March 16, 2013, 05:46:40 AM
I overall agree, but they really need to find a way to do battles better on their budget.  Battle of the Blackwater was kind of a let down, for how epic it was suppose to be.  Seems they're afraid to ever set themselves up for a scene where they can pan back and show a lot of men fighting.  Other TV budget shows seem to have gotten away with it, not sure why they're afraid to try.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on March 16, 2013, 07:05:59 AM
I was ok with blackwater, the thing about those other shows is that the scene with a thousand cgi soldiers inevitably looks terrible.

The darkness and keeping everything POV worked for me.

That said, I don't really see how they are going to cover . Qarth was a bit dodgy in season 2, and that storyline only gets harder to make real.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on March 16, 2013, 11:37:01 AM
Eh, I'm actually fine with bad CGI battles.  You only need to throw some in to get a sense of scale and general sway of the battle, then you can flash back down to the POV of the characters within it.  Establishing the scope and narrative is more important for me than having non-shitty special effects, but I might be a minority in that.

But yeah, they're probably going to have to do that when it comes to some of the later stuff you just mentioned.  No real way around it other than copping out and skipping it like they did with the Battle of the Green Fork.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 21, 2013, 04:56:29 AM
Totally random moment while we wait for Season 3  :grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cps56-zPmk

But anyway...This is the best S3 trailer so far, IMO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4XSeW4B5Rg

Edit:

And you can also see a nice batch of random interviews taken during the S03 premiere in LA a couple days ago (courtesy of WiC website). Emilia Clarke is stunning; Rose Leslie is too cute and OoOoOna Chaplin is one hot brunette  :drill:

http://www.youtube.com/user/simonedboyce?feature=watch


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on March 22, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
No, this is the best season 3 trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOXCfoKO1k).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on March 26, 2013, 05:12:43 PM
No, this is the best season 3 trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOXCfoKO1k).

LoL this wins.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on March 26, 2013, 05:58:10 PM
I thought was even better 6 posts earlier, but ymmv.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on March 29, 2013, 05:06:02 PM
1 day and 23 hours left 'til Season 3, gentlemen  :drill:

(as always, with Youtube and GoT, just to be sure don't read the comments if you want to stay away from spoilers)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO2KTnLPaI


And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that's all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red,
a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord,
as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke,
that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall,
with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on March 29, 2013, 07:02:32 PM
I bet Cersei winds up poisoning her dad.  That bitch is cray cray.

So pumped for this show to start back up.  Read the first two books and have no idea whats to come.  I do know House Baratheon are the hard luck chumps.  Is the actress playing Melisandre the same one?  She looks different and younger. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on March 29, 2013, 07:06:33 PM
I bet Cersei winds up poisoning her dad.  That bitch is cray cray.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40386/Smileys/awesome-johnk.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on March 29, 2013, 09:24:51 PM
I bet Cersei winds up poisoning her dad.  That bitch is cray cray.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40386/Smileys/awesome-johnk.png)

There are times I wish I hadn't read all the books and could comment :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on March 31, 2013, 10:45:28 PM
 :|


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 01, 2013, 02:53:45 AM
Enjoyed last night premiere.  Robb's scene was brief, Jon Snows story finally got interesting and Tywin Lannister is an unfit parent.  Oh those care-free Lannisters! 


Good episode.  "I'm a sellsword. I sell my sword."

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 01, 2013, 06:59:50 AM
I find Jons talk with Mance was an interesting change from the book. In the book I am pretty sure he gave his reasons was he just let out a lot of pent up repressed anger at how he was treated at winterfel being a bastard and never really part of the family. His reasoning in the show was more noble but did not seem like an argument that would hold a ton of weight with Mance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: grebo on April 01, 2013, 07:25:40 AM
The lack of Strong Belwas and the instant recognition of Barristan makes me wonder how much of the Free Cities stuff is on the chopping block.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2013, 07:38:03 AM
There is no way to hide Selmy on screen, it works in the book but not on a show if you plan on using the same actor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 01, 2013, 12:40:36 PM
I've been feeling like a  lot of the Free Cities stuff in the books was filler anyway. Would be glad to see it trimmed a lot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2013, 12:44:23 PM
I've been feeling like a  lot of the Free Cities stuff in the books was filler anyway. Would be glad to see it trimmed a lot.

Yeah, that would be most of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 01, 2013, 12:51:24 PM
I always had the feeling that the free cities stuff:

Book Spoiler:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 01, 2013, 01:50:12 PM
There is no way to hide Selmy on screen, it works in the book but not on a show if you plan on using the same actor.

Yup that is something that had to happen on TV. You can do it in a book but there is no way to do that on a tv show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on April 01, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
Re Strong Belwas and friend:




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on April 01, 2013, 03:39:27 PM
I find Jons talk with Mance was an interesting change from the book. In the book I am pretty sure he gave his reasons was he just let out a lot of pent up repressed anger at how he was treated at winterfel being a bastard and never really part of the family. His reasoning in the show was more noble but did not seem like an argument that would hold a ton of weight with Mance.

Yeah, I was kinda disappointed with that change.  I was looking forward to the 'They sat me on the bastard's table' speech - delivered well that would have been really impressive, and shown Jon to be human and not just all high-and-mighty.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2013, 07:25:35 PM

Only if people don't read the credits, and for this show you bet your ass they do.  You can't hide an actor, it just doesn't work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 01, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
Plus he was shown in the "what happened last time" clips, so he was easily recognized. If they had cut that out I donno that I'd remember who he was for some time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 01, 2013, 09:42:45 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but I was expecting that opening scene to turn into where the Slayer got his nickname. Would have fit better than the way it played out imo.

Also with the Mance Raider scenes. I think they've going to have a hard time with book 5 stuff now they seem to have made Mance not a bard anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on April 01, 2013, 10:06:08 PM
Plus he was shown in the "what happened last time" clips, so he was easily recognized. If they had cut that out I donno that I'd remember who he was for some time.

also re what threash said.  I didn't say it'd be easy, but yeh, if they highlight him in the "last time in GoT" clips they might as well make him rock up in his white cloak...  Pity though, i really the manticore sequence and it played a bit part in why Dany came to trust him so quickly (also then the mormont v barristan deception piece later on).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 02, 2013, 04:26:43 AM
The Tyrion vs Tywin scene was a masterpiece: great acting. Regarding Margaery Tyrell, I hope that the "expanded" TV role will work, but I liked that tidbit with the children. What I liked the most was the hilarious (and straight from the book) exchange between Dany, Kraznys and (the gorgeous  :heart:) Missandei  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 02, 2013, 05:06:18 AM
... they seem to have made Mance not a bard anymore.


I am pretty sure that they panned for a couple seconds to Mance tuning an instrument in the background when Jon was talking to Giantsbane.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 02, 2013, 05:24:26 AM
No, revealing Barristan is a writing fail and a disappointing one to hear about it.   Just because the viewers recognize someone doesn't mean the characters living across the sea instantly do.  If anything it makes the viewer more interested because they're in on the deception and trying to figure out the angle the character is taking.  "Wait, why's he calling himself Whitebeard...?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 02, 2013, 07:59:12 AM
OCD viewers and people who've read the books carefully could probably find that interesting, but I suspect most people watching can barely remember who Dany, Tyrion and Jon are, let alone the zillions of minor characters who aren't quite interchangeable. My wife was struggling to remember Davos and Bronn and she's been paying fairly close attention to the show.

This is the season where they really need to take over the narrative and wrench it away from any semblance of literalist faithfulness to the books. They've done a good job of adapting so far, but now it gets more challenging. Both because this is the last good book in the series, so any seasons that go past Storm will have to disregard much of what's been written, and even because Storm, good as it is, would be fairly shit if it were just directly translated onto the screen. They have to start just ignoring bunches of minor characters, they have to keep established characters going even when Martin sends them off for a whole book (Theon), and maybe even consider writing a few majors out before their time or give them new arcs. They have to ignore overly convoluted minor narrative bits of the kind that Martin is so fond of--he's trying to do both a picaresque (of a grim kind) and an epic and those structures really don't play well together.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on April 02, 2013, 08:01:35 AM
OCD viewers and people who've read the books carefully could probably find that interesting, but I suspect most people watching can barely remember who Dany, Tyrion and Jon are, let alone the zillions of minor characters who aren't quite interchangeable. My wife was struggling to remember Davos and Bronn and she's been paying fairly close attention to the show.

This is the season where they really need to take over the narrative and wrench it away from any semblance of literalist faithfulness to the books. They've done a good job of adapting so far, but now it gets more challenging. Both because this is the last good book in the series, so any seasons that go past Storm will have to disregard much of what's been written, and even because Storm, good as it is, would be fairly shit if it were just directly translated onto the screen. They have to start just ignoring bunches of minor characters, they have to keep established characters going even when Martin sends them off for a whole book (Theon), and maybe even consider writing a few majors out before their time or give them new arcs. They have to ignore overly convoluted minor narrative bits of the kind that Martin is so fond of--he's trying to do both a picaresque (of a grim kind) and an epic and those structures really don't play well together.



Fully agree with you on a lot of that.  The showrunners even stated that they have to start cutting things because they could do a whole show on any of those arcs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 02, 2013, 09:41:19 AM
Given how they changed Jons speech to mance and his positive reaction to it kinda makes me curious if the role of the wildlings is going to change. Mance was not so much fighting for the living as he was realizing what was coming and trying to get his people as far south as he could behind the wall. He was not running to fight the others he was running away.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 02, 2013, 09:55:12 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 02, 2013, 11:00:37 AM
Given how they changed Jons speech to mance and his positive reaction to it kinda makes me curious if the role of the wildlings is going to change. Mance was not so much fighting for the living as he was realizing what was coming and trying to get his people as far south as he could behind the wall. He was not running to fight the others he was running away.

Trying to save the wildings = fighting for the living.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 02, 2013, 11:07:23 AM

I think you mean :facepalm: moment. Hate everything about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 02, 2013, 11:30:30 AM
Not having read what comes after it, I can't be too hard on it. It was an OH SHIT moment for me. I take it book 4 took it into facepalm territory?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 02, 2013, 11:34:25 AM
Not especially. I just never liked the character and thought I was done. Apparently not.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 02, 2013, 11:42:49 AM
It was pretty silly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: grebo on April 02, 2013, 12:10:06 PM
Not least because that whole line is a dumping ground for


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 02, 2013, 12:26:57 PM

First episode seemed a bit rushed to me. As for the changes, didn't care about Selmy, liked that they seem to be playing up Littlefinger much earlier, thought both the book and TV version of Jon meeting Mance were equally clichéd and terrible. Liked what they did with Robb and Roose Bolton at Harrenhal, and really liked Margery and Loras in Kings Landing.

In particular bringing the church into the game sooner may help set up the feast of crows material a little better. Both the Kings Landing and Dorne storylines from feast need smoother intros than they had in the books. My guess is they'll play with the timelines so they can get a head start on Feast and save a good portion of Storm for later.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 02, 2013, 01:04:21 PM
On second watch that was fucking Qyburn that survived harrenhal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on April 02, 2013, 11:20:49 PM
On second watch that was fucking Qyburn that survived harrenhal.

I guess that's how he gets in with Bolton etc, and is further confirmation that the Brave Companions won't be in the TV series. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 02, 2013, 11:37:51 PM
Awwww.. no "Kingsssthlayer".   I wanted to see how they pulled off Hoat.  Guess I won't.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 03, 2013, 12:50:29 AM
Would have been fun, but they struggle to juggle so many characters with so few episodes to cover things as it is.  The Brave Companions were kind of random and didn't add much to the over all story other than flavor anyways (and the flavor was yet another band of ultra evil psycho murderers in a book filled with ultra evil psycho murderers).  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 03, 2013, 01:54:10 AM
One of the biggest problems with the books is that they invest so much time into characters who end up being totally useless, or just suddenly die.  Like a whole lot.  Only some of it is really important to the narrative.  It is not surprising that they will cut out an absolute ton of shit in the conversion to television.  I daresay this is one of the rare IPs that actually ends up better on television, because it really needs to be tightened up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 03, 2013, 05:57:09 AM
hmm, maybe.

Also the best thing for a book is not the best thing for TV.

Making it tighter means less room for themes, history, and way more narrative causality. I'm not saying the TV series is doing the wrong thing for the TV series, but it is making decisions on the basis of plot >> all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 03, 2013, 08:13:34 AM
Actually I think the series has so far been more thematically coherent than the books. In some ways, the books show that their initial theme was: let's find a different template for fantasy than Beowulf/Norse-Germanic epic/LOTR. China Mieville and Philip Pullman have had similar projects, similarly motivated: Mieville turned to something loosely Marxist; Pullman to a trippy combo of atheism and Milton. Martin turned to the War of the Roses and the Hundred Years' War and their trademark admixture of murder, plague, religious war, squalid pointlessness and high chivalric romance. But once he'd gotten beyond, "find a new template" he's sort of meandered around looking for interesting themes to prop the whole thing up. Sometimes he's succeeded, sometimes not so much (in Feast and Dances). The series doesn't have that luxury for all sorts of reasons, but also it's a second take on the original and therefore is a chance to tighten and heighten, which I think they've seized admirably.

Stuff I would expect or hope they'd do in the next two seasons (don't read if you haven't read the books):



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 03, 2013, 08:31:24 AM

I don't disagree with a lot of that, but remember that Storm of Swords is this season and next season.  Most Feast and Dances material won't start until the season after next.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 03, 2013, 09:09:11 AM
See, I'm thinking that they should start shifting some Feast and Dances material into next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 03, 2013, 09:11:59 AM
They'll get some of it in at the end of next season, but you're talking about stuff that happened at the very end of Storms happening this season.  That's not going to happen.  I think they're going to stretch it out because they're kind of running out of material.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 03, 2013, 09:41:24 AM
I was reading somewhere that the guys running the show feel they are adapting the whole series for TV, rather than each season being a specific book (even though that's how its worked so far).  And so they feel that they can move scenes around chronologically from the way they happened in the books to better tell the story for TV.  While I expect all of this season to be material from Storm, I wouldn't be surprised if they start throwing stuff from Feast into next season.  The season after that they're going to have to intertwine Feast and Dance together from the get go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 03, 2013, 10:42:24 AM
Season 3 Ep 1 Facebook recap (http://www.happyplace.com/22775/game-of-thrones-facebook-recap-season-3-episode-1)

Some funny stuff there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on April 03, 2013, 04:54:48 PM
Some funny stuff there.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/85916/queef_assassins.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on April 03, 2013, 10:31:41 PM
Well, thanks a lot for that. I guess I can't click any spoilers in this thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 03, 2013, 10:39:12 PM
I highly recommend against clicking any.  Probably 75-90% of the people here watching the show have read the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on April 03, 2013, 10:41:14 PM
I highly recommend against clicking any.  Probably 75-90% of the people here watching the show have read the books.
Wasn't there a thread for book discussions ?  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 03, 2013, 10:42:16 PM

If I hadn't read the books and wanted to avoid having the TV show spoiled, I'd just stay off the Internet entirely.  Daily I'm tempted to post a massive dump of spoilers on Facebook just out of sheer horrible :why_so_serious:.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ubvman on April 04, 2013, 12:08:29 AM
I dunno if this has been posted.

(http://i.imgur.com/MPAGbsG.jpg)

Yup, he was in Batman Rises. Damn you BATMAN!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on April 04, 2013, 06:02:54 AM
I highly recommend against clicking any.  Probably 75-90% of the people here watching the show have read the books.
Wasn't there a thread for book discussions ?  :grin:

I'm with this guy.  Discussion of the TV show is stopped since I haven't read the books.  There is a lot less book discussion/spoilerage in TWD, so I know you shitclowns can restrain yourselves if you try.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 04, 2013, 07:39:34 AM
The problem is that it's actually interesting to discuss how they're going to adapt certain parts of these books to the screen (like when Tyrion drinks the ent-draught and grows six feet tall, are they going to change actors or use CGI tricks?), and discussion of that follows more naturally in the thread about the show than in the thread about just the books.  I'm with the "if you don't want spoilers maybe don't click spoiler links" crowd.  :P


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 04, 2013, 08:30:33 AM
If something is hidden behind spoiler tags, I'd highly recommend not clicking it if you don't want to see any spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 04, 2013, 08:38:39 AM
C'mon Sam, you know the Ent-drought isn't in because we haven't seen the wolfkin at all.  That whole subplot was just a distraction from the Jamie-Cersi-Shae love triangle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 04, 2013, 08:59:57 AM
But it was vital to his character arc!  I have faith they'll find a way to work it in.  It's not like this show is being produced by that hack fraud Peter Jackson.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 04, 2013, 09:31:04 AM
Well, thanks a lot for that. I guess I can't click any spoilers in this thread.

Well, I DID put it in spoilers... which you know, it is a spoiler. It just happens to be a spoiler for an event that will likely happen at the end of season 4.

But yeah, I wouldn't click on spoilers in this thread if you haven't read the books and/or don't want anything spoiled.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 04, 2013, 09:37:24 AM
I don't understand why someone who does not want to be spoiled would ever click on something clearly labeled "spoiler".  Seriously, you are just ruining the show for yourself at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 04, 2013, 09:49:49 AM
I've promised myself I won't read ahead, but that's going to get harder if they start mixing and matching stuff from different books into the same seasons.  I understand why it needs to be done, it's just going to make it harder to keep my promise. For example, I apparently can't read the 3rd book until we're well into the 4th season, maybe the 5th?

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 04, 2013, 10:32:38 AM
Storm of Swords should be done by the end of Season 4.  They're really not mixing and matching from different books all that much right now.  They did a little at the end of both seasons, but it was pretty minimal considering the amount of material.

Feast and Dance will be tough for you to not read ahead though because chronologically they take place during the same time, until the end of Dance.  Those two books are going to be mashed together in Season 5, and probably 6.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 04, 2013, 11:08:32 AM
Feast and Dance will be tough for you to not read ahead though because chronologically they take place during the same time, until the end of Dance.  Those two books are going to be mashed together in Season 5, and probably 6.

Ya if you are trying to read along with the series Feast and Dance will probably be best read together.
Martin at one point claimed you could interleave the chapters for both books for effective reading.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 04, 2013, 11:17:32 AM
Feast and Dance will be tough for you to not read ahead though because chronologically they take place during the same time, until the end of Dance.  Those two books are going to be mashed together in Season 5, and probably 6.

Ya if you are trying to read along with the series Feast and Dance will probably be best read together.
Martin at one point claimed you could interleave the chapters for both books for effective reading.

Feast and Dance were originally supposed to be one book.  When he realized he'd have to split it out because it was too goddamn long, he couldn't figure out how to split it by time, so he split it by character.  Interleaving the chapters from the two books would be the way to reconstruct the "single" book that he had in his head.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Segoris on April 04, 2013, 11:27:51 AM
Well, thanks a lot for that. I guess I can't click any spoilers in this thread.

Well, I DID put it in spoilers... which you know, it is a spoiler. It just happens to be a spoiler for an event that will likely happen at the end of season 4.

But yeah, I wouldn't click on spoilers in this thread if you haven't read the books and/or don't want anything spoiled.

^This. I haven't read the books, and I read spoilers. I've found out a couple of things - 1) I won't remember these spoilers by the time they get to it in the books 2) If I did remember the spoilers, there is still a chance it may play out differently anyways, so fuck it.

Semi-off topic side note - I went to my chiropracter on Monday morning. He said his he and his wife decided to record GoT and watch the Walking Dead but he only wanted one spoiler - did they show any Daen ta-tas. This let me know I was in the right place


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on April 04, 2013, 11:33:23 AM
Awwww.. no "Kingsssthlayer".   I wanted to see how they pulled off Hoat.  Guess I won't.

Bummer.  I really wanted to hear "You thlew my bear!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 04, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
I've promised myself I won't read ahead, but that's going to get harder if they start mixing and matching stuff from different books into the same seasons.  I understand why it needs to be done, it's just going to make it harder to keep my promise. For example, I apparently can't read the 3rd book until we're well into the 4th season, maybe the 5th?

--Dave

I'd wait till the end of this season then just say fuck it, and read everything. Feast and Dances are much slower paced and more interesting to discuss than as page turners.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on April 04, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
Awwww.. no "Kingsssthlayer".   I wanted to see how they pulled off Hoat.  Guess I won't.

Bummer.  I really wanted to hear "You thlew my bear!"

this.  also when i saw the bear in the season previews I can swear i squealed like a girl.  at work.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 04, 2013, 07:32:48 PM
Plus since Feast and Dance kind of suck, the more that Seasons 5 onward (if they get that far, which I think they will) bear at best loose resemblance to the books, the better for all of us.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on April 05, 2013, 05:00:23 AM
I don't understand why someone who does not want to be spoiled would ever click on something clearly labeled "spoiler".  Seriously, you are just ruining the show for yourself at this point.
Well, there are TV-show spoilers and book spoilers. Up until now I had the impression that people would mark spoilers that go beyond what was shown on TV. Because I really like to read (and maybe even participate) in the discussion here in this thread, but it is kind of hard if all I am allowed to read is

Quote
Quote
Quote


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 05, 2013, 05:09:52 AM
I never spoiler anything involving the TV show.  Its a thread on the TV show, so if its been aired, then its free game to discuss IMO.  The only thing to put in spoilers IS info from the books.  Or at least thats how I've been treating this thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 05, 2013, 07:29:49 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/7gIUBZW.png)

If I had anything to say around this place *wishful sigh* people wouldn't discuss the books in this thread!

I mean Segoris said he forgets what he reads, but I clicked Heamish's spoiler and how I am supposed to forget that Person X will become Y...?

But keep spoilering stuff, one day when the revolution comes you'll be all up against the virtual wall. All of you!  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on April 05, 2013, 07:54:23 AM
I don't understand why someone who does not want to be spoiled would ever click on something clearly labeled "spoiler".  Seriously, you are just ruining the show for yourself at this point.

It's a issue of timeliness.  I don't click a spoiler in TWD if I haven't caught up to the latest episode.  Once I'm up to date, I can read what's in there with no issues.  Here, not so.  I might be able to join a delightful discussion of how stupid John Snow is, or I might learn something that hasn't happened yet in the show.  If there were separate "TV Show Spoiler" and "Book Spoiler" tags, I wouldn't be in this predicament.

As the book-readers say, though, I should just avoid the entire discussion if I want to enjoy anything.

I never spoiler anything involving the TV show.  Its a thread on the TV show, so if its been aired, then its free game to discuss IMO.  The only thing to put in spoilers IS info from the books.  Or at least thats how I've been treating this thread.

Jeez.  Even with a DVR I can't always watch a show during the week it airs.  Hell, I watched both GoT and TWD well after the seasons started and was happier for it.  I'd love to have the time to waste sitting on a sofa waiting for the boob tube to feed me entertainment on its schedule, but I don't.  My schedule or GTFO.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 05, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
That's the freaking point, if you don't want to be spoiled for whatever reason, whether they be because you haven't watched the show or read the books, you don't click on spoilers! instead of assuming other people's definitions of spoilers are the same as your own.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 05, 2013, 09:11:38 AM
That's the freaking point, if you don't want to be spoiled for whatever reason, whether they be because you haven't watched the show or read the books, you don't click on spoilers! instead of assuming other people's definitions of spoilers are the same as your own.

Yeah, this. My apologies for spoiling what I did. I just assumed that if you clicked on spoilers in this thread, you'd find out stuff from the books as well as the movies. Hell, I found out about


by clicking a spoiler in this thread. I didn't find out what it was or how it came about just the name. When I came to that part in the book, I still had a serious OH SHIT moment. That scene affected me for days afterwards, moreso than Ned Stark's death or anything else that has happened in the series up to that point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Wasted on April 05, 2013, 09:17:06 AM
A good story is a good story whether you know some plot points ahead of time or not.  I can't wait till the internet gets over this whole spoiler bullshit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 05, 2013, 09:27:51 AM
A recent study indicated that people actually enjoyed stories more if they were spoiled with the plot points beforehand. One theory is that by knowing the broad strokes, they were better able to relax and enjoy the crafted story instead of trying to follow along and decipher what may or may not occur.

So with that-




e- http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012/07/26/157430614/it-was-all-a-dream-or-turns-out-spoilers-are-good-for-you



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on April 05, 2013, 09:38:08 AM
moreso than Ned Stark's death

omg spoiler!



j/k


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 06, 2013, 12:07:45 AM

Yeah, this. My apologies for spoiling what I did. I just assumed that if you clicked on spoilers in this thread, you'd find out stuff from the books as well as the movies. Hell, I found out about


by clicking a spoiler in this thread. I didn't find out what it was or how it came about just the name. When I came to that part in the book, I still had a serious OH SHIT moment. That scene affected me for days afterwards, moreso than Ned Stark's death or anything else that has happened in the series up to that point.

WTF? Ned Stark dies? Spoiler that shit man. :}

Edit: Dammit Yeg. Teach me to finish the whole thread before posting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 06, 2013, 12:13:27 AM
We should do as AVClub does and have two threads, one for "veterans" than have read the books and one for "noobies" that have not where book spoilers are verboten.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 06, 2013, 12:57:19 AM
Personally I prefer GoT having read the books already.

The majority of the actors are putting in properly subtle performances that continually reference things that are only explained later or not at all in the TV series, like watching a play or an opera there is so much more to appreciate if you are watching the performance rather than the story.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 06, 2013, 03:41:11 AM
Can I also remind you that some of us have had great fun in these threads despite the shows not airing in our vicinity at the same time.  Hence, Spoilers.

Most of the shows that attempt to synchronise are at least a week out.

It's not like I spoil Dr Who for you all by telling you Moffats written another stinker.  Whoops, maybe I do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Segoris on April 07, 2013, 06:43:56 PM
I forget which show I saw this, but I liked the idea and I tend to stick with it. Basically, it suggested using a spoiler for one week after an episode airs, after that the content in that episode is fair game. That is a reasonable amount of time to allow for all time zones and keeps everything in one thread. Book shit stays spoilered until one week after the content has aired as well, if it doesn't get aired then use your best judgement if it will or would not be cut entirely from the show (as it seems some things are).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 07, 2013, 07:06:20 PM
If you put both book and tv spoilers in spoilers then non book readers are not going to be able to read anything.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 07, 2013, 07:45:11 PM
What had happened at Harrenhal in S03E01? The Mountain's prisoners when Tywin left seemed to be a bunch of local peasants. Many were women and children. Did The Mountain capture another 200 Northmen?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 07, 2013, 08:17:35 PM
I think there are some shenanigans involved.


OK episode two was golden Jerry, golden!  Lots of plot threads picked back up and it ends with a good swordfight. 
Anyway, great episode, much better than the first.  Only worry is that there is a LOT of plot threads and not much will get done this season. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 08, 2013, 12:02:31 AM
The kid playing Jojen is Malcolm McDowell reincarnated (wut, he ain't dead?).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on April 08, 2013, 07:03:24 AM
That was a great episode. Seems there is going to be a few departures from the book.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 08, 2013, 07:28:53 AM
That's great the books get really dull at this point. The TV edit so far has been much better.

What had happened at Harrenhal in S03E01? The Mountain's prisoners when Tywin left seemed to be a bunch of local peasants. Many were women and children. Did The Mountain capture another 200 Northmen?

There were supposed to be a fair amount of northmen prisoners in there the while time. They just didn't show it properly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 08, 2013, 07:33:20 AM
They did explain that the cells were full of northmen when tywin arrived at harrenhal.

That said, I didn't really understand why the lannisters felt the need to drag the bodies up to the courtyard. Presumably the writers have a rule about Robb Stark never being seen inside.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 08, 2013, 07:43:11 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 08, 2013, 08:08:05 AM
To be fair, GoT probably could say exactly that to a cast member.

But there isn't much reason to, this an opportunity to get some feast material running and spread storm out a bit more. Which seems sensible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 08, 2013, 08:14:31 AM
Right, it's not even skipping ahead, its more like showing us stuff that happened behind the scenes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 08, 2013, 09:51:44 AM
Yup not so much skipping ahead as adding detail to things that were happening at that time which happens to keep theon on screen from time to time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 08, 2013, 12:20:10 PM
Yup not so much skipping ahead as adding detail to things that were happening at that time which happens to keep theon on screen from time to time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 08, 2013, 01:18:31 PM
Another thing about it I liked that they put in as a clue for people who hadn't read the books:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on April 08, 2013, 03:29:24 PM
I have only seen the very first episode of season one (have read them all, some repeatedly), but was wondering if they on the whole reflect the plot line in the book series?

Also, how you are watching these? I imagine most are not HBO subscribers so is it via DVD or via downloads?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 08, 2013, 03:42:32 PM
I have only seen the very first episode of season one (have read them all, some repeatedly), but was wondering if they on the whole reflect the plot line in the book series?

Also, how you are watching these? I imagine most are not HBO subscribers so is it via DVD or via downloads?


We have our ways.  If anyone was using less than legal means of doing so, this forum doesn't allow discussing such things.

--Dave

EDIT: I will say that if HBO offered HBO-Go without requiring you have HBO through cable/satellite as well, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with paying for that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 08, 2013, 03:45:26 PM
There is very little variation from the books so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 08, 2013, 04:44:04 PM
I subscribe to HBO, they have by far the best shows on TV.  Apart from Girls, that shit was unwatchable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 08, 2013, 05:47:43 PM
My wife likes Girls (no idea why). But yes, HBO easily has the best TV serieses on with some sprinkling of good shows from other networks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 09, 2013, 02:49:57 AM
Another thing about it I liked that they put in as a clue for people who hadn't read the books:

The other clue was that last season when Robb wanted to march back North, they stated outright who had been sent to retake winterfell in his place. I don't think it is supposed to be a mystery.

On the subject of northmen, I really like the far more subtle Roose Bolton in the TV series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 09, 2013, 03:27:27 AM
Good episode - I'm actually liking the little tweaks they make to the storyline. Did the actor that plays Jo Jen also play a midshipman in Master and Commander? He looks familiar. Fantastic actor from what I've seen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 09, 2013, 04:05:34 AM
Loved the episode. Also liked that Simon from Misfits got another job. They really are scraping together every British actor they can find, don't they?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 09, 2013, 05:24:57 AM
Good episode - I'm actually liking the little tweaks they make to the storyline. Did the actor that plays Jo Jen also play a midshipman in Master and Commander? He looks familiar. Fantastic actor from what I've seen.

He was Liam Neeson's son in Love Actually. Don't know what else he has been in, but I figured out that was how I had recognized him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 09, 2013, 06:15:12 AM
Martin just confirmed: no Strong Belwas in the TV series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 09, 2013, 07:00:28 AM

EDIT: I will say that if HBO offered HBO-Go without requiring you have HBO through cable/satellite as well, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with paying for that.

Sign me up when that happens.  Only reason I don't sub to HBO is because I know the things I would watch when I was 10 that my parents would have been appalled by and I have 3 kids 10 and under myself now.  I guess HBO needs to keep people on the TV platform for the ratings data.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on April 09, 2013, 07:37:34 AM
There is very little variation from the books so far.

The overall storyline doesn't deviate too much from the books, but there is a LOT of differences.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on April 09, 2013, 10:21:03 AM
Martin just confirmed: no Strong Belwas in the TV series.

 :heartbreak: I would have liked to see the scene of him dueling the knight outside of Mereen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 09, 2013, 12:29:36 PM
On the subject of northmen, I really like the far more subtle Roose Bolton in the TV series.

Roose Bolton wasn't always subtle, creepy but subtle.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 09, 2013, 03:37:32 PM
General thoughts in the second one.


Bran and Arya suddenly have far more personality and acting ability.

Oh my god the horrible recap exposition dialog MAKE IT STOP PLEASE.

Cersei / Joffrey scene was great. Storm would have benefited from a cersei POV chapter or two.

The intro of the Reeds made very little sense. Shame they couldn't introduce them in Winterfell.

Margery was awesome.

Does someone have to sing the Rains of Castermere in every single episode?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on April 09, 2013, 07:03:43 PM
General thoughts in the second one.


Bran and Arya suddenly have far more personality and acting ability.

Oh my god the horrible recap exposition dialog MAKE IT STOP PLEASE.

Cersei / Joffrey scene was great. Storm would have benefited from a cersei POV chapter or two.

The intro of the Reeds made very little sense. Shame they couldn't introduce them in Winterfell.

Margery was awesome.

Does someone have to sing the Rains of Castermere in every single episode?



yeh - huge disconnect with Thoros singing the Rains of Castamere, but I just understood it as keeping that song front of mind for viewers.  its probably the most important period in the books as far as the meaning/impact of that song goes.  Lady Tulisa being not-Westerosi kind of fucks with that too, not sure how they will resolve the non-existant "Cragg" family/house. 

I like the adaptation that Arya's arc is going through, it was a bit ponderous in the books what with the constant doubling back over the riverlands and back to harrenhall and whatnot.  The TV show's take on it is much cleaner.  Taking out the Brave Companions and making the Boltons the evil cartoon swirly moustache guys who like cutting on people is maybe a little too overdone.
Loved seeing Theon's arc brought forward, no reason not to - and like teleku said the subtle link with bolton and theon's pose was a good one - even my wife picked up there was something at work there.  I don't like the Qyburn thing, but . 

Pity that Riverrun's part in the story is being cut down so much, it would have been a beautiful location to frame some of the stark story arc, but they had to cut some things.  Not convinced with their casting for Mance, yet. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 09, 2013, 07:31:36 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 09, 2013, 08:14:29 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 10, 2013, 11:59:22 AM
Problem with Riverrun would have been the visuals of Robb sitting around in a southern castle rather than looking uncomfortable away from home on a camp site.

Good example of the book doing the best thing for the book, TV doing the best for TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 11, 2013, 11:17:18 AM
Heh, thought this was amusing.  Pictures of the game of throne actors messing around in and out of costume:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lyapalater/game-of-thrones-actors-doing-normal-stuff-is-so-weird

Some of those pics probably fulfill some fanfic authors deepest desires.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 11, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
Wow, I didn't realize that Sam isn't really all that large in real life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 11, 2013, 12:17:22 PM
Wow, I didn't realize that Sam isn't really all that large in real life.

A whole lot uglier though....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on April 14, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
I'd like to give ole Sansa a game of bones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 14, 2013, 04:02:56 PM
 :hello_thar:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2013, 04:48:32 PM
Lol, Sophie Turner who plays Sansa is only like 8 months older than Maise Williams who plays Arya.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 14, 2013, 06:12:01 PM
Lol, Sophie Turner who plays Sansa is only like 8 months older than Maise Williams who plays Arya.

She also grew like a foot between seasons. She is taller than most of the male actors she has scenes with now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 14, 2013, 08:39:23 PM
The whole Astapor story line in the books is one of my favorites. I hope they do well with it on the TV.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: grebo on April 14, 2013, 08:45:57 PM




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2013, 09:03:48 PM
That version of the bear and the maiden fair over the credits was fucking awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 15, 2013, 12:13:54 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 15, 2013, 09:03:46 AM
I really like the way they are moving things along this season. Lots of great moments with Tyrion (especially the scene with Bronn and Podrick after the whorehouse). I'm glad they moved the Theon stuff forward into this season because he'd have been forgotten about otherwise. They also seemed to have skipped over a whole ton of Jamie and Brienne walking and foreplay.

The Blackfish is a good casting, though I always saw him as the guy from Python's Holy Grail that was the scientist. (How do you know she's a witch?)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 15, 2013, 11:59:55 AM

The Blackfish is a good casting, though I always saw him as the guy from Python's Holy Grail that was the scientist. (How do you know she's a witch?)

I don't know why they had him take the bow so rudely from his brother though. It speaks of a side to his personality that is never revealed in the book. I think I like him better in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 15, 2013, 12:02:15 PM
He was already mad at Edmure for his screw up with the Mountain.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 15, 2013, 12:06:36 PM

The Blackfish is a good casting, though I always saw him as the guy from Python's Holy Grail that was the scientist. (How do you know she's a witch?)

I don't know why they had him take the bow so rudely from his brother though. It speaks of a side to his personality that is never revealed in the book. I think I like him better in the book.


Blackfish is Edmure's uncle.  I think most of the Tully clan is perpetually annoyed with Edmure.  In the books he always came across as somewhat of a fuck up and buffoon.  Plus in the books (and was shown here), they pretty much only had time for one more shot before the funeral would be totally botched by the boat not catching fire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 15, 2013, 12:50:02 PM

The Blackfish is a good casting, though I always saw him as the guy from Python's Holy Grail that was the scientist. (How do you know she's a witch?)

I don't know why they had him take the bow so rudely from his brother though. It speaks of a side to his personality that is never revealed in the book. I think I like him better in the book.

Blackfish is Edmure's uncle.  I think most of the Tully clan is perpetually annoyed with Edmure.  In the books he always came across as somewhat of a fuck up and buffoon.  Plus in the books (and was shown here), they pretty much only had time for one more shot before the funeral would be totally botched by the boat not catching fire.

Which spoke even higher of Blackfish's character in the book that he was gentler on Edmund than in the TV version.
I guess they need people to be "larger than life" on TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 15, 2013, 01:02:35 PM
Like i said, the Blackfish was already pissed at Edmure on the show because he fucked up Robb's plan.  This did not happen until way later in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 15, 2013, 03:51:08 PM
Such a cool, almost offbeat episode.  The archery scene.  The chair scene.  The whore scene.  The final scene.  It felt like a minor little spin on the normal rhythms of the show.  You know, two people in one room making subtle threats to each other. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 15, 2013, 03:54:22 PM
Whole thing was brilliant.  Credits were icing on the cake.

The bear, the bear! The bear and the maiden fair!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 16, 2013, 03:03:47 AM
That version of the bear and the maiden fair over the credits was fucking awesome.

I hated it.  Talk about jarring you out of the narrative.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 16, 2013, 03:39:16 AM
I don't really think any of the Westorosi songs are working except as a nod to book readers. Even for that they always seem forced.

Woody Allen once said something witty about how songs are too damn long and musicals can only deliver the simplest of plots in the longest of runtimes as a result.

Not really a spoiler but...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 16, 2013, 04:58:05 AM
I lost it at the credits :D

I don't really pay attention to the songs in books, I was never a fan of Tolkein's verse (heresy I know) and Jean Auel demonstrated how to really screw up a good story with them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tmon on April 16, 2013, 09:15:06 AM
I lost it at the credits :D

I don't really pay attention to the songs in books, I was never a fan of Tolkein's verse (heresy I know) and Jean Auel demonstrated how to really screw up a good story with them.

Yup, reading Tolkien taught me to skip any sections that are indented and italicized in any fantasy themed book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 16, 2013, 10:34:05 AM
It is a bit different in that GRRM uses the songs as plot clues, wheras JRRT was basically showing off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on April 16, 2013, 10:38:14 AM
I lost it at the credits :D

I don't really pay attention to the songs in books, I was never a fan of Tolkein's verse (heresy I know) and Jean Auel demonstrated how to really screw up a good story with them.

Being a fan of Tolkein's verse makes me instantly regard a person as a pretentious douchebag.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 16, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
I like words, so I guess that makes me a pretentious douchebag.   :awesome_for_real:  Tolkien's stories were almost an excuse for him to have fun with language and poetry.  He once said that he wrote the Lord of the Rings because he wanted to create a world where the sentence "a star shines on this, the hour of our meeting" was a common greeting (elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo).  I know this because my grandpa always cites it when explaining why he hated the LotR movies.

I think songs work best in TV/movies when they're used to back some sort of montage, rather than as a straight musical number where the camera is on the person singing.  If you're watching somebody sing, you're probably wasting screen time that could have been showing you things rather than telling them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 16, 2013, 11:37:16 AM
That version of the bear and the maiden fair over the credits was fucking awesome.

I hated it.  Talk about jarring you out of the narrative.



It was a bit jarring in that it's the kind of thing I'd expect more from an episode of True Blood.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 17, 2013, 03:49:26 AM
It was jarring mostly because it made Jamie's moment feel like an early Peter Jackson movie rather than the instant and irrecoverable life changer that it actually supposed to be.

Brienne and Jamie were great throughout ep 3. I remember this point in the books were the first scenes GRRM starts writing actual female characters rather than the one dimensional caricatures that Catelyn/Cersei/Arya/Melisandra/Sansa/Dany have all been up to this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 17, 2013, 04:41:49 AM
Brienne seems the most realistic woman to me full stop and I can't exactly call myself an avid reader of the books.

The rest are pretty much fantasy tropes, but she has an air of reality about her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 17, 2013, 08:24:55 AM
I think the actress deserves a lot of credit for this.  I also think the TV version of Catelyn Stark comes across as even stronger than the written version.  Both actresses are superb.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 17, 2013, 11:55:47 PM
You thought the written version came across as strong?

I thought the written version came across as a stereotypically family obsessed middle aged woman.

YMMV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 18, 2013, 12:07:31 AM
So, I refuse to read the books at this point - which seems like a good thing since George will just die before he figures out how to finish a story and tie it up in a nice bow. But I've had most of the futures of the characters spoiled for me since my fiancee just finished everything and I wanted to know where things were going in relation to the books.

I can think of more interesting futures for nearly every single character. :(

I love the TV show because the acting is wonderful, but all I can think is I would've preferred a Black Company TV show if they could avoid it looking like Farscape/BBC Trash.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 18, 2013, 12:15:46 AM
I just read all of the character spoilers for the entire series of Game of Thrones because I demanded answers for this nonsense.

These books are absurd. They must be fucking well-written because how can you people tolerate this dead/notdead/maybedead/everyone dead shit?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 18, 2013, 12:26:50 AM
Sounds as absurd as any Comic book storyline to me. Or Soap Opera for that matter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2013, 01:22:48 AM
I just read all of the character spoilers for the entire series of Game of Thrones because I demanded answers for this nonsense.

These books are absurd. They must be fucking well-written because how can you people tolerate this dead/notdead/maybedead/everyone dead shit?

I've considered this question long and hard for you Schild :

It's the tits.  I tolerate the show for the tits.  And the muff.  And, almost without pause, Dinklage.

Hope that helps.


Oh.  You mean the books.  I dunno, I tried a couple while the wife had them and they seemed standard silly Drizzt nonsense.

But I like tits.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 18, 2013, 01:27:41 AM
The first book doesn't get good until near the end, the next two books keep up the "wtf are you doing?"  spoilers pace, then it's all downhill.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 18, 2013, 01:31:19 AM
That version of the bear and the maiden fair over the credits was fucking awesome.

I hated it.  Talk about jarring you out of the narrative.



Yup, great version of the song but didn't belong there. Reminded me of the inappropriate title music at the start of Boardwalk Empire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 18, 2013, 03:15:27 AM
I just found this fan version on Youtube: yeah, sounds like your average "ren fest" tune, but it's not bad, IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6VMSYIXCCY


Lyrics: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Bear_and_the_Maiden_Fair


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 21, 2013, 10:23:56 PM
 :rock_hard: :hulk_rock: :rock_hard: :hulk_rock: :rock_hard: :hulk_rock: :rock_hard: :hulk_rock:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2013, 03:33:56 AM
Damn you, thats going to make getting through the rest of the work day harder!

Sunday is so sad for me.  I have a built in reaction of "Oh, Sunday, Game of Thrones Time!"  Then I remember that it doesn't air till 3 AM Polish time, and I'll have to wait till Monday night.   :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 22, 2013, 08:40:42 AM
I thought the Daenerys section was very good but it's the first time I've noticed the switching between different characters weakened the impact somewhat.  I feel the scene would have been even powerful if the build up to it had been in the same episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on April 22, 2013, 09:00:34 AM
I thought that was another really strong episode. The acting seems to be getting better, which is good. I like show Margaery better than book Margaery - nice to see her have a bit more expanded role and I like that she is fully aware of what is going on. The scenes with Varys were good and the play between him and the Queen of Thorns was great.

I'm assuming that Theon's rescuer is;
Been waiting to see that end scene and I thought they did a really good job of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 22, 2013, 10:42:32 AM

I'm assuming that Theon's rescuer is;


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 22, 2013, 11:10:25 AM

I'm assuming that Theon's rescuer is;



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 22, 2013, 11:18:51 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 22, 2013, 11:20:47 AM
Not to mention everything about that is reveled in Book 5. Everything else in the TV Show is in book 3 and 4.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 22, 2013, 11:24:10 AM
That part of the story was a mess long before the TV show got a hold of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 22, 2013, 11:31:48 AM
Not to mention everything about that is reveled in Book 5. Everything else in the TV Show is in book 3 and 4.

Except it's only revealed to the reader in Book 5. Everyone who is not Sam still has no idea they are still alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: cironian on April 22, 2013, 11:46:24 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on April 22, 2013, 12:07:26 PM
Book v. TV Show Theon Stuff:


In the books....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 22, 2013, 12:20:01 PM

Also, they handled the Unsullied scene a lot better than I expected them to. Really powerful, well done cinematography to disguise the fact that there were probably 30 actors in Unsullied costumes during that scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 22, 2013, 01:25:29 PM
Great episode, Daenarys' taking control of the unsullied was exceptionally well done.

Normally I watch a movie/TV show and compare it to the book it was based on. I'm sorry J.R.R.M., you could learn from the writers that adapted your long-winded novels - I enjoyed the first three but the rest were very average. By comparison, the TV series is telling almost the same story with far better writing.

[flame proof suit on]


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 22, 2013, 01:29:37 PM
I disagree with what you said.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 22, 2013, 01:42:02 PM
Daenarys wrecking that town was the most telegraphed thing I've seen on HBO. While neat, it was kind of whatever. All of the great threats of this world (White Walkers, the Daenarys shit, etc) is some of the most unadvancing MAJOR SHIT I've seen since the Smoke Monster did nothing in Season 1 of Lost.

I can not stress how happy I am that I ignored everyone that told me these books were good.

Furthermore, my fiancee was just screaming after she finished book 4 and it was just total shit.

She has started reading The Black Company, 100% sure she will be happy about that. (Since, you know, they put a nice bow on nearly everything in those books)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sigil on April 22, 2013, 04:14:39 PM
You should push up your horn rims while you're at it.  :oh_i_see:




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 22, 2013, 05:21:19 PM
Holy crap a lot is going down this season.  Almost too much.  I want to spend more time with these characters and they have to keep some back each show (Robb and Stannis was absent this time).  Even the Sansa scenes were good this time around.  The Tyrells are a great addition to the TV show.  Margarery is playing a great game and Tywin pulls the same stunt on Cersi he pulled on Tyrion.  Plus he's the second person who's told Cersi that she's not as smart as she thinks she is.  That's gotta sting coming from your pop!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 22, 2013, 05:26:05 PM
Daenarys wrecking that town was the most telegraphed thing I've seen on HBO. While neat, it was kind of whatever. All of the great threats of this world (White Walkers, the Daenarys shit, etc) is some of the most unadvancing MAJOR SHIT I've seen since the Smoke Monster did nothing in Season 1 of Lost.

I can not stress how happy I am that I ignored everyone that told me these books were good.

Furthermore, my fiancee was just screaming after she finished book 4 and it was just total shit.

She has started reading The Black Company, 100% sure she will be happy about that. (Since, you know, they put a nice bow on nearly everything in those books)

Schild hates on something popular and well liked by a large geek fanbase. News at 11.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2013, 06:34:16 PM
I like the writing for Tywin much more this season; he was much too likeable (particularly in his interactions with Arya) last season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 22, 2013, 09:16:01 PM
Daenarys wrecking that town was the most telegraphed thing I've seen on HBO. While neat, it was kind of whatever. All of the great threats of this world (White Walkers, the Daenarys shit, etc) is some of the most unadvancing MAJOR SHIT I've seen since the Smoke Monster did nothing in Season 1 of Lost.

I can not stress how happy I am that I ignored everyone that told me these books were good.

Furthermore, my fiancee was just screaming after she finished book 4 and it was just total shit.

She has started reading The Black Company, 100% sure she will be happy about that. (Since, you know, they put a nice bow on nearly everything in those books)

Schild hates on something popular and well liked by a large geek fanbase. News at 11.

Pop culture has all sorts of shitty literature that tons of people like. Twilight is the obvious choice here and while the writing for Game of Thrones is obviously better than that could ever be, it doesn't mean something with a large geek fanbase is something anyone should enjoy.

Your comment implies I should like Joss Whedon stuff also, because "geeks like it." Yea, no.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 22, 2013, 09:55:22 PM
I found the last two episodes to be some of the weaker ones. Like Schild said, the Daenerys - Unsullied 'stuff' felt very telegraphed. And oh so convenient that an army just falls into her lap to advance to plot. Daenerys is  the polar opposite to Theon Greyjoy - he seems to fail underservingly just because the writer wants it, while she succeeded for the same reason.

---

Somewhat tangentially, does someone else feel the 'bad' characters in the show are most interesting? The entire Stark clan is either absolutely bland (Jon Snow) or unlikable (the mother). Sansa is so daft, it makes scenes with her hard to stand. Arya being the exception.

On the other hand, if I find myself rooting for someone it's definitely Cersei, Tywin, Jamie and the Hound. In that order.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 22, 2013, 11:04:26 PM
Theon Greyjoy? Please elaborate. He is an entitled and whiny little shit that has an entirely too high opinion of himself. But maybe thats book Theon clouding my judgement. Where did he fail undeservingly?

Other than that, yes. Apart from Arya the whole Stark clan is boring. Though Jon Snow gave us Ygritte, so shallow that I am I give him credit for that.

I can't stand Cersei, at all. If she and Catelyn vanished together I wouldn't mind. At all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2013, 01:17:22 AM
I'm not sure Arya is supposed to be good, or the Hound bad. But yeah, the lannisters deserve as much screen time as possible, whereas Dany and Jon start bland and go downhill from there. Robb is starting to show signs of life I guess.

Jamie even made Brienne interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 23, 2013, 07:20:08 AM
I knew it was coming, but the "in your base, killing your dudes" moment in ep 4 still made me indescribably happy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 23, 2013, 07:22:59 AM
I find Tyrion, Arya, Gregor (The Hound) Tywin and Jamie all to stand out as characters who are enjoyable to follow. Sadly, that's 3 Lannisters to a ratio of 1 Stark and 1 Clegane.

Marjorie might be another one but maybe that's the dress.

Other than that, Littlefinger and Varys are always entertaining.

The Barathians and Arryns can DIAF as they are tedious, as are the rest of the Starks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on April 23, 2013, 09:12:17 AM
I feel like I remember in the books actually being convinced that Dany was really grappling with giving up a dragon for the army which wasn't exactly portrayed in the show.  I just remember this whole plot line being much more...more?

Man, I'm really dreading the next few books, hopefully they just pick a few and stick with it as a lot of plot lines are left unfulfilled.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 23, 2013, 09:17:44 AM
And oh so convenient that an army just falls into her lap to advance to plot.

It's not entirely convenient and it isn't without its consequences. The small arc she goes through in book 3 that comes as a result of her actions with the Unsullied is going to be pretty central to her character growth and her understanding of the rigors of rule.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 23, 2013, 10:03:13 AM
Besides, we are talking about 8 thousand soldiers here, even if they are super cool it is not even half of Robb's army and his was the smallest one of all the contenders for the iron throne.  Her power is and has always revolved around the dragons.  Personally i think they need to spend more time with (tri)Pod of house Mandingo.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 23, 2013, 11:34:02 AM


In the books....


Damn forgot about that :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 23, 2013, 11:36:07 AM
I disagree with what you said.
Especially when he's one of the writers. :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 23, 2013, 11:46:11 AM

The Barathians and Arryns can DIAF as they are tedious, as are the rest of the Starks.

The only thing that make's Stannis interesting in the Books is his relationship with Davos, who's been mostly left out of the Show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2013, 12:41:41 PM
Wait, what? Off hand I can't think of a single Davos omission?

The only thing I can think off that changed in the whole Stannis story was skipping storms reach, which was largely a waste everyone's time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 23, 2013, 01:02:29 PM
Wait, what? Off hand I can't think of a single Davos omission?

The only thing I can think off that changed in the whole Stannis story was skipping storms reach, which was largely a waste everyone's time.

I don't think they skipped any parts of Davos' story they just breezed past them without much depth.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on April 23, 2013, 01:11:40 PM
I don't think they skipped any parts of Davos' story they just breezed past them without much depth.


True for most of the stories.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 23, 2013, 01:17:13 PM
I thought they did justice to those sections.  In fact, we got more elaboration on the shadow babies than the book gave us, for one.  Sure, one of the instances in which they are used in the book is omitted, but it didn't add much to begin with. 

The only reason that Davos exists in the books is so the viewer will have a character through which to view Stannis anyway, as evidenced by his current situation in the books.  In the TV show you don't really need that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2013, 01:28:35 PM
He's a bit more than just a Stannis proxy.

He also helps introduce the religious conflict (and the magic vs not conflict), and his history as a smuggler with his missing fingers is supposed to show that in this universe people that did bad things can do good things, but still have to pay for the bad. I guess he is supposed to foreshadow Jamie, theon, and others.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 23, 2013, 05:18:00 PM
He's a bit more than just a Stannis proxy.

He also helps introduce the religious conflict (and the magic vs not conflict), and his history as a smuggler with his missing fingers is supposed to show that in this universe people that did bad things can do good things, but still have to pay for the bad. I guess he is supposed to foreshadow Jamie, theon, and others.



I can see foreshadowing Jamie but Theon? I don't remember Theon ever coming back from being the Turncloak.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 23, 2013, 05:30:48 PM
Book 5/6 spoiler regarding Theon:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 23, 2013, 05:36:59 PM
He's a bit more than just a Stannis proxy.

He also helps introduce the religious conflict (and the magic vs not conflict), and his history as a smuggler with his missing fingers is supposed to show that in this universe people that did bad things can do good things, but still have to pay for the bad. I guess he is supposed to foreshadow Jamie, theon, and others.



I can see foreshadowing Jamie but Theon? I don't remember Theon ever coming back from being the Turncloak.

Gee, thanks for that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 23, 2013, 05:50:16 PM
Book 5/6 spoiler regarding Theon:

I forgot about that. A minor thing but yeah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 23, 2013, 06:54:39 PM
Anyone who hates Dany's storyline now.....well you're an entire season too early...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 23, 2013, 07:17:59 PM
Besides, we are talking about 8 thousand soldiers here, even if they are super cool it is not even half of Robb's army and his was the smallest one of all the contenders for the iron throne. 

Really? I'm not disputing that, it's just that any of the times they've shown the armies "assembled" or in camp they've seemed much smaller. I realize the different grand armies are split up, but the only force that's looked like more than a couple thousand men was the giant Lanister camp. Rob looks like he's tromping around with an army the size of a Boy Scout summer camp.

The Unsullied also appear to be considerably better troops than the houses of Westeros field.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 23, 2013, 07:40:04 PM
Besides, we are talking about 8 thousand soldiers here, even if they are super cool it is not even half of Robb's army and his was the smallest one of all the contenders for the iron throne.  Her power is and has always revolved around the dragons.  Personally i think they need to spend more time with (tri)Pod of house Mandingo.

Keep in mind that the other armies are likely conscripts and a few professional soldiers. The Unsullied have been trained since childhood to be soldiers. That counts for a lot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 23, 2013, 08:11:59 PM
The Unsullied also appear to be considerably better troops than the houses of Westeros field.

Don't think I really need to spoiler the fact (which was sort of said by the slave master in the episode where he was selling) that the Unsullied in the books are considered to be the pinnacle of fighting forces. Think Spartan Hoplites on steroids.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 23, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Unsullied are trained as fighters from the age of 5.  There's a whole thing about how badass they are and how only 1/3 survive to be castrated, then of that only some percentage get through the unsullied trials and tests.  There's also a story about how 3000 unsullied stopped a Khallisar of 50,000 dorthyaki 400 years ago, etc, etc.  

Basically Dany has the Spartan SS to the peasant rabble and men at arms of Westeros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 23, 2013, 09:03:08 PM
The historical equivalents are Xenophon's Immortals or the Ottoman Jannissaries, both of which went through contemporary opponents like a harvester through corn.  8000 troops like that would be a major force in Westeros (where the model is the traditional feudal one of a small cadre of knights who are only coherent as heavy cavalry, and large levies of peasants for infantry).

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 23, 2013, 10:49:33 PM
Book 5/6 spoiler regarding Theon:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 23, 2013, 10:56:42 PM
it's just that any of the times they've shown the armies "assembled" or in camp they've seemed much smaller.

Hint: Extras budget.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 24, 2013, 12:09:28 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 24, 2013, 12:18:30 AM
I thought this episode was great. I was starting to worry that they'd lost their way a bit with the first 3 episodes of this season, it was feeling a bit pedestrian, but it felt to me like they found their stride properly with this one.

Yeah, the Unsullied thing was telegraphed, especially the language thing, but that didn't make it any less satisfying to watch. Great fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 24, 2013, 01:25:08 AM
I understood unsullied to be stronger than anything bar full knights, but while 8000 would be serious business on any battlefield, they probably not be enough to siege and take KL, let alone all of Westeros.

But the point is moot as they are not in Westeros and still have no way to get there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 24, 2013, 01:31:04 AM
I guess the Dragons make good enough Siege Weapons. Just ask Harrenhal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2013, 04:01:07 AM
Remember this when considering the dragons: House Targaryen rode them in to battle when the first coquored Westeros.  Those things are going to get a LOT bigger.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2013, 04:18:23 AM
I think the recent Dragons that died out were progressively getting weaker/sicker and smaller according to the books, likely due to being caged, (Summer born?) etc.  Your point stands though, as I too fully expect these three to be a return of the size of old.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 24, 2013, 05:09:38 AM
I think the cage thing is misdirection. They got weaker because the magic went away, the magic went away because ???, but presumably in part because, as Varys mentioned this week and has been hinted vigorously, there are people/creatures/gods who want magic to go away as well as people/creatures/gods that don't.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2013, 05:28:45 AM
Could very well be, I haven't read the books for quite a while. 

I do think it's possible that Summer echos the Long Intervals from the Pern series and Winter is some kind of set planetary alignment event that creates more magic in the world, but I won't be that surprised if George up and dies before I find out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 24, 2013, 05:34:47 AM
Naw. Its been strongly hinted in the series that dragons were the bringers of magic (or at least its amplified forms) and the wane of magic tightly followed the wane of the dragons.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2013, 06:32:42 AM
Besides, we are talking about 8 thousand soldiers here, even if they are super cool it is not even half of Robb's army and his was the smallest one of all the contenders for the iron throne. 

Really? I'm not disputing that, it's just that any of the times they've shown the armies "assembled" or in camp they've seemed much smaller. I realize the different grand armies are split up, but the only force that's looked like more than a couple thousand men was the giant Lanister camp. Rob looks like he's tromping around with an army the size of a Boy Scout summer camp.

The Unsullied also appear to be considerably better troops than the houses of Westeros field.

They don't really show them because they can't but their numbers are mentioned several times.  Drogo had 40 thousand Dothraki even though you only ever saw about 20 puerto ricans in horses, Robb's army was around 20 thousand, Tywin Lannister had 60 thousand which he split between himself and Jamie, and was raising another army back at Casterly rock, both of the latter ones Robb already defeated.  Renly's army was over 100k as it contained the combined forces of the Tyrells and Baratheons, the Baratheons went to Stannis and the Tyrells went with Loras and joined Tywin eventually.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 24, 2013, 06:53:37 AM
I think the cage thing is misdirection. They got weaker because the magic went away, the magic went away because ???, but presumably in part because, as Varys mentioned this week and has been hinted vigorously, there are people/creatures/gods who want magic to go away as well as people/creatures/gods that don't.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2013, 06:56:01 AM
So it's all a bit of a Who Knows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 24, 2013, 06:58:26 AM
Naw. Its been strongly hinted in the series that dragons were the bringers of magic (or at least its amplified forms) and the wane of magic tightly followed the wane of the dragons.


I can't think of any reliable evidence (in this context reliable means direct observation, foreshadowing, a dream, or a prophecy) that supports the assumption characters make that dragons are cause rather than effect. I rather assume they exist in the same way as walkers, they require magic but not sure they facilitate it.

Varys origin story (even if he is lying, it is an obvious GRRM plant) is evidence that magic is being brought into the world by some intelligent entity or organisation. Craster also foreshadows it.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2013, 07:04:49 AM
Naw. Its been strongly hinted in the series that dragons were the bringers of magic (or at least its amplified forms) and the wane of magic tightly followed the wane of the dragons.


I don't know, the books don't have a trustworthy narrator, just the views each character holds and those have been shown to be deliberately misleading before.  I can see the difference between the "Dragons bringing more Magic" and "More Magic making Dragons thrive" being hard to spot and easily mistaken for each other.

To me, it's a better plot device if the long varying lengths of the Winters & Summers are directly linked to the appearance of Magic/Dragons.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 24, 2013, 07:58:26 AM
I think that in game of thrones universe magic is amplified by the presence of supernatural beings being active. White walkers, dragons, etc. But beyond that exist magic in minor amounts or magic tied to devote faith to the gods.


Another theory I have is that magic is very much active in the East vs Westeros is because the people of Westeros believes in the Seven, a faith that focuses more about virtue and righteousness, than personal power. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2013, 07:58:53 AM
I can't think of any reliable evidence (in this context reliable means direct observation, foreshadowing, a dream, or a prophecy) that supports the assumption characters make that dragons are cause rather than effect. I rather assume they exist in the same way as walkers, they require magic but not sure they facilitate it.

Yeah, I think you put that better than my attempt at it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2013, 08:55:46 AM
This thread is a big ol mess, some people post spoilers and then use spoilers for the very next sentence.  At this point i urge non readers to stay away.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 24, 2013, 10:32:11 AM
I think the recent Dragons that died out were progressively getting weaker/sicker and smaller according to the books, likely due to being caged,

And the loving care of the Maesters.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 24, 2013, 10:37:08 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2013, 10:51:03 AM

Doesn't mean he's right either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 24, 2013, 11:08:22 AM

Id say in the book context old men's death bed revelations tend to be more right than wrong.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 24, 2013, 11:19:58 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 24, 2013, 11:24:02 AM




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2013, 12:58:45 PM
Book Criticism:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 24, 2013, 01:08:52 PM
Re Above



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2013, 01:59:28 PM
 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on April 24, 2013, 03:17:46 PM
Jesus fuck.

I swear I read the books and don't remember any of this.

To the wiki with me!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on April 25, 2013, 07:20:01 AM

I don't even think it'll be that complicated

Book stuff btw


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 25, 2013, 07:50:19 AM
We all know the Song will not be finished until Sanderson finishes it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 25, 2013, 08:25:34 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 25, 2013, 08:53:03 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 25, 2013, 08:55:12 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 25, 2013, 09:44:11 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 25, 2013, 09:57:32 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 25, 2013, 10:45:49 AM
Just a point of order... but time to split thread with a TV only - no spoilers or spoiler tags thread?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 25, 2013, 10:53:34 AM
Fair point.

Can we move the book discussion to http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=21086.175 ?

Warning, has LOTS of spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on April 25, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
(http://thescruffynerdherder.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/20120331-105600.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 28, 2013, 09:52:57 PM
I know we aren't allowed to talk about the show in this thread anymore, so I will just say: weeeeeeeee.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 28, 2013, 09:59:08 PM
I know we aren't allowed to talk about the show in this thread anymore, so I will just say: weeeeeeeee.

I think you mean the books, assuming I didn't just fall into a sarchasm. (Yeah, I probably did.)

This was a great episode. I won't spoil anything but I particularly enjoyed the sword fight and Jamie's talk with Brienne. Oh, and Ygritte and Jon!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 29, 2013, 01:28:55 AM
Yeah, great episode.  The Shireen/Patchface song from the credits:

Quote
It's always summer
Under the sea
I know, I know
Oh, oh, oh
The birds have scales
And the fish take wing
I know, I know
Oh, oh, oh
The rain is dry
And the snow falls up
I know, I know
Oh, oh, oh
The stones crack open
The water burns
The shadows come to dance
My lord
The shadows come
To play
The shadows come to dance
My lord
The shadows come
To stay


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 29, 2013, 07:39:45 AM
You know nothing John Snoaahhhh.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 29, 2013, 07:45:28 AM
That episode had a lot of weird scenes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2013, 07:54:43 AM
That episode had a lot of asses.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 29, 2013, 09:54:55 AM
You know nothing John Snoaahhhh.



The best part of that episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Next time though Jon, first the bath then the oral sex maybe?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 29, 2013, 10:16:00 AM

Brienne's was rather impressive.

I know we aren't allowed to talk about the show in this thread anymore, so I will just say: weeeeeeeee.

I think people just want to keep book spoilers out of this thread.  I think we've tried this before and it failed.

I don't care, personally, but I have read the books.  I don't know if this was a mod edict or not.  :|


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2013, 10:28:32 AM
Actually i think this thread is irredeemable for non book readers at this point and a new no spoilers thread should be started, but what do i know.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 29, 2013, 10:34:40 AM
I bumped the book thread as I like the prophecies discussion and I suspect people will just dive into the most active tv thread, in 5 episodes that will be the one with spoilers.  But I don't mind either way, I'll post in them all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 29, 2013, 10:51:07 AM
I'd be happy if this thread stuck to discussing differences with the books, but only up to events that have occurred in the show so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 29, 2013, 11:42:21 AM
Very good episode. The scene with Jamie and Brienne was just fantastic. He nailed that scene and to me, made that scene more important than it was in the book. It just had a lot more weight to it. Same goes for the fight between the Hound and Lord Beric. In the book it sort of happened but didn't elicit much of an emotional reaction. The TV fight was MUCH better. It had real emotional OOMMPH.

Was it just me or did the books have Tywin trying to



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 29, 2013, 12:17:10 PM
In regards to your question Haemish:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 29, 2013, 12:37:52 PM
In regards to your question Haemish:

FTFY


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 29, 2013, 12:46:39 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 29, 2013, 12:51:39 PM
I'd be happy if this thread stuck to discussing differences with the books, but only up to events that have occurred in the show so far.
The problem is that since the show isn't strictly following the book timeline, when they start discussing the meaning of events that were moved from the future into the show's present, all the context is spoiler material.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 29, 2013, 12:55:42 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on April 29, 2013, 01:04:57 PM
:nda:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 29, 2013, 01:27:54 PM
Actually i think this thread is irredeemable for non book readers at this point and a new no spoilers thread should be started, but what do i know.

I agree with this and have started such a thread.  My guess is that nobody will post in it, thus ensuring that it remains blissfully free of spoilers.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 29, 2013, 03:46:24 PM
Another good episode.  Lots of plot twists!  I liked Robb's decision, he's actually turning into a not-boring character.  As for Dragonstone?  It's a big castle where joy was strangled in it's crib.  Good old Stannis, loving husband, kindly father!  Another good scene with the another loving family, the Lannisters.  Cersei was all  :oh_i_see: then she was all  :ye_gods:

Episode should have been called Hot Tub Confessions!  Nice bums all around!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fordel on April 29, 2013, 06:43:06 PM
You assume he has a plan and it isn't all just desperation  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 29, 2013, 09:15:38 PM

Lastly, wondering why Jon lied about 1000 men at Castle Black.  Not sure how that helps him, the Wildings don't seem the sort to call off an attack because of 1000 Crows.[/spoiler]

I'd guess it was an attempt to get the wildlings to change where they climb the wall at. They know there's over a dozen forts unmanned, it would make sense to climb into one that was empty if they could instead of one defended by 1000 men. Not sure it really matters though, just that one giant they showed for five minutes looked like he could wreck all defender's shit regardless.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 30, 2013, 03:05:05 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 30, 2013, 03:21:43 AM
Just watched the last episode - holy shit that was good. I found myself wanting Clegane to win, Arya and Robb are really taking a hold on the season and the Jamie and Brienne scene was fantastic.

Dead babies is a bit  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on May 06, 2013, 09:46:48 AM
Weakest episode of this season I thought. The change to bring Melisandre to the Brotherhood and grab Gendry is necessary since Edric Storm has been written out, but it all seemed so convenient. I feel like the show is getting caught up in it's popularity and playing to the lowest common denomintor by overexplaining everything and removing some of the morally grey areas the characters walk in. Tyrion isn't anywhere near as kind in the books, while Littlefinger is being reduced to little more than a moustache twirling villian who can't wait to tell Varys all the clever things he's done. Joffrey is a monster and they are beating it over your head with every little thing he does.

The only scene I felt was any good was Brienne and Jamie with Lord Bolton, the rest of the episode was basically just setting up how the next few are going to go in order to wrap up this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 06, 2013, 09:55:03 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed the episode.  Is it less subtle then the books?  Of course- they don't have time to produce 10 hours hinting aTyrrell plots and whatnot.  Tywin scene with whatshername was well done and the drunk priests story made me ggri

I could go for another.  T.  Episodes per season, though.5 i
e  ll

edit.  Stupid phone.  Leaving post is; I stand by my gibberish!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2013, 10:27:39 AM
I don't know what the fuck you just said. But you touched a brother's heart!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: El Gallo on May 06, 2013, 12:08:29 PM
Episode felt like it was just treading water to me. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 06, 2013, 12:48:49 PM
Looked like they were banking budget (notice how few actors were in any one scene, how little of it required any real stunts or fight choreography).  A cheap to produce episode filled with exposition and character development to make up for big budgets in others.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: El Gallo on May 07, 2013, 03:11:56 AM
My book-reading wife told my illiterate ass that almost everything in the episode was either not in the book at all or very heavily modified. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 07, 2013, 07:20:03 AM
So fill me in on where Joffrey is not a monster in the books. And Tyrion is quite specifically kind *to Sansa*. Not so much to Cersei, I agree, but that's an interesting change that has to do with the degree to which Cersei is more "grey" and complicated in the TV series than in the books, where she is pretty much a horrible person even when we have her own viewpoint to contend with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 07, 2013, 07:53:43 AM
Cersi killed her best friend to keep her quiet as a young girl.  That's pretty much all you need to know about her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 07, 2013, 09:27:25 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 07, 2013, 11:15:50 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 07, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
I don't see why people object to Littlefinger's portrayal, it's a little less subtle but that's what he is like in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 07, 2013, 12:30:53 PM
I like how littlefinger is scripted and directed, but the casting isn't working.

He was great in the wire, and I can see why they went with him, but his interpretation just lacks menace. I get the feeling some of the moustache twirling is the writers trying to help him out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 07, 2013, 12:44:55 PM
You guys are crazy. I don't see what's not menacing about him. Sure, he's a bit treacly with his delivery at times but I thought it was entirely in keeping with the character they've established in the show as well as the book - only with slightly less subtlety than the book because... well, because it's not a book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 07, 2013, 01:19:27 PM
I thought he was pretty great in his scene with Varys this last week. Again, please to tell me where Littlefinger in the books comes off as a warm, sympathetic, lightly understood guy who just wants the best for everyone. The most "grey" that Littlefinger gets in the books is that there's a certain pathos in his memories of being scorned and excluded from his desires (Catelyn and otherwise) because he wasn't a member of the nobility--he is in that sense very much an archetype of narratives about early modern Europe, where various kinds of "nouveau riche" schemers managed to worm their way into power and influence as the aristocracy declined, often viciously so. But beyond that general pathos, he's pretty much an oily, vaguely charming schemer who has absolutely no scruples of any kind, nor any oaths to keep save the one he's made to himself to aggrandize his own power and if he can, have what was denied him when he was younger. I don't seem much divergence in books and series in that regard, save some compression.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 07, 2013, 01:44:15 PM
I really need to go back and reread the books; a lot of stuff is taking me by surprise here and I'm not sure how much of that is that I've just forgotten some of the relatively minor plot lines and how much of it is TV doing things differently.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 07, 2013, 02:06:43 PM
I really need to go back and reread the books; a lot of stuff is taking me by surprise here and I'm not sure how much of that is that I've just forgotten some of the relatively minor plot lines and how much of it is TV doing things differently.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 07, 2013, 02:09:13 PM
Littlefinger actually matches up fine with how I remember him; the events with the Brotherhood are more what have me going "wait... is that how that happened?"  I think I don't remember it very well because it ultimately doesn't have that much impact on much that happens later.  At least that I can remember.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 07, 2013, 02:12:18 PM
the events with the Brotherhood are more what have me going "wait... is that how that happened?"  I think I don't remember it very well because it ultimately doesn't have that much impact on much that happens later.  At least that I can remember.

Nope you're right there. As was mentioned the red woman never came to visit them. Gendry stayed on as a smith and much else didnt happen the way it did on TV.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 07, 2013, 02:18:05 PM
I really need to go back and reread the books; a lot of stuff is taking me by surprise here and I'm not sure how much of that is that I've just forgotten some of the relatively minor plot lines and how much of it is TV doing things differently.

IGN has ongoing articles that tell you what has been changed, added and removed per episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 07, 2013, 02:18:39 PM
The Brotherhood stuff suffers from them basically cutting out all of the shit that went on in the riverlands.  Plus, the Gendry hijack.

 

Not a huge fan of how Aidan Gillen is playing the role, but I'm not a fan of his in general.  I don't even think he was that good in The Wire.  Him and Nick from season 2 always annoyed me.  Aidan has a stock set of faces he uses for certain emotions and most of them just look off.  His "astonishment" (same as his "hello there hot lady") face looks like some sort of drooling imbecile.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 07, 2013, 02:22:56 PM
They're using Gendry to fulfill the part of Edric Storm, that's it.  I'm fine with it, since it keeps a character/actor we all know involved longer in the story instead of fading into obscurity, and cuts out another largely pointless character.

I also don't get the little finger hate.  I love this interpretation of him.  I think the actor is doing wonderfully, and he's way more subtly menacing on the screen here than he ever was in the books (where he was more just creepy and a dick).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 07, 2013, 03:39:45 PM
Peter, both in the book and on the show, is by far my favorite character and the one I am rooting for the most.

I have updated my avatard accordingly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 07, 2013, 04:57:04 PM
I was just saying the other day that in watching the show I've been surprised at how much a fan I am of Dany.  It took me a while to warm up to her in the books, but in the show I've been rooting for her more than any other character ever since she got her dragons.  I mean, I really want to love the Starks, but they're bumblers, all of them, and it's probably for the best none of them is in charge of a kingdom.  Dany continually comes across as both principled and competent, which is a mix you don't get often in this series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 07, 2013, 05:04:51 PM
I was just saying the other day that in watching the show I've been surprised at how much a fan I am of Dany.  It took me a while to warm up to her in the books, but in the show I've been rooting for her more than any other character ever since she got her dragons.  I mean, I really want to love the Starks, but they're bumblers, all of them, and it's probably for the best none of them is in charge of a kingdom.  Dany continually comes across as both principled and competent, which is a mix you don't get often in this series.

A real fan would update his Avatard accordingly and change his title to "Defender of the Bay."

I recommend this one!   (http://cdn.hbowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Danny-Game-of-thrones-heart-300x239.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 07, 2013, 11:27:12 PM
I agree on Dany. I find her a boring or frustrating character in the books, but even at her most stalled-out "I WANT MY DRAGONS" last season, I was rooting for the character. This season she's been the most satisfying character to follow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 08, 2013, 02:05:26 AM
Littlefinger is great, matches the way I saw him in the books bar the subtlety. The scene with him and Varys, we have seen how vengeful they both can be and that keeps me liking them both more and more.

I wish they'd move Arya's arc on - she's nowhere near as badass as I saw her in the books where she was scrappy and tough from day one.

A good episode I thought, I didn't mind the change of pace.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on May 08, 2013, 09:48:27 AM
I really need to go back and reread the books; a lot of stuff is taking me by surprise here and I'm not sure how much of that is that I've just forgotten some of the relatively minor plot lines and how much of it is TV doing things differently.

IGN has ongoing articles that tell you what has been changed, added and removed per episode.

Westeros.org has better recaps and analysis imo. For example: http://www.westeros.org/GoT/Episodes/Entry/The_Climb/Book_Spoilers/#Book_to_Screen


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 08, 2013, 06:01:07 PM
By the time Dance hits Little Finger and Varis become one of the few characters you still like. Especially once you realize the true extent of their rap sheets. And Danys star is set to wane very soon, just enjoy the waxing while it last.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 09, 2013, 04:54:28 AM
Problems I have with little finger:

The accent, I don't know what that is supposed to be. It is flat and forced.

The stance, this guy is a stage actor but can't emote for shit.

The just-a-game affectation, which is OK in some scenes but doesn't bring out the enormous chip on his shoulder about the major houses, and especially the starks. He's not really just about ladder, he is about fucking over the establishment. When he screws over Ned or discusses how any of the aristocracy have treated him, we see neither his true emotion showing through, nor a carefully composed mask of what little finger wishes to show in response to some dramatic event. We just get him tittering away like nothing is happening.

He lacks charm or guile. Unlike Varys, LF is never remotely convincing when telling one lord or another that he is on their side. So how he got to his position is a mystery. When we get to the big reveal of what he has been up to, rather than a shock it is going to feel like a cliche.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 09, 2013, 04:59:02 AM
1. He's not supposed to emote expressively. In book or in series. That would totally miss the point of the character. He's supremely controlled. In the books he's only let the rage boiling deep down show once or twice--we mostly know what we know about him from other people and from what he begins to tell Sansa once they're away from King's Landing.
2. People don't trust him. They don't think he's on their side. He has a habit of coming to them with offers they can't afford to turn away because they're desperate--because he has money and resources. The only alternative in some cases is to trust Varys, which is for most characters even worse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 09, 2013, 05:06:02 AM
In the TV show he doesn't come across as supremely controlled, he comes across as a giggling panto villain.

Understated and serious, with the mask slipping on occasion to show either anger or sadistic pleasure would be fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 09, 2013, 06:09:16 AM
In the TV show he doesn't come across as supremely controlled, he comes across as a giggling panto villain.

Understated and serious, with the mask slipping on occasion to show either anger or sadistic pleasure would be fine.

I disagree


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 09, 2013, 06:38:48 AM
I disagree too.  Carcetti is doing a fine job.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 09, 2013, 08:21:37 AM
"Giggling panto villain"? I think you should take better advantage of having a television that receives programming from an alternate reality. Go look at what's on the news channels, it should be interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 09, 2013, 09:29:16 AM
There have been a couple cringe worthy acting moments for Carcetti, but overall he's done a fine job. Just strange things with his mouth, I guess...they kinda bug me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 09, 2013, 11:38:51 AM
And if this were any other TV show I'd be 'Meh, he's fine'. But next to the other performances, and how they've developed over 3 seasons, he's the one guy I can't quite buy into.

Even the kids this season have been great. People have mentioned Dany already, but even Jon, who is another grating featureless character in the book, has been made into an actual character by the performance this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on May 13, 2013, 07:19:37 AM
Despite being a pretentious dick, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Greyjoy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2013, 08:42:58 AM

Btw, do we still use spoilers here?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2013, 09:05:07 AM
Book 4 and 5 are concurrent. So the start of 5 is the end of 3.

The TV show will undoubtedly stay chronological. Also more stuff is implied to happen before the end of book 3, and I can't imagine there will be too much more in this season judging from what the episode names imply they are covering in the last few shows.

Yes, if what you say is a spoiler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 13, 2013, 09:13:25 AM
The guy playing Ramsay is killing it. He is genuinely fucking creepy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 13, 2013, 09:45:04 AM
The guy playing Ramsay is killing it. He is genuinely fucking creepy.

Yeah, as soon as the chicks showed up, I started going "Holy shit, this guy is fucking CRUEL. Blueballs 4TL." Even watching the hotness on screen, I felt kind of queasy knowing that the little fucker was going to show up and ruin a good hardon for Theon.

Also, really digging how the Jamie and Brienne relationship is being acted. It's almost exactly like the book (with some minor details changed) and yet it's so much more emotional thanks to the actors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 13, 2013, 11:26:43 AM
The guy playing Ramsay is killing it. He is genuinely fucking creepy.

Track down season 1 of Misfits (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1548850/), he's a main character and has the most interesting character arc by far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on May 14, 2013, 06:24:28 AM

Btw, do we still use spoilers here?

One thing to note and this is not a spoiler but book 4 and 5 take place at the same time and are just geographically separated with book 4 being the southern story lines mostly and 5 the northern ones mostly.

I am guessing they will wind up reblending books 4 and 5 back together as I don't think laying off half your actors for a year or two would be a viable plan continuity wise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2013, 07:38:08 AM
There is also the fact that almost a decade passed between book 3 and 5, so you can be forgiven for feeling like Theon disappeared from the story for a long long time.   :awesome_for_real:
The guy playing Ramsay is killing it. He is genuinely fucking creepy.
Absolutly agree, and I fucking hate his character in the books.  This is a much better version than what I was expecting.

I fucking love his vuvuzela running gag.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 14, 2013, 04:22:19 PM
Forgot about the timelapses.  Hope the handle it gracefully on the show.   :ye_gods: :ye_gods: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 14, 2013, 04:29:19 PM
There is also the fact that almost a decade passed between book 3 and 5, so you can be forgiven for feeling like Theon disappeared from the story for a long long time.   :awesome_for_real:

Real
Forgot about the timelapses.  Hope the handle it gracefully on the show.   :ye_gods: :ye_gods: :ye_gods:

I think Teleku meant the time it took for Martin to write the books, not in-fiction time.  I don't remember any really big jumps timewise in the story -- maybe a year here or there, if that?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 14, 2013, 04:31:17 PM
There is also the fact that almost a decade passed between book 3 and 5, so you can be forgiven for feeling like Theon disappeared from the story for a long long time.   :awesome_for_real:

Real
Forgot about the timelapses.  Hope the handle it gracefully on the show.   :ye_gods: :ye_gods: :ye_gods:

I think Teleku meant the time it took for Martin to write the books, not in-fiction time.  I don't remember any really big jumps timewise in the story -- maybe a year here or there, if that?

I always took it to be a few years.  Anyhow, the time thing is pretty damned important.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 14, 2013, 04:47:23 PM
There wasn't any time gap between the storyline in the books, it's all be continuous. Theon got captured when Winterfell go sacked, it was at most a few months to a year between then and when the Boltons came back north.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 15, 2013, 12:15:33 AM
Yeah, I was indeed refering to real time.  I was in the middle of High school when I read book two and last saw Theon.  By the time he finally returned, I had long ago graduated college, lived around the world, and started/stopped several careers.  It just feels like he disappeared into Ramseys dungeon for a decade.   

Between the end of book 2 (where we last see him) and the start of books 4/5, at most a year passed in the books.  But probably less.  He was only gone from the timeline for however long the events of book three took.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 19, 2013, 12:10:15 PM
Worth considering that...


...point being there isn't much left in the Bolton's storyline before theon has a post-torture role. I can certainly imagine it being shown early next season.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 19, 2013, 04:05:44 PM
Worth considering that...


...point being there isn't much left in the Bolton's storyline before theon has a post-torture role. I can certainly imagine it being shown early next season.



Which would then end that storyline and leave nothing left of what's been written for any future seasons.  They gotta stretch that story for however many seasons they have left before winds of winter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 19, 2013, 10:33:00 PM
Dario is great.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 20, 2013, 12:50:53 AM
Worth considering that...


...point being there isn't much left in the Bolton's storyline before theon has a post-torture role. I can certainly imagine it being shown early next season.



Which would then end that storyline and leave nothing left of what's been written for any future seasons.  They gotta stretch that story for however many seasons they have left before winds of winter.

Plenty of things happen after the bit I spoilered. If that doesn't happen next season I don't really know what you imagine they'll do with Roose Bolton next year.

This season is ending 75% of the way through storm, so I would think they have about 4 or 5 episodes before Feast and Dance start, then probably 25 episodes before they really need the next book.

Did see a report that HBO are discussing a hedge knight series to pad things out further.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 23, 2013, 03:14:42 PM
I am struggling not to tip off my non-GOT reading wife about what's coming next episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on May 23, 2013, 03:16:12 PM
I am struggling not to tip off my non-GOT reading wife about what's coming next episode.

Heh, its like everyone on the internet who has read the books will finally be able to relax and stop holding it in...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 23, 2013, 03:25:44 PM
Anybody who makes it to that episode without having it spoiled for them by SOMEBODY deserves a fucking trophy of some sort.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 23, 2013, 06:26:14 PM
Anybody who makes it to that episode without having it spoiled for them by SOMEBODY deserves a fucking trophy of some sort.

Then keep your mouths shut, because I've managed it so far.  Should I just stop reading these threads for the next 4 days?

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 23, 2013, 06:31:57 PM
Anybody who makes it to that episode without having it spoiled for them by SOMEBODY deserves a fucking trophy of some sort.

Then keep your mouths shut, because I've managed it so far.  Should I just stop reading these threads for the next 4 days?

--Dave

You should stop reading the spoiler thread obviously, that's why we made a different one for you infidels.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 23, 2013, 06:32:21 PM
Anybody who makes it to that episode without having it spoiled for them by SOMEBODY deserves a fucking trophy of some sort.

Then keep your mouths shut, because I've managed it so far.  Should I just stop reading these threads for the next 4 days?

--Dave

For Gods Sake... YES.  11 days recommended.  

Seriously.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 23, 2013, 08:32:51 PM
Judging by the episode titles, the big event is happening in episode 9, not 10.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on May 23, 2013, 08:38:51 PM
Judging by the episode titles, the big event is happening in episode 9, not 10.

I read somewhere, the TV series is getting into the rhythm of episode 9 being the big 'Oh shit' episode.  Series 1 was Ned Stark, Series 2 was Blackwater, and Series 3 looks to be that-which-shall-not-be-named for fear of spoiling Mahrin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 23, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
Bread and salt.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2013, 05:23:01 AM
My wife still doesn't know what's coming.  She asked me if the big "Oh shit" was Sansa and Tyrion and I laughed.  It's driving her nuts that I won't tell her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 24, 2013, 07:14:45 AM
The thing I assume will happen in episode 10 is also a non-trivial oh shit moment.

People aren't mentioning it because of ep 9's thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 24, 2013, 09:41:05 AM
There's an important event in episode 9 (Ned killed, battle of blackwater, *cough*) and an oh shit moment at the end of 10 (Dragons born, Fist of the first men attacked by zombies, *cough*).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 24, 2013, 01:17:49 PM
The thing I assume will happen in episode 10 is also a non-trivial oh shit moment.

People aren't mentioning it because of ep 9's thing.
What's the big thing in episode 10?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2013, 01:25:29 PM
There's a wedding, then there's a feast.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 24, 2013, 01:28:54 PM
That's happening in episode 9. Episode 10's title is Mhysa,


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on May 24, 2013, 01:59:14 PM
There's a wedding, then there's a feast.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 24, 2013, 02:16:37 PM
Episode 10 is going to end with .  That's the "oh shit" moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 24, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
I had rather hoped we were going to get...


But actually the last episode is called Myhsa, and the summary implies we don't get that after all, instead...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 24, 2013, 05:37:52 PM
Yeah, the feast is most certainly being saved for season 4.

And ha, yeah, I hadn't thought about the ramifications of actually showing cold hands on screen.  Time to shit or get off the pot Martin (or he'll just be masked the entire fucking time and we never see anyways).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 24, 2013, 07:37:01 PM
And ha, yeah, I hadn't thought about the ramifications of actually showing cold hands on screen.  Time to shit or get off the pot Martin (or he'll just be masked the entire fucking time and we never see anyways).

I just assume he'd stay covered up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 24, 2013, 10:56:14 PM
I had rather hoped we were going to get...


But actually the last episode is called Myhsa, and the summary implies we don't get that after all, instead...




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 25, 2013, 01:04:23 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 25, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
And ha, yeah, I hadn't thought about the ramifications of actually showing cold hands on screen.  Time to shit or get off the pot Martin (or he'll just be masked the entire fucking time and we never see anyways).

I just assume he'd stay covered up.

My suspicion is they won't feel the need to hide him, and that will confirm we haven't met him previously but not tell us who he actually is.

Bran not recognising Benjen is too much of a stretch for me.

If they include Bran telling the story of the Night's King, then I rather think that is likely a clue to cold hands identity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on May 25, 2013, 09:11:57 AM

Good points. I always have trouble wrapping my head around the huge gaps in the books release dates and the actual time sequence. That's a real problem when you started the series early.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on May 26, 2013, 11:50:47 PM
I have finally caught up on this show, barring whatever was shown last night which I presume must have been epic.  There are a couple of huge events coming, so I can't wait to see which one it is.

All in all, I think the TV adaptation is better in most ways.  They seem to be doing a good job of solving most of the problems of the books, which makes me optimistic for future seasons.

One thing they have not improved?  Bran Fucking Stark.  I don't care about his arc in the books, and I find myself caring less in the show.  About the most interesting thing we ever see from the whole group traveling with Bran is when Hodor blankly stares at someone and says "hodor" to them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on May 27, 2013, 02:28:36 AM
I have finally caught up on this show, barring whatever was shown last night which I presume must have been epic.  There are a couple of huge events coming, so I can't wait to see which one it is.

All in all, I think the TV adaptation is better in most ways.  They seem to be doing a good job of solving most of the problems of the books, which makes me optimistic for future seasons.

One thing they have not improved?  Bran Fucking Stark.  I don't care about his arc in the books, and I find myself caring less in the show.  About the most interesting thing we ever see from the whole group traveling with Bran is when Hodor blankly stares at someone and says "hodor" to them.

To be fair, Hodor is awesome; he steals the spotlight with that one little word...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 27, 2013, 03:27:19 AM
Nothing was shown last night. They were doing that thing american shows do where there is a gap in the middle of a run for no discernable reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 27, 2013, 04:14:39 AM
Nothing was shown last night. They were doing that thing american shows do where there is a gap in the middle of a run for no discernable reason.

Yeah, this pissed me off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on May 27, 2013, 04:44:38 AM
Memorial Day Weekend. It and Labor Day interrupt shows as people instead of watching may be out doing things, and they don't want 4.5 million viewers when they could get 5 million.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 27, 2013, 05:06:06 AM
Yep, the break was for memorial day.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2013, 07:28:48 AM
Nothing was shown last night. They were doing that thing american shows do where there is a gap in the middle of a run for no discernable reason.

Yeah, this pissed me off.

Not as much as it pissed them off when their huge budget battle episode last season got much lower rating than it should have.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schpain on May 27, 2013, 03:58:29 PM
+1 Pissed Off re: memorial weekend.

Edit: No disrespect intended to servicemen, just HBO.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 28, 2013, 09:54:09 AM
+1 Pissed Off re: memorial weekend.

Edit: No disrespect intended to servicemen, just HBO.

This. I was SO looking forward to this episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on May 28, 2013, 12:05:17 PM
I'm glad my DVR isn't broken.  I was worried.  Watched Uncanceled Development instead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on June 02, 2013, 07:31:29 PM
So I guess Robb's child theory is dead as his wife was stabbed in the belly a ton of times.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 02, 2013, 07:32:18 PM
They did a really good job with this one. Colossal fake-out for anybody who hadn't read the books--they do so much to make you think things are turning out for the better, that Walder Frey is just a dirty old man but basically that everything has worked out.

I did have to remind myself that in the books, the Blackfish isn't at the Red Wedding, but it looks like he got out alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 02, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
So I guess Robb's child theory is dead as his wife was stabbed in the belly a ton of times.
Oh, wow. Thanks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on June 02, 2013, 07:44:56 PM
Looks like they're going to basically flex things a bit plotwise to keep the readers off balance, but still converge things in general. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 02, 2013, 07:47:26 PM
So I guess Robb's child theory is dead as his wife was stabbed in the belly a ton of times.
Oh, wow. Thanks.

Show just aired and you read the thread without watching it?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 02, 2013, 10:20:46 PM
Yea, and that wasn't snark. I asked Cheddar about the episode in the nonreaders thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on June 03, 2013, 06:22:50 AM
Huffington post article this morning "WTF GAME OF THRONES" and I laughed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 03, 2013, 06:26:19 AM
Holy fuck - even knowing what happens that still destroyed me. That was a crushing episode, which is as much praise as I can give it. That chapter was the only one I can ever remember reading where I just set my book down and walked away and the show managed to trump that.

That was extremely well done and that episode will be referenced in pop culture for years on end. It was fun watching with my wife and the moment she realized things were not what they seemed. When the band starting playing "Rains of Castamere" she started to get suspicious and when the Hound and Arya were turned back she just kept saying "What's going on? What's about to happen?".

Having said that, I would totally watch "The Adventures of Arya and the Hound".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2013, 07:36:17 AM
Having said that, I would totally watch "The Adventures of Arya and the Hound".

Agreed.

I really loved the part where she calmly told him she was going to stick a sword in his face.  Because he actually looked scared.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 03, 2013, 07:37:14 AM
If they start off next week with the wolf's head on Robb's body while cleaning up the massacre then it will be perfect. That scene was just epic and I got goosebumps when they started playing the Raynes of Castamere. It was just more brutal on TV than in the book. From Cat slitting the wife's throat, so the guy just casually cutting hers and walking away then.. silence.

Silence.

It's how Sapranos should of ended.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 03, 2013, 08:15:36 AM
I think people will talk about the wolf head thing but they won't actually show it, like in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 03, 2013, 08:25:58 AM
My wife didn't notice the Rains of Castamere exactly but she did pick up that something was a little off. Then we were off to the races.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 03, 2013, 08:37:49 AM
I think the reason it was so emotionally impacting for me (and I have read the books multiple times) was the inclusion of Robb's wife and unborn child. Robb having to watch them die as he dies himself was horrifying. And the 'Mother?' to Catelyn just before the very end. Wow. Kudos to everyone involved- well written/adapted/executed. My wife couldn't sleep last night after we watched it (she hadn't read the books and I made her stay up late and watch it after the kids went down so she wouldn't get spoiled at work today).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2013, 09:29:43 AM
Seeing it on the screen was even more brutal than it was in the books but I'm glad I read the book before seeing that scene. I remember after reading that scene I was in a funk for like a week afterwards because the whole thing was SO deflating. Despite his oathbreaking, Robb was one of the most sympathetic "hero" characters in the book up until that point then... SLIT. That's what good writing is supposed to do, elicit an emotional response and it did. For whatever else his flaws are, Martin wrote that well. The silence on the credits was so perfect too - I imagine living rooms across the country being silent because everyone who hadn't read the books were still holding their breath.

Also, I'd totally watch Arya and the Hound. Those two work well together.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: cironian on June 03, 2013, 09:57:01 AM
I've had this partially spoiled for me, but even so... :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 10:03:07 AM
My wife didn't notice the Rains of Castamere exactly but she did pick up that something was a little off. Then we were off to the races.

I think my wife clued in when they closed the doors.  She wouldn't have picked up on the Rains of Castamere.  She hasn't read the books at all, so she doesn't really pick up on the minor stuff they only mention a few times.  I'm not sure anyone who hasn't read the books would pick it up.  I think they only played the song one or two times at this point. My wife seems to be mostly concerned about the rate at which the show is killing off major characters.

I started to get a bit anxious and, honestly, felt a little ill before watching that scene.  They really built up the tension well.  I've read the books several times, but just seeing that was something else.  I think the first time I read the scene, I put the book down and didn't pick it up for a few days.  That was similarly jarring.  The belly stabbing and Robb's final plea for civility moment's before his impending death had a lot of weight.   Only thing that was lacking were the other northern nobles to add to the enormity of the scene and the tactical "fuck you" that it was.  However, they hadn't really used those characters at all to this point, so it'd be pointless. 


The Hound looks scared because he knows killers.  He knows what Arya is at her core.   The Hound and Ayra chapters in the book were some of my favorites.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 03, 2013, 10:09:26 AM
Also, I'd totally watch Arya and the Hound. Those two work well together.

Add in "The Drunken Adventures of Tyrion Lannister" and you have a hit! Dinklage really nailed ever scene surrounding his wedding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2013, 10:10:39 AM
Yes. Dinklage is one of the reasons I'm really looking forward to the end of NEXT season. If you've read the books, you know the scene I'm thinking of.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 03, 2013, 10:13:26 AM
I do indeed.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 10:16:39 AM
I do indeed.





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Quinton on June 03, 2013, 11:27:21 AM
Oh my... I had no idea the TV series was moving so slowly...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2013, 11:37:52 AM
I'm hoping we get some good reaction videos on YouTube that involve people throwing their TVs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2013, 12:03:08 PM
That chapter was the only one I can ever remember reading where I just set my book down and walked away and the show managed to trump that.
You did better than me.  I calmly closed the book, then threw it down the hall and across the house.

I decided at that point the only ending I would accept from the series was one were the Others come down and wipe out all civilization due to everybody being self centered back stabbing cunts.  Or one that somehow involves a Frey snuff scene where every man woman and child of the family gets slaughtered in front Walders eyes, before he goes. 

Anything that doesn't involve one of those two scenarios will lead me to declare the entire series a waste and a failure.   :awesome_for_real:

And yes, the TV series handled it very well.  Even better than the books frankly.  There was enough foreshadowing going into it that I knew it was some sort of trap, so the tension for me was retaining the hope Robb would make it out alive somehow.  They handled the whole thing much better here, and it was a powerful scene.  I'm sure it's the scene we were all waiting to see ever since they announced the damned series (as well as the common persons reaction, heh), and its great to see it done so well.

Also nice to not have to twist myself in circles anymore when trying to not spoil that bit for people who keep asking me questions.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2013, 12:04:55 PM
I'm hoping we get some good reaction videos on YouTube that involve people throwing their TVs.

That's been one of the things I've been anticipating the most about the scene since I read it. I realized then just how much of their shit the TV viewing public would lose when they realize that "no, Martha, shit is NOT going to end all happy and nice."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 03, 2013, 12:14:42 PM
I'm hoping we get some good reaction videos on YouTube that involve people throwing their TVs.

That's been one of the things I've been anticipating the most about the scene since I read it. I realized then just how much of their shit the TV viewing public would lose when they realize that "no, Martha, shit is NOT going to end all happy and nice."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78juOpTM3tE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Damn - we weren't able to watch it today and I may have tipped the wife off today with the "STAY OFF THE INTERNET" text I sent her this morning.

Watching it first thing after work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 03, 2013, 12:15:16 PM
I'll be discussing something from book 5 very briefly. You've been warned!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 03, 2013, 12:24:44 PM
I'll be discussing something from book 5 very briefly. You've been warned!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 03, 2013, 12:27:46 PM
I'll be discussing something from book 5 very briefly. You've been warned!




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 03, 2013, 12:28:49 PM
So, can I safely read Book 3 now?

--Dave (who was smart enough to avoid these threads all day Sunday)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2013, 12:31:03 PM
Sure, though it will spoil some more 'oh shit' moments they are saving for next season.  But this was by far the biggest of the whole series so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 12:40:39 PM
So, can I safely read Book 3 now?

--Dave (who was smart enough to avoid these threads all day Sunday)

Book 3 is not finished.  I'd hold off, there's a couple more interesting surprises in store for you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 03, 2013, 01:04:57 PM
So, can I safely read Book 3 now?

--Dave (who was smart enough to avoid these threads all day Sunday)

Book 3 is not finished.  I'd hold off, there's a couple more interesting surprises in store for you.

I completely agree with Rasix - there's still more to come.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2013, 01:12:34 PM
If you've held off so far I'd stay clean till they are clear of Storm of Swords - which is probably midpoint next year, then just blast through all 5 books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2013, 01:16:49 PM
Can I just say, #1: I'm happy I didn't read the books.

#2: HAHA. I HATED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CHARACTERS.

seriously, half the storylines in this shit blows. this is not the death of ned stark people are playing it up to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
But you literally hate all good movies and TV shows, so this is actually a good sign!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2013, 01:21:48 PM
No, I just hate Joss Whedon, drama dressed up as sci-fi, and the majority of Tarantino's work. That you consider it "all good movies and TV' says more about your taste than mine.

Game of Thrones has an entire cast that can be called uneven. That a bunch of the slower more prone to whine cast was just brutally murdered is only a good thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2013, 01:22:07 PM
Also, yes, I know what happens after the red wedding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2013, 01:26:51 PM
In some respects the TV version of the Red Wedding had less impact for me than the book version, because in the book version (as I've mentioned) I felt a lot more sympathetic toward Robb.  TV Robb is less likable for some reason, maybe because he's always cranky and scowling.  I felt like book Robb was more of a plucky underdog and less full of himself.  (edit) Might also be something to do with the fact that when reading the books I pictured Robb as being 14-15 years old, as he's theoretically supposed to be, whereas in the show he looks ten years older.  I'm more sympathetic toward a teenager behaving stupidly than I am toward a twentysomething.

That aside, though, it was executed masterfully with the foreshadowing and whatnot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2013, 01:30:18 PM
TV Robb and his mother were obnoxious whiny jackasses that puttered around and did nothing for a season and a half.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2013, 01:31:50 PM
TV Robb and his mother were obnoxious whiny jackasses that puttered around and did nothing for a season and a half.

Yeah, there's some of that.

The fact that you don't see any of the battles that Robb is in might also have something to do with that, since they'd have a hard time showing all that on TV with the budget constraints.  So it looks like he just hangs around his camp and scowls at people all day.  Contrast with Dany, who is much more likable in the TV version, which I think is partly because we actually see her kicking ass and taking names.

Catelyn I didn't much like in the books either.  The TV version pretty much nails her, I think.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2013, 01:35:29 PM
I mean, I kind of just want to ruin the entire TV series for people so they can see that a bunch of the do-nothing characters DO eventually do something, but I have no clue how they're going to handle the tv show outpacing the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 03, 2013, 02:01:08 PM
How many of you, at the next boring wedding your at, are going to make the joke 'can I get the DJ to put on Rains of Castamere?'.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2013, 02:02:32 PM
4 more seasons to the end of Dance, then the Dunk & Egg saga if they have to. If winds of winter drops in say 2015 they can still spin this shit out till 2020 at least.

In that time the bigger threat is cast members declaring 'bugger this for a game of soldiers' or the audience getting bored at some point during Feast/Dance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2013, 02:13:01 PM
I really don't see them dragging Feast and Dance out into 3 seasons; hell I don't think we have a whole season of content left in Storm.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 03, 2013, 02:23:54 PM
While Martin already said that he doesn't intend to write anything specific and detailed about it (beside what he provided as backstory...But he didn't say he wouldn't forbid a TV production), another spin-off could involve the reign of the Targaryens immediately before the Baratheon/Stark rebellion + Greyjoy rebellion:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Timeline_of_major_events (read the box "Robert's rebellion" and King's robert reign).

We would get Aerys, Rhaegar and young Robert, Eddard, Lyanna etc. An established TV fanbase, IMO, would embrace younger Eddard and Robert played by younger (of course) actors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2013, 02:35:13 PM
Pretty sure Dance is a longer book than Storm.

There is nothing really wrong with underlying story of Feast and Dance, they just read like they were written over something like 5 to 10 years each.

Oh wait.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on June 03, 2013, 02:35:51 PM
That chapter was the only one I can ever remember reading where I just set my book down and walked away and the show managed to trump that.
You did better than me.  I calmly closed the book, then threw it down the hall and across the house.

I decided at that point the only ending I would accept from the series was one were the Others come down and wipe out all civilization due to everybody being self centered back stabbing cunts.  Or one that somehow involves a Frey snuff scene where every man woman and child of the family gets slaughtered in front Walders eyes, before he goes. 

Anything that doesn't involve one of those two scenarios will lead me to declare the entire series a waste and a failure.   :awesome_for_real:

And yes, the TV series handled it very well.  Even better than the books frankly.  There was enough foreshadowing going into it that I knew it was some sort of trap, so the tension for me was retaining the hope Robb would make it out alive somehow.  They handled the whole thing much better here, and it was a powerful scene.  I'm sure it's the scene we were all waiting to see ever since they announced the damned series (as well as the common persons reaction, heh), and its great to see it done so well.

Also nice to not have to twist myself in circles anymore when trying to not spoil that bit for people who keep asking me questions.



After I finished book 3, I was done with the series. At that point all of the characters I liked were dead and I did not care what happened to the rest of them. I did at least read through the person I disliked the most in the series (the boy king) getting his comeuppance, but this particular scene in the book was the end of the series for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2013, 02:36:44 PM
While Martin already said that he doesn't intend to write anything specific and detailed about it (beside what he provided as backstory...But he didn't say he wouldn't forbid a TV production), another spin-off could involve the reign of the Targaryens immediately before the Baratheon/Stark rebellion + Greyjoy rebellion:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Timeline_of_major_events (read the box "Robert's rebellion" and King's robert reign).

We would get Aerys, Rhaegar and young Robert, Eddard, Lyanna etc. An established TV fanbase, IMO, would embrace younger Eddard and Robert played by younger (of course) actors.


Problem is, you couldn't really do this until the books resolve various 'mysteries' definitively.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2013, 02:41:14 PM
While Martin already said that he doesn't intend to write anything specific and detailed about it (beside what he provided as backstory...But he didn't say he wouldn't forbid a TV production), another spin-off could involve the reign of the Targaryens immediately before the Baratheon/Stark rebellion + Greyjoy rebellion:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Timeline_of_major_events (read the box "Robert's rebellion" and King's robert reign).

We would get Aerys, Rhaegar and young Robert, Eddard, Lyanna etc. An established TV fanbase, IMO, would embrace younger Eddard and Robert played by younger (of course) actors.


Problem is, you couldn't really do this until the books resolve various 'mysteries' definitively.

Myeh.  You could leave that stuff off camera.  Show Robert and Ned gallivanting around during the rebellion, but have Ned's mysterious tryst happen off camera.  (Or heck, let us see the girl, but don't give us her real name -- not like it'll matter if we see her face.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 03, 2013, 02:43:12 PM
So, can I safely read Book 3 now?

--Dave (who was smart enough to avoid these threads all day Sunday)

No this season covered half or a bit more of book 3 the other shoe is in the air still waiting to drop next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 02:44:22 PM
Catelyn I didn't much like in the books either.  The TV version pretty much nails her, I think.

Yah, her POV was one of my least favorite.  Her and Cersei I just couldn't stand.  She's not a very likeable or sympathetic character in either portrayal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 03, 2013, 02:47:44 PM
I mean, I kind of just want to ruin the entire TV series for people so they can see that a bunch of the do-nothing characters DO eventually do something, but I have no clue how they're going to handle the tv show outpacing the books.

This is what really makes me curious. If they can keep the funding up and it shows no sign of slacking at the moment next season should blow through the remainder of book three and probably start doing a lot of the book four stuff as well. At the rate old george writes it is VERY possible and probably even likely that the show will catch up to the books and then it will be interesting to see what happens. Either the show makers are going to get some outlines on where george wanted things to go or are going to say fuck it we are doing it live and go off on their own tangents.

Probably a combination of the later two if if george cannot stop basking in the money hats long enough to finish the god damn series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2013, 02:57:49 PM
Catelyn I didn't much like in the books either.  The TV version pretty much nails her, I think.

Yah, her POV was one of my least favorite.  Her and Cersei I just couldn't stand.  She's not a very likeable or sympathetic character in either portrayal.

Personally I felt Cersei was more sympathetic by the end. You find out what her damage is about. You never really find out what made Catelyn into such a thoroughly annoying individual.

Similarly on screen, the Cersei/Tyrion scenes are all great and give Cersei more depth than she ever has in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 03, 2013, 02:59:35 PM
I'm surprised Schild didn't share this here as well as FB, so I'll do it instead. He had his chance!

https://twitter.com/RedWeddingTears

THERE's the shock and awe I was looking for this morning.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2013, 03:02:53 PM
Posted a page ago.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2013, 03:19:32 PM
I'm surprised Schild didn't share this here as well as FB, so I'll do it instead. He had his chance!

https://twitter.com/RedWeddingTears

THERE's the shock and awe I was looking for this morning.

That would be because I got the link from here.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 03, 2013, 03:52:02 PM
"They're dead...like, so dead!!" (Maisie Williams' reaction :D)

https://vine.co/v/b3XZMHmxzxh

On constant repeat, can't stop it  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on June 03, 2013, 04:12:11 PM
"They're dead...like, so dead!!" (Maisie Williams' reaction :D)

https://vine.co/v/b3XZMHmxzxh

On constant repeat, can't stop it  :grin:

hee!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 04:21:50 PM
Play them off, keyboard cat! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agEsiKeSqkw)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 03, 2013, 04:58:33 PM
a very moving reaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMiTOtBjcYw


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 03, 2013, 05:01:28 PM
TV Robb and his mother were obnoxious whiny jackasses that puttered around and did nothing for a season and a half.

This is weird because my wife thinks the same thing and yet she generally has reasonably good judgment about most popular culture.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hayduke on June 03, 2013, 06:49:40 PM
I was watching with someone who hasn't read the books and their reaction was initially "Oh fuck" but quickly moved to acceptance and "Well at least SOMETHING finally happened this season."  This isn't a Ned Stark moment.  It seems to me that since season one the show has really struggled to have interesting characters who aren't Lannisters.  Even knowing that it was coming (and knowing of the coming quagmire that sets in for book 4) it was almost a relief to have some duller plotlines ended.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on June 03, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
You know, watching this and really thinking about it crystallized a few things from the books.

 Robb sorta had it coming. Sure, he's a sympathetic character and far more noble than most of the other jackasses prancing around, but he basically called backsies on a marriage of state he was sworn to -- after getting the goodies. He basically got paid, call the deal off, and then pranced his new wife in.

Start as you mean to go on, right? And he's basically shown his word is worthless if he sees something he wants more. (And his word and honor were like the two big things Stark was supposed to stand for).

Him and his mother basically pissed away their allies and army in favor of family. Which is great for 20th century American morals, but basically shit-stupid in that sort of time period.

It seems like, in general, people get what they deserve -- actions have consequences, and sometimes you die or get shit on because someone more powerful than you made a choice that fucked you, but even the powerful have all this shit come back to them.

Robb and his mother ruined themselves. I think the bitching isn't that they died pointless deaths. It's just in fantasy we expect heroes and main characters to die significant, heroic deaths. Deaths that fit their status.

Getting offed because of the consequences of your own actions -- the totally predictable consequences of your own actions -- isn't that heroic. It's what happens to, you know, villians and minor characters. The fuck-ups of heros are there for drama, but ultimately solve-able.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hayduke on June 03, 2013, 07:39:57 PM
Been awhile but didn't the first book start with Ned killing an oath breaker in front of Robb? Seems the lesson was lost on him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2013, 07:43:15 PM
The thing about Robb is that he broke an oath, but still put faith in the one he betrayed because of his sense of honor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 03, 2013, 07:44:39 PM
Been awhile but didn't the first book start with Ned killing an oath breaker in front of Robb? Seems the lesson was lost on him.

It was, and it was something his mother was a lot more insistent on in the books.  It was the sole redeeming feature of Caetlyn, she said "Fucker, you're King act like it and maintain your vow!"  Instead he calls her some rotten words and acts like a teenager who'd dipped his wick for the first time.    Yes, he totally had it coming.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on June 03, 2013, 07:47:56 PM
Also, as to the Rains of Castemere playing -- that should have been a tip-off to ANYONE. They've been mentioning that song for two seasons now, played multiple versions of it, and it was referenced either the previous episode or the one before that as part of Queen Bitch Regent's threat to whats-her-face.

They had a whole conversation on it. So hearing a mournful ballad about how the Lannisters absolutely and totally crushed another house for the tiniest slight to their power at a wedding? That was more of a tip-off than the doors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hayduke on June 03, 2013, 07:49:17 PM
The thing about Robb is that he broke an oath, but still put faith in the one he betrayed because of his sense of honor.

I don't think it was honor that moved him so much as desperation.  He was clearly fucked without the Freys.  He never would've gone there if he could've avoided it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 08:25:30 PM
Also, as to the Rains of Castemere playing -- that should have been a tip-off to ANYONE.

I think if you've been sperging on the show, you might have.  Seriously, it's not like they were singing the lyrics.  I think it's only been on the show twice that I can recall and once was in the credits.  Did they play it before the conversation with the Margery and Cersei?  I don't remember.  Otherwise, that's not much help.  It certainly wasn't a cheerful tune, however, and you'd think the rest of the wedding party (other than Catelyn) would have been more clued in. They were kinda drunk though.

I think in the books they helped set this confict up better.  Robb didn't fall in love with Jeyne.   He banged her after she nursed him back to health, and he felt honor bound to marry her.  Red Wedding or not, the Starks were finished.  The TV version has Edmure derping away half Robb's army, when in the book Roose was already actively conspiring to lose them the war by getting half of Robb's army (and none of his own men) killed at Duskendale.   This way was just cleaner and quicker, but they were likely going to lose without further loss of Lannister men, anyhow.

The older Stark men just have a really crappy sense of honor.  They hold their family and personal honor quite high and hold it before other oaths.  Unfortunately, had they held to the other oaths, they wouldn't be.. well, dead.

Plus, we all kind of sound like dicks here.  Walder Frey, Roose Bolton and Tywin Lannister will deserve everything they eventually get.  I'm not sure GRRM is enough of a cynic to let them off the hook.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2013, 09:35:01 PM
Have you read the books Rasix?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 09:37:56 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/82533/Futurama_Fry_Looking_Squint.jpg)

I think in the books they helped set this confict up better.  Robb didn't fall in love with Jeyne.   He banged her after she nursed him back to health, and he felt honor bound to marry her.  Red Wedding or not, the Starks were finished.  The TV version has Edmure derping away half Robb's army, when in the book Roose was already actively conspiring to lose them the war by getting half of Robb's army (and none of his own men) killed at Duskendale.   This way was just cleaner and quicker, but they were likely going to lose without further loss of Lannister men, anyhow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2013, 09:40:11 PM
Sorry, you ended that post speculating on the fate of someone who's been dead for a while now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 09:42:31 PM
Well, I kinda didn't want to spoil it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2013, 09:44:42 PM
Fair enough; it was just confusing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2013, 11:14:51 PM
I can see that.  It felt weird typing it.  :|


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2013, 01:20:07 AM
Sigh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 04, 2013, 05:43:12 AM
From the "Winter is Coming" fansite:
http://winteriscoming.net/2013/06/got-laughs-welcome-to-the-club/#more-27349



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 04, 2013, 05:49:53 AM
To be fair, the only one I really mourned at the feast was Robbs Wolf.

The Blackfish got away and Greatjon wasn't present (although I think he should have been), and everybody else in there asked for it (except Walder Freys poor wife).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 04, 2013, 06:34:28 AM
Other than the people you mentioned, who the hell else was left at that wedding who did anything storywise to possibly ask for it (other than Catelyn obvioulsy, for the crime of being a character nobody ever liked)?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 04, 2013, 06:59:29 AM
Catelyn and TV-Robb.

Edmure, but he sadly got away.

Bolton and Walder Frey also, but they were on the wrong side of that ambush.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 04, 2013, 07:40:40 AM
it isn't sad Edmure got away. He's the only good actor that was even in that room full of crappy hacks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 04, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
Catelyn I didn't much like in the books either.  The TV version pretty much nails her, I think.

Yah, her POV was one of my least favorite.  Her and Cersei I just couldn't stand.  She's not a very likeable or sympathetic character in either portrayal.

Cersei I don't mind, but yeah, Catelyn in both books and show was fucking annoying. It was understandable WHY, but shit... she was just irritating. The actress nailed the character quite well though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
I love how just like in the book rewatching the episode changes the meaning of so many lines, like Walder Frey claiming he would break fifty oaths to get inside Talisa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 04, 2013, 10:51:08 AM
I love how just like in the book rewatching the episode changes the meaning of so many lines, like Walder Frey claiming he would break fifty oaths to get inside Talisa.

Oh shit.

I'm starting to think a complete rewatch is in order.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 04, 2013, 11:01:37 AM
Catelyn I didn't much like in the books either.  The TV version pretty much nails her, I think.

Yah, her POV was one of my least favorite.  Her and Cersei I just couldn't stand.  She's not a very likeable or sympathetic character in either portrayal.

Cersei I don't mind, but yeah, Catelyn in both books and show was fucking annoying. It was understandable WHY, but shit... she was just irritating. The actress nailed the character quite well though.

If I remember right the books do a better job of giving clues about why Catelyn is so unlikeable from how her father was to the fact she was in love with Ned's brother but had to marry Ned after the brother was killed by the mad king. The show, in some ways, made her more sympathetic, especially after that little speech about how bad she felt for not loving Jon.

Two events really brought down the Starks:

1) Catelyn releasing Jaime in hopes he'd let her daughters go free.
2) Robb marrying someone else.

Also, in the books, I got the feeling that Robb was basically set up, that the girl was sent there by Tywin to lead him to betray his word to the Freys. I don't think it ever explicitly says it but it was a feeling I got.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2013, 11:22:40 AM
I don't think Robb was set up, i think the girls parents took advantage of the situation after it happened.  The girl at least seemed genuine the whole time.  Also in the books Cat talked Ned into going south and she talked Robb into making Roose Bolton leader of the second half of his army instead of the Great John, two big fuckups the tv show skipped or switched.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 04, 2013, 03:05:22 PM
I got the same vibe as Riggswolfe, and it's why I was pretty upset at the change from Jeyne to Talisa. Even if Jeyne didn't know what was going on, Sybell could have easily set things in motion by telling her to tend to Robb. Regarding her motives specifically, Sybell could have been scheming with Tywin, or simply trying to make her daughter a Queen then changing her story when things went sideways.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2013, 03:52:08 PM
The only reason Robb and Jenye got together was because he was heartbroken after finding out about Bran and Rickon and boned her and then felt honor bound to marry her, there is no way all that could've been planned beforehand unless Jenye was in on it and purposely set out to seduce him.  Hell, one of the Westerlings tried to free Grey Wind during the red wedding and got "feathered" as a result so not even all of them were in on it.  To me the most plausible story is that Sibell turned when things went sour for Robb and much like the Freys and Boltons did their best to appease Tywin for their initial support of the Starks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on June 04, 2013, 05:00:42 PM
I think hanging your hat on a seduction of Robb leading him to feel "honorbound" to marry the girl was a bit much for the Lannisters. Sure they know Robb is big on honor and duty, but I'm pretty sure the culturally acceptable thing to do is marry her off to a sibling or relative and give her family a ton of money.

Him marrying her was...excessive. I don't think the Lannisters, except maybe Tyrion, are capable of actually conceiving of someone fucking up that badly in that particular way.

If they'd gone for a seduction plot, it would have been to stick a knife in Robb or poison him, not go for marriage and pissing off the Freys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 04, 2013, 06:17:37 PM
Having him piss off the Freys was better for them than a more straightforward assassination would have been, since it gave the Freys a reason to ally with the Lannisters.  I agree that having Jeyne sent in as an agent provocateur stretches believability, though.  I think they just did a good job of taking advantage of the situation that Robb's own stupidity created.

Jaime conning Catelyn into letting him go, though, THAT was a master stroke.  I'm sure he didn't foresee the exact amount of shit that would be stirred up by his departure, and it probably wasn't even his main motive (he mostly just wanted out), but that screwed Robb over almost as much as the marriage did.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 04, 2013, 07:32:07 PM
I shouldn't be in this thread, but oh well. Not sure I can agree with 'it's not a Ned Stark' moment. Sure, he was a likeable guy, much more than his wife, but in the end it was an execution and mainly served to show what cunt Goffrey is.

Now basically an entire family being wiped out at the wedding table, the wife being stabbed repeatly, the mother having the throat slit....ugh. That alone made me feel sorry for Catlyn, who I previously didn't care much for either way.

Someone said above that he stopped reading after book 3...most characters he liked were killed off and what the rest does wasn't interesting. I am sort of afraid the TV show might do the same for me. The big white walker 'mystery' and the threat they represent and keeps hanging over the proceedings is actually one of the weak points of the story for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 04, 2013, 07:44:21 PM
I mostly want the next books (and TV seasons) to see what happens with Bran and Arya.  I wouldn't put it entirely past Martin to kill one or both of them, just because he's already demonstrated that just because somebody seems like "the hero" doesn't mean they're safe... but being as (SPOILERS) Bran is being groomed as the one of the world's greatest wizards while Arya is being groomed as one of the world's greatest fighters, a lot of very interesting things could happen when they get a little more grown up and return to the Seven Kingdoms with a chip on their shoulders.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 04, 2013, 09:13:03 PM
Arya is going to fuck so many people up, I think she is safe.  In the US on holiday so not seen the latest episode yet.  Rereading the last two books, dance is actually pretty good apart from the choice of characters and the story not moving along much.

About a third of the way through feast and loved noticing everyone Arya meets on the ship is desperate that she remembers their name.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 05, 2013, 12:01:51 AM
You can tell he was setting up all the Stark children to become great masters at whatever.  Bran, Warg/Wizard.  Arya, crazy assassin fighter/killer.  Sansa, master of court intrigue (under little fingers tutelage).  Jon Snow, Warg Commander of The Watch.

This would all have worked out better if he had stuck to the original plan of having a 3 year jump in the books between the two halves of the series, so everybody had time to mature into their roles.  Then they come back as main protagonist for the second half of the series and fuck shit up, along with Dany, who has been learning to successfully rule over her own kingdom in what was the former slavers bay.

Unfortunately by giving up on the time jump he’s trying to write it all in and now deviating from that direction.  The way things are heading don't seem nearly as exciting as the scenarios above. 

So yeah, all I really care about at this point is Arya and Bran.  And hopefully the White Walkers eventually destroying civilization.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on June 05, 2013, 12:02:31 AM

Someone said above that he stopped reading after book 3...most characters he liked were killed off and what the rest does wasn't interesting. I am sort of afraid the TV show might do the same for me.

Unless they jam a lot more into the last episode than I think is possible it will sacrifice the cliffhanger that got me back for book 4.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 05, 2013, 01:13:37 AM
Having him piss off the Freys was better for them than a more straightforward assassination would have been, since it gave the Freys a reason to ally with the Lannisters. 

This is a game of thrones don't forget. It puts the Freys in the position of being hated even more by the other houses, allowing the Lannisters to turn on them if and when with little resistance. I wouldn't put it past Tywin to have thought of that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 05, 2013, 01:18:41 AM
Meanwhile: I want to see Merle as a white walker! In the meantime, I think I know how they will end  this season Ser Dondarrion


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 05, 2013, 01:39:52 AM
There was no way the seduction of Robb was preplanned.  They never gave any indication of that what so ever in the books.  It was basically laid out as the parents taking advantage of it, to the point where they hid the entire thing from their daughter (her mom was giving her stuff to keep her from getting pregnant secretly), so they could gain favor with the lannisters and rise up the ranks.  Their marriage/love was genuine.

If Martin wants to be consistant, he'll need to have something absolutly horrible happen to the entire Frey house.  Robb got suckered in because Walder did something EVEN WORST than oath breaking.  Most other lords would have just told Robb to fuck off after his offer to make amends for the oath break, or perhaps try to lure them into an ambush of his army.  Nobody except for somebody as deep of a bastard as Walder Frey would possibly break the tradition of guest rights, after having offered salt and bread.  Its unthinkable.  Its been established over and over again that that is the sort of action from which the gods themselves will curse and pushing somebody in the worst way possible.  He probably wouldn't have fallen for it otherwise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2013, 03:05:32 AM
I keep telling folks that this is basically a post-apocalypse story covered over by fantasy tropes. When all the surviving favorites get together again in Westeros, it's going to be basically like getting together in the prison in the Walking Dead--most everybody is going to be dead from starvation and cold, the Wall shattered, the walkers everywhere. Whomever is still alive is going to have to choose to fight the ice zombies or choose to fight each other, and I think Martin will make that a genuine question (much as it is in the Walking Dead). I can see Dany ending up the Queen of pretty much nothing, waiting out the end of winter in a ruin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 05, 2013, 07:41:08 AM
Having him piss off the Freys was better for them than a more straightforward assassination would have been, since it gave the Freys a reason to ally with the Lannisters. 

This is a game of thrones don't forget. It puts the Freys in the position of being hated even more by the other houses, allowing the Lannisters to turn on them if and when with little resistance. I wouldn't put it past Tywin to have thought of that.

Oh, for sure.  More importantly, the Freys can't turn on the Lannisters, because nobody else is ever going to ally with them after that stunt.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 05, 2013, 09:48:10 AM
Having him piss off the Freys was better for them than a more straightforward assassination would have been, since it gave the Freys a reason to ally with the Lannisters. 

This is a game of thrones don't forget. It puts the Freys in the position of being hated even more by the other houses, allowing the Lannisters to turn on them if and when with little resistance. I wouldn't put it past Tywin to have thought of that.

Yeah, by the time book four rolls around "what are you, a Frey?" is already an insult.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2013, 02:02:50 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/e6WgISE.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 06, 2013, 01:07:31 PM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 06, 2013, 02:13:43 PM
From the same source (I assume):

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/6/5/13/enhanced-buzz-30885-1370454653-1.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 07, 2013, 01:40:47 PM
Game of Thrones: Red Wedding Reactions Compilation (http://youtu.be/78juOpTM3tE)

 :why_so_serious:

Game of Thrones Season 3: Inside the Red Wedding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQsl5Bz312k)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 07, 2013, 04:23:12 PM
Game of Thrones Ultimate Birthday Rap Battle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbEhByk4Icg)

 :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 07, 2013, 04:29:56 PM
That was awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 07, 2013, 06:20:18 PM
So awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 07, 2013, 06:22:07 PM
Particularly like Robb's rap.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 07, 2013, 10:39:54 PM
I GOT DRAGONS, BITCH!  :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on June 08, 2013, 06:41:17 AM
Robert Baratheon's rap was fierce.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on June 08, 2013, 08:43:53 AM
The guy playing Jon Snow did manage to get the right look of confused distraction on his face. :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 08, 2013, 09:26:15 AM
Game of Thrones: Red Wedding Reactions Compilation (http://youtu.be/78juOpTM3tE)

 :why_so_serious:

Game of Thrones Season 3: Inside the Red Wedding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQsl5Bz312k)


Meant to spoiler that. Oh man. I'm so sorry if someone read it.

God a lot of these characters are awful.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 08, 2013, 11:40:15 AM
Eh, you only spoiled something I'm almost 100% sure they're going to cliff hanger the final episode of the season with, so not to bad, heh.

Other than a few actors (Shae very specifically), I thought most of them have been quite good.  Only characters I've ever really hated from the series are Catelyn, Cersei (just because shes so fucking evil), and



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 08, 2013, 12:25:06 PM
Catelyn was always boring, she made bad decisions like releasing Jamie (leading to Robb's kinslaying of Rickard Karstark), not trusting her husband and hating Jon for reasons he had no control over.  Can't remember how she treated Theon but Robb wouldn't have relied so heavily on Theon if Jon hadn't been driven to the Wall, in large part by her not accepting him.

Robb was Ned's first son and apart from some skill at warfare did nothing except call his banners to war and fall for a pretty face, he's one of the few characters to make the always honourable Ned seem like a political genius.  At least Ned had the small tactical advantages of keeping his word and being able to mostly keep his daft wife under control.

Aerys the Mad refused to let Cersei marry Rhaegar because "Tywin was a mere servant of the crown, and no servant's daughter was fit to marry a prince of royal blood" which is pretty similar in the end to how Robb felt about marrying a Frey daughter.  Tywin eventually betrayed Aerys and arranged for Walter Frey to do for Robb.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 08, 2013, 04:02:58 PM
Of all the characters, Catelyn, Robb and Jon are at the top of my hate list. They are either annoying (Catelyn) or boring (Jon) or both (Robb). I'm not going to include Sansa because she's the yardstick to measure Joffrey by. Even Joffrey, Cersei and Tywin are more fun to watch, because their characters have purpose and depth. Varys and Littlefinger are fantastic.

I keep coming back to all the spear-carriers, those that are interesting and I'd love to know more about, like the Cleganes etc. I'm hoping that  as I don't know that I could be bothered with his story.

I'm a heretic though, Bran's story also bores the shit out of me - or at least the way Martin writes it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on June 08, 2013, 04:33:19 PM
I'm a heretic though, Bran's story also bores the shit out of me - or at least the way Martin writes it.

I hope he dies or becomes a tree.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on June 09, 2013, 02:11:25 AM
I'm a heretic though, Bran's story also bores the shit out of me - or at least the way Martin writes it.

I hope he dies or AND becomes a tree.

FTFY


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 09, 2013, 02:24:51 AM
I've liked Brans story up through there current point in the books.  It started slow, but I thought it remained interesting from Theon taking Winterfell and onward.  Very curious to see what the Children of the Forest exactly are, hopefully get some origin stories for them and the walkers, and see if they themselves are evil or not.  I also always liked Robb, and never found him annoying or boring, so not sure of the hate I'm seeing, but oh well.

Jon was always hit or miss with me.  His arc north of the wall was fun, most things before and after got boring.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 09, 2013, 08:39:31 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/WUv8JvE.gif)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 09, 2013, 10:38:35 PM
So when does next season start?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 10, 2013, 03:12:26 AM
Most likely March/April 2014 at a guess.

Episode 10 was a bit odd, Asha Greyjoy is pretty far from the book version.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 10, 2013, 03:14:20 AM
They've almost got me interested in Bran's story, which is saying something. Though it is really the most "classic high fantasy" choked of all the arcs in the books and now the series--the prophetic dreams, the reluctant heroes, the vulnerable travellers, marching into Mordor alone, etc.  I hope Martin has a big twist in store--say, that the Children of the Forest are almost as scary and pagan and sinister in their own way as the walkers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 10, 2013, 03:16:06 AM
I expect the White Walkers are more misunderstood rather than evil.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 10, 2013, 03:17:17 AM
The scene with Asha and her hand-picked asskickers going off to rescue Theon felt like it came out of something else entirely. It was kind of kickass, mind you, and at this point I think I'd welcome a change in Theon's storyline involving being rescued by her instead of being Reek for a whole season. But yeah, it was curious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 10, 2013, 04:16:20 AM
Asha reports having led a rescue mission for Theon when talking to an uncle or similar in Feast. The ironborn are roaming the north so it makes sense for it to happen now, before Moat Cailin.

I'd be surprised if they manage to rescue him, as it would leave us without a character we understand in Bolton's camp. Ramsey's wedding is important for the impact it has elsewhere so Theon in that mix is more useful than Theon escaping to the iron islands, especially since he can identify Starks. Asha/Yara can carry the iron island story on her own.

I do imagine they'll make TV Theon angrier and less broken.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 10, 2013, 11:46:15 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/fe4NUDb.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Korachia on June 10, 2013, 12:47:32 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/fe4NUDb.gif)

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 10, 2013, 01:50:46 PM
It's been more than twelve hours and I haven't seen a "dick in a box" joke yet.  You're slipping, Internet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 10, 2013, 01:55:25 PM
It's been more than twelve hours and I haven't seen a "dick in a box" joke yet.  You're slipping, Internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-kvZIJlhp0


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 10, 2013, 02:01:19 PM
Thank you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 10, 2013, 04:58:09 PM
Dany storyline remains the weakest of the bunch....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on June 10, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
Dany storyline remains the weakest of the bunch....

Just like the books.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 10, 2013, 05:16:26 PM
Sam is by far the weakest.  At least with Dany there is the occasional Emilia tits to look forward too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 10, 2013, 05:59:15 PM
I'm sure Sam has some tits under there to show if the occasion arises.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 10, 2013, 06:29:21 PM
Sam would be more interesting if GRRM wrote him with some base in his voice (especially after what he went through). But nope just a sniveling man-child, who is good enough only because he isn't Will Ferrell.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 11, 2013, 02:54:18 AM
Screw finishing the season with Dany - most boring ending ever :( Iwas hoping for the arrival of  but realised it was far to early ton end on that note.

Asha was a great addition and that scene could have made a great ending.

Other than that, I loved the Arya/Hound arc, regardless of how brief it was - the chemistry feels even better than the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 11, 2013, 03:34:36 AM
I like the Sam story, cowards make more interesting heros. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 11, 2013, 05:20:24 AM
You're correct, sir.

Theon wasn't castrated in the books as I remember. Just flayed and fingers/ toes removed.  Guess he or his line dies off at some point in future books, no more Greyjoys from him and he's the last living son IIRC.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Evil Elvis on June 11, 2013, 05:24:57 AM
Theon wasn't castrated in the books as I remember. Just flayed and fingers/ toes removed.  Guess he or his line dies off at some point in future books, no more Greyjoys from him and he's the last living son IIRC.

He was, they were just more subtle about it in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 11, 2013, 05:28:43 AM
Yeah, I remember picking that up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 11, 2013, 05:46:11 AM
Yeah, it's heavily implied in that really really squicky scene where Ramsay forces him to go down on Jeyne Poole. I really hope they accelerate Theon's escape so we don't get a whole season of Reekery.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 11, 2013, 06:50:46 AM
Its not too early for the thing setana spoilered.

It happened straight away but gets hidden for half a book.

I suspect they'll make Theon less Reeky (especially as there has been no Reek) rather than let him escape. I'm interested to see how Roose and Ramsey work in the same scene since they are both scarier than in the book, keeping Theon will help there. Also not sure why they'd want him escape before Jeyne arrives. The Yara scene is likely to have  been an easy way to involve Gemma Whelan in this season and a setup for the holding pattern the North is in until 2015 at least.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 11, 2013, 06:54:23 AM
They can't accelerate Theon's story or they'll run out long before they have anything else for him to do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 11, 2013, 10:52:05 AM
The show runners did say that their current plan is to run for seven seasons and wrap it at that point.

So what that means to me is that they're going to deep-six a lot of Feast. (Let's hope.)

So I expect next season that we'll be well into Feast for a few arcs and we'll see significant changes to the most aimless or holding-pattern plot arcs. I don't expect Brienne to spend all season doing "your princess is in another castle", for example.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 11, 2013, 11:36:24 AM
The show runners did say that their current plan is to run for seven seasons and wrap it at that point.


I gotta say that seems rather ambitious.

Either that or they save the last part for .....Game of Thrones - The Movie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 11, 2013, 12:34:17 PM
Either they plan on making the ending up or have a break and do some prequels while fatass finishes the series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hayduke on June 11, 2013, 12:53:05 PM
Martin has already told the HBO writers how the series is supposed to end.  They can finish it without him.  It'd be better for it anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 11, 2013, 06:05:43 PM
That season finale was shit.

Joffrey should be dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xerapis on June 11, 2013, 07:47:00 PM
Naw, they couldn't kill the bitchking off yet.

They still have to intro all of Dorne and such.

Was expecting the intro of UnCat though.

Slave mosh pit was a lame ending compared to the last two seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 11, 2013, 11:40:37 PM
I thought it was a safe and predictable ending to this year, which maybe after the craziness of episode 9 they were going for, here's the good true queen on her way to put right all the wrongs, but it did feel flat to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 12, 2013, 12:43:10 AM
It had a tonne of tyrion/Joffery, Tyrion/Sansa, Tyrion/Tywin, Tyrion/Cersei so I was content.

Bran foreshadowing pretty good, Arya's scene brought together the wandering in the rain and made it an arc, I kind of liked the letter to the greyjoys for how it foreshadows the letter at the end of dance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 12, 2013, 12:54:32 AM
Regarding 7 seasons.

They can finish this in 7 seasons if Martin can finish in 2 more books, or if he gets hit by a bus.

Only one of those eventualities has a material chance of happening.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 12, 2013, 01:24:56 AM
Considering nothing has happened since book 3 plot wise, its kinda hard for me to imagine that 2 more books will finish the series....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2013, 02:06:17 AM
That season finale was shit.

Joffrey should be dead.

You know, it occurs to me that the wee chap playing Joffrey is just doing an absolute sterling bang up job.  I fucking hate him.  We all fucking hate him.  We're meant to fucking hate him and not because of what he does, but because of how he is.  The actor really, really, really makes you want to punch him with every fucking utterance and look he comes out with.

I truly hope it's acting.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2013, 02:10:25 AM
Considering nothing has happened since book 3 plot wise, its kinda hard for me to imagine that 2 more books will finish the series....
Yeah, there's been a lot of plot since book 3 just not with the characters I actually like, they either spend ages travelling or stay in one place dealing with mundane shit.  I think he reached the point of adding additional characters and I'm all, fucking kill this one already.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 12, 2013, 03:12:27 AM
That season finale was shit.

Joffrey should be dead.

You know, it occurs to me that the wee chap playing Joffrey is just doing an absolute sterling bang up job.  I fucking hate him.  We all fucking hate him.  We're meant to fucking hate him and not because of what he does, but because of how he is.  The actor really, really, really makes you want to punch him with every fucking utterance and look he comes out with.

I truly hope it's acting.   :why_so_serious:

Given how adorable he was in Batman Begins, I'd say so.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 12, 2013, 04:15:43 AM
They could end next season with:


Then--just guessing, but here's what I think is roughly going to happen in Winds:




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2013, 04:29:43 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 12, 2013, 04:53:26 AM
The key to the next 2 seasons not sucking is Dorne.

If they can make dorne work well and introduce Arianne and co next season so we care about them when shit gets real then they don't need to worry too much about feast and dance. Thingy Martell with the right casting could be as good as Tyrion or Varys.

Sure Brienne needs to be abridged, but that is easy to do. And I trust them not to have Tyrion whine too much. KL and the wall have solid plot lines, Arya and Bran have grown into their roles enough for the extended training montage to be watchable. Dany is irrelevant from here till season 6, but again, she can be abridged if they are brave enough.

I worry a little about the story in the vale, it might be the making of the two leads there or it might just suck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2013, 05:43:55 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 12, 2013, 05:46:35 AM
As far as I'm concerned, what you just posted is good news (everyone).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 12, 2013, 05:47:16 AM
Well there is another issue, if HBO wants to treat Feast and Dance as the same book, they would technically have 3 seasons to end the plot instead of 2. Which would mean some issues like...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2013, 06:00:01 AM

That's something easily, EASILY, dealt with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 12, 2013, 06:26:08 AM
There was an easy way to end Cersei story at the end of Dance....and it didn't happen. So yeah... Cersei is going to round 7 most likely.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 12, 2013, 06:26:23 AM




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2013, 06:36:59 AM
There was an easy way to end Cersei story at the end of Dance....and it didn't happen. So yeah... Cersei is going to round 7 most likely.

Yep.  Plus "little brother" is absolutely Jamie, not Tyrion.  That's going to end his story, too, and he has much farther to go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 12, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
Skipping Quentyn and possibly Victarion would be workable, but I don't think the story needs as much surgery as many seem to think.

They just need to take a critical eye on how many scenes people really need to happen on camera in each leg of the story. My only criticsm of feast is spending too long with the wrong people.

Davos, Manderley, Cersei, Arya, Jon, the other Jon, Val, Mance, the sparrows, Margery, Doran, Melisandre, Stannis, and in moderation Tyrion, Jamie, and Sam have interesting enough things to do.

I could have coped with less Bran, Quentyn, Arianne, Brienne, Theon, and Dany.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 12, 2013, 08:38:53 AM
There was an easy way to end Cersei story at the end of Dance....and it didn't happen. So yeah... Cersei is going to round 7 most likely.

Yep.  Plus "little brother" is absolutely Jamie, not Tyrion.  That's going to end his story, too, and he has much farther to go.

Doesn't the valonqar need to have hands, plural?   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2013, 08:57:21 AM
There was an easy way to end Cersei story at the end of Dance....and it didn't happen. So yeah... Cersei is going to round 7 most likely.

Yep.  Plus "little brother" is absolutely Jamie, not Tyrion.  That's going to end his story, too, and he has much farther to go.

Doesn't the valonqar need to have hands, plural?   :why_so_serious:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2013, 09:15:30 AM
You either think on this way too much or have access to a pool of Nerds Arthur.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2013, 09:24:24 AM
I was rereading Feast on holiday and noticed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 12, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
That's excellent.   :drill:  Well spotted.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 12, 2013, 10:33:11 AM
Quentyn absolutely needs to be ditched.

I think almost the whole of Tyrion's journey needs to be ditched. Griff needs ditching.

Brienne needs to do something besides wander around. Arya and the Hound can handle the job next season of showing how nasty and brutish Westeros has become--in fact, it fits Arya's arc much better.

Need something better to do for Jaime too besides go around resolving sieges, though I get how important it is to show that he's a good negotiator and thinker too.

An entire season of the Ramsay and Theon show will absolutely be awful.

An entire season of Dany stuck in Mereen (or stuck taking and then ruling Mereen) will blow.

Dorne is a tricky thing to introduce--they either have to go all-in for that or leave it largely on the side.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2013, 11:44:10 AM
I don't really care, I never thought I'd see the Red Wedding, they can cancel it or drag it out till 2023.  

But I don't see the appeal in cutting massive chunks out of the story just to cut to the end, we don't know which bits are important.  Yeah it's extremely frustrating when the main plot line doesn't advance much with each book, but if GRRM ever finishes the series that disappears and instead we'll think of those books as just padded with crap.  Feast is the weakest and even that's not too bad, I quite enjoyed Dance on last read through.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 12, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
I'm mostly saying this because I think the series has so far, on balance, been better than the books. So I really see it as an opportunity to do a better job on Feast and Dance, which really do need some tightening.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on June 12, 2013, 12:47:37 PM
From the story so far, Quentyn could be replaced/removed as his only apparent purposes are

 

Both of these could be easily done through other means.  BUT, maybe there is some other reason he is in the story that we just don't know yet.  Though I am sort of at a loss as to what it could be.  Also, though, I am not nearly as down on books 4 & 5 as the rest of the internets.  I liked Quentyn ok, in a lawl, you loser kind of way.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 12, 2013, 02:04:48 PM
Naw, they couldn't kill the bitchking off yet.

They still have to intro all of Dorne and such.

Was expecting the intro of UnCat though.

Slave mosh pit was a lame ending compared to the last two seasons.
Slave mosh pit, heh.

I called it Game of Thrones: The National Geographic cut.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 12, 2013, 02:07:55 PM
On the topic of Joffrey.

I don't think it's acting. The guy has resting asshole face. It simply can't be fixed. He grew up to be a total twat.

It's a shame there's still like 10 actors I wish they'd just kill.

Can I just get a season of Tyrion being witty? Please? No? Fuck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 12, 2013, 02:25:00 PM
Kind of intrigued to see if they can keep Tyrion as much fun as he is now given upcoming events.

A lot of people seem to object to his attitude from here. Personally given the circumstances I think he becomes more interesting. But I'm thinking Dinklage has a challenge carrying the audience with him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 12, 2013, 02:31:59 PM
On the topic of Joffrey.

I don't think it's acting. The guy has resting asshole face. It simply can't be fixed. He grew up to be a total twat.

By all accounts the actor (Jack Gleeson) is a very nice guy in real life.  Also having just looked up some interviews with him he's apparently Irish. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5_CM3xdR2o)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2013, 02:34:19 PM
Heh, love that he toned down his accent for the interview.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 12, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
absolutely needs to be ditched.

I predict they'll do it all and ditch nothing. Mainstream wants moar GoT.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 13, 2013, 12:11:48 AM
I think all the Lannisters were brilliantly cast.  Could there be a better Tywin, for example?  And while Tyrion in many ways does not resemble his book counterpart, there is no denying that Dinklage is brilliant.  I used to think that the kid doing Joffrey was a bit too much of a hateful asshole - but in retrospect, I am coming to understand that the show is actually doing a better job of showing how utterly insane he is.  Remember, he is the product of incest, and we already know that the Mad King was insane for the exact same reason. 

I don't get the Cersei hate even a little bit.  I fucking love Cersei.  She is the perfect amount of evil and not-as-smart-as-she-thinks. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2013, 03:20:51 AM
I'm not sure we do know that about the mad king.

He was fine till he got himself held hostage. Then started seeking magic to defend himself, then went mad.

Some believe Varys poisoned Aerys or otherwise drove him mad in order to kick off this whole shooting match.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 13, 2013, 03:53:06 AM
What exactly happened at Summerhall and what the Lace Serpent Serala was up to at Duskendale might come up later, that's why all the slightly boring wandering about by Brienne might be important later.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2013, 04:31:04 AM
Yeah, there is a lot stuff that might be more integral than we know.

Based on what we've seen on screen so far they could have rolled littlefinger and varys into one character, until the other week Walder Frey and Roose Bolton were just filler. And even where characters are not critical to later events, you need at least a few people who are not a Chekov's Gun waiting to explode.

I strongly suspect Brienne is important, but I'm sure she doesn't need the same proportion of screen time that she got in the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 13, 2013, 04:48:59 AM
I'm not sure we do know that about the mad king.

He was fine till he got himself held hostage. Then started seeking magic to defend himself, then went mad.

Some believe Varys poisoned Aerys or otherwise drove him mad in order to kick off this whole shooting match.

It was either said explicity or implied that Targaryans prefer incest to keep the royal line from branching out too far.  There is the potential for madness in their blood.  Dany even worries about it herself at some point.  Don't forget her own brother was quite fucking bonkers as well.  While it isn't quite the same power as the theme of "oathbreaking is a bad fucking idea", it repeatedly comes up as something that the Gods will punish.

At any rate, I am pretty convinced that the idea that Joffrey is mad is to be credited to the fact that his incest happened.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2013, 05:19:15 AM
Oh the Targs certainly go in for incest and it certainly makes many of them mad from birth.

In the particular case of Aerys its simply not certain that this caused his madness, although it the generally accepted cause around Westeros. Most obvious point being that he is reported as not mad prior to the Defiance of Duskendale.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 13, 2013, 05:24:35 AM
Quote from: Ser Barristan
I am no maester to quote history at you, Your Grace. Swords have been my life, not books. But every child knows that the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness. Your father was not the first. King Jaehaerys once told me that madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin. Every time a new Targaryen is born, he said, the gods toss the coin in the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land.

There's plenty of old Valyrian blood across the sea and no talk of madness I recall.  



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2013, 05:38:56 AM
I think all the Lannisters were brilliantly cast.  Could there be a better Tywin, for example?  And while Tyrion in many ways does not resemble his book counterpart, there is no denying that Dinklage is brilliant.

I totally agree on Dinklage and in the end it makes me a little depressed when I think on it.  He's got this brilliant part but how much is left for him next?  When's the last time a short person was cast for anything but comedic value?  How much of that talent is going to be wasted once GOT ends.  Depressing.


(Which then moves my thoughts on to; how many absolutely brilliant actors have been passed over due to not being "Hollywood attractive/ ugly/ whatever."   Which then reminds me that appearance > talent in music and I say fuck entertainment in general and stew for a bit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2013, 08:57:56 AM
At any rate, I am pretty convinced that the idea that Joffrey is mad is to be credited to the fact that his incest happened.

I think you can probably also chalk up that madness to the conflicting attitudes of his drunken boar of a father and his conniving witch mother as much as to incest. Kid was fucked from the word go, giving him unlimited power (or at least the illusion of it) at such an immature age just makes the madness more dangerous.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 13, 2013, 10:24:40 PM
I think all the Lannisters were brilliantly cast.  Could there be a better Tywin, for example?  And while Tyrion in many ways does not resemble his book counterpart, there is no denying that Dinklage is brilliant.

I totally agree on Dinklage and in the end it makes me a little depressed when I think on it.  He's got this brilliant part but how much is left for him next?  When's the last time a short person was cast for anything but comedic value?  How much of that talent is going to be wasted once GOT ends.  Depressing.


(Which then moves my thoughts on to; how many absolutely brilliant actors have been passed over due to not being "Hollywood attractive/ ugly/ whatever."   Which then reminds me that appearance > talent in music and I say fuck entertainment in general and stew for a bit.

I know what you are saying, but in Dinklage's case, you aren't laughing AT him.  He is genuinely talented and funny, and I think he does pretty well with the more serious scenes he plays, too, such as every time his father tells him he wish he had died as a baby.  I think not only that he has a future after GoT, I think he could have a show built around him and do quite well.  In GoT, he practically already IS the main character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 13, 2013, 10:58:14 PM
He's got the gravitas and acting chops to play the lead, but he's probably as close to it as he can ever come.  I can't see many writers capable of writing another character as good as Tyrion.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2013, 11:53:02 PM
For TV and film he only has same challenge that all actors have if they aren't hot.

He could do stage work and no one would really bat an eyelid.

Plenty of great actors do "nothing more" on TV than a single 7 season TV show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 14, 2013, 02:51:49 AM
I feel my main point was missed.  Hollywood is SHALLOW.  Shallower than Paris Hilton and twice as cruel.   As great as he is, he'll still be passed over for any other parts because, "this part wasn't written for a midget."

A little person cast as a lead in a part not specifically written for one would be a Jackie Robinson moment, IMO.

I know what you are saying, but in Dinklage's case, you aren't laughing AT him.  He is genuinely talented and funny, and I think he does pretty well with the more serious scenes he plays, too, such as every time his father tells him he wish he had died as a baby.  I think not only that he has a future after GoT, I think he could have a show built around him and do quite well.  In GoT, he practically already IS the main character.

Quite.  I never meant to imply that you were laughing at him in GOT, only that it is how most parts for little people are written. Again, because Hollywood is shallow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 14, 2013, 03:12:57 AM
I really enjoyed The Station Agent (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/station_agent/), but I agree it's not often you see that kind of role.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 02, 2013, 12:15:05 AM
Some guy cast as Oberyn Martell...
http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0050959/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Really hoping announcements get made on Arianne and Doran soon, the book waits too long to introduce them and really you need to see Arianne plotting way ahead of the mess she makes at the start of Feast.

If I were organising this season I think I'd have Oberyn and Arianne saying goodbye in ep1, then reintroduce Arianne and her relationship with Myrcella about half way through the season, so she can make her move in ep9.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 05, 2013, 10:34:11 PM
Fiancee and I are watching Rome again.

Game of Thrones really doesn't even fucking compare.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 06, 2013, 12:27:22 PM
First season of Rome is totally fucking mind-blowing awesome.

Second season is good but a bit scattered.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on July 06, 2013, 02:11:00 PM
Fiancee and I are watching Rome again.

Game of Thrones really doesn't even fucking compare.

Conceded.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on July 06, 2013, 10:31:46 PM
Titus Pullo is one of the greatest television characters ever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on July 08, 2013, 07:43:59 AM
Rome was amazing until they found out they wouldn't be renewed and had to compress five years of events in to five episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on July 08, 2013, 09:56:22 AM
Titus Pullo is one of the greatest television characters ever.

Everyone needs a friend like Titus Pullo.  Fantastic character for sure!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on July 08, 2013, 11:40:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8yq_urL5c

THIRTEENTH


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on July 08, 2013, 03:47:41 PM
I would watch any show hosted by Titus Pullo.  Even Survivor.  ESPECIALLY Survivor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on July 09, 2013, 02:47:57 AM
Spartacus destroys Rome, mounts Polly Walker and swings the severed head of Titus Pullo in bloodspattered arcs by its hair.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on July 09, 2013, 08:13:33 AM
Pullo's hair?

Whoops.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 09, 2013, 08:56:53 AM
Spartacus destroys Rome, mounts Polly Walker and swings the severed head of Titus Pullo in bloodspattered arcs by its hair.

Plus it has the best series finale ever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on July 09, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Season 1 and the mini season were the best Sparticus seasons. Got kind of stale at the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 09, 2013, 03:48:49 PM
Season 1 and the mini season were the best Sparticus seasons. Got kind of stale at the end.
I disagree with what you said.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on July 11, 2013, 01:47:21 AM
Have you guys checked out Maisie Williams' (Arya) Vine page? The one about the Red Wedding was quite funny :)

http://seenive.com/u/940987320377700352


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on July 11, 2013, 01:50:14 AM
It did the rounds.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Raknor on July 11, 2013, 06:45:58 PM
This (http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-game-of-thrones--iron-throne-should-be-much-bigger--says-george-r--r--martin-181303026.html) was kind of interesting. I always thought the chair was a bit small for a King


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on July 22, 2013, 01:24:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m4ZPULXJKw

George needs to finish the next book, I'm getting withdrawal symptoms


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 22, 2013, 12:15:04 PM
I love how they left out Syrio because of the ridiculous fan theories.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 22, 2013, 12:52:48 PM
He also didn't have an onscreen death, unlike all the others... but yeah.   :awesome_for_real:

More book related than show related, but check this shit out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqcqapoFy-w)   :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on July 23, 2013, 02:45:12 AM
Was that part of the Barenaked Ladies?  What's going on here? 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2013, 04:51:16 AM
It's Paul and Storm, a comedy duo.  Evidently they were performing their song, "Write like the wind (George R.R. Martin)" when he 'interrupted' and smashed the guitar.
The song in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lp3RhzfgI


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 23, 2013, 11:53:22 AM
Yeah, a lot of the events/concerts/parties that happen all around the gas lamp district while Comicon is going on are where some of the best fun is to be had.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 30, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
Daario has been recast. Also Tommen, which I would have expected.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on August 30, 2013, 01:43:24 PM
Who and Who ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 30, 2013, 02:24:14 PM
The guy who boinks the dragon chick and bitchqueen's youngest.

Oh, the actors. ;)

Daario: Michiel Huisman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0401264/)

Tommen Dean-Charles Chapman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2835616/)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on August 30, 2013, 02:31:17 PM

Daario: Michiel Huisman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0401264/)


I could see that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on August 31, 2013, 02:53:05 AM
The guy who boinks the dragon chick and bitchqueen's youngest.

Oh, the actors. ;)

Daario: Michiel Huisman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0401264/)

Tommen Dean-Charles Chapman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2835616/)

Cheers mate.  I was actually fuzzy on the characters too, so you helped.   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on August 31, 2013, 06:17:23 AM
Quote
Daario has been recast

That is a tragedy. The actor was hot hot hot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on August 31, 2013, 10:10:22 AM
Quote
Daario has been recast

That is a tragedy. The actor was hot hot hot.

I agree.  I liked the actor they had.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 31, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
He was a little bit smarmy but then the character is that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 01, 2013, 07:16:06 PM
That actor playing Tomnen already has a credit for playing a Lannister.  One of the little kids that got murdered by Rob's bannerman if i am not mistaken.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 04, 2013, 06:56:04 AM
They recast Gregor Clegane again, the guy playing him is on the left in this photo:

(http://i.imgur.com/DXeMJl3.jpg)

The tiny guy on the left is 6'3" incidentally  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on September 04, 2013, 01:17:31 PM
Gewgor or Sandor Clegane? If it's Sandor then they need to stop doing that shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on September 04, 2013, 01:38:39 PM
No way they recast The Hound.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on September 05, 2013, 12:45:35 AM
No way they recast The Hound.
Ya unless the current actor got a better gig and wasn't under contract. He seems to identifiable to go though. No way that pipsqeak is gonna be believable as the Mountain that Walks though. He's supposed to be over 7 ft. Andre the giant needs to come back and play the mountain. He'd be perfect for the part around Book 4 or 5. Heh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 05, 2013, 01:31:37 AM
The mountain is supposed to be over 8ft tall; the guy playing him actually weighs more than his weight as described in the books though, which seems fair.

How many 8ft tall people can you think of, let alone potential actors you could name?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phred on September 05, 2013, 01:37:26 AM
The mountain is supposed to be over 8ft tall; the guy playing him actually weighs more than his weight as described in the books though, which seems fair.

How many 8ft tall people can you think of, let alone potential actors you could name?

Just someone who towered over anyone else in the room would be a start. Not Mr Average.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on September 05, 2013, 01:39:45 AM
None?

I always just assume that when they say things like "8 feet tall" that it is a deliberate exaggeration and not something you are supposed to take as literal.  It just means really fucking big.  That Icelandish guy seems to fit the bill.  I thought the previous actor to be wrong for the part, because despite his height he didn't seem very menacing to me.  The original guy (Conan...Stevens?) seemed a better fit.

As for recasting the Hound...big spoiler time:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 05, 2013, 01:42:29 AM
The guy they cast is 6'9, that's not exactly Mr. Average.

Oops, I see my mistake, the guy they cast is on the right, not the left. Doh! Sorry


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 05, 2013, 01:45:12 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on September 05, 2013, 01:47:17 AM
Yeah, I don't see how this could possibly work.  That's why they cast Gandalf as an 8 foot bloke, so that he could tower over Elijah Wood.

 :oh_i_see: :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on September 05, 2013, 03:47:48 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on September 05, 2013, 06:40:43 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 05, 2013, 06:45:14 AM
I'm glad we got the right/left thing about the photo straightened out, because I was trying to puzzle out why you'd choose the smallest guy of those three to play the Mountain.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on September 05, 2013, 09:31:43 AM
They recast THE MOUNTAIN, not THE HOUND, right? Because you motherfuckers are confusing me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on September 05, 2013, 10:41:54 AM
Yes, they recast THE MOUNTAIN, and he is the large guy in that picture, and he has a funny accent so he'll probably get dubbed.  Maybe season 2 THE MOUNTAIN can talk for him for some vague continuity.   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 05, 2013, 02:17:20 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on September 05, 2013, 06:11:45 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 05, 2013, 07:47:12 PM
Yeah, same here.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 06, 2013, 07:48:40 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Anxious Apatosaurus on September 06, 2013, 08:14:39 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on September 06, 2013, 08:56:23 AM
So, I've only seen up to season 2 and haven't read the books.  It seems like Lancel is on the road to manning up a bit and not being such a weasel, maybe even becoming a good guy, or at least the GoT equivalent of a good guy.  Do the books go this way or is this just the show adding a bit of character to minor players?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on September 06, 2013, 09:12:24 AM
So, I've only seen up to season 2 and haven't read the books.  It seems like Lancel is on the road to manning up a bit and not being such a weasel, maybe even becoming a good guy, or at least the GoT equivalent of a good guy.  Do the books go this way or is this just the show adding a bit of character to minor players?

General unspecific plot direction spoiler...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 06, 2013, 10:39:35 AM


edit:fixed spoiler tags ><


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 06, 2013, 11:34:45 AM

The golden part referred to the hair not the armor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on September 06, 2013, 11:41:09 AM
I didn't even know The Hound's brother had been in the show. So, uh, is recasting him a big deal?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on September 06, 2013, 11:42:59 AM
Having just recently rewatched the entire series, other than the cutting the horse's head off in the tourney, the only other time he's been seen is in a conversation or two with Tywin Lannister in Harrenhal. I'm pretty sure most viewers won't even know who he is until someone calls him the Mountain.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 06, 2013, 11:56:26 AM
The Hound talks about him plenty but they haven't shown him much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on September 06, 2013, 12:01:32 PM
Even in the books he is mostly an offscreen menace, you see and hear about what he's done but you don't see him.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 06, 2013, 01:04:58 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on September 06, 2013, 02:11:10 PM
So, the recasting means nothing. Good to know.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on September 06, 2013, 04:32:27 PM
Yeah, that was kinda my thought.  You don't see Gregor that often, and half the time you do see him he's got a helmet on.  I'd have a hard time describing his face.  Recasting Tommen is fine too because he's a little kid, he's gonna look different after a year of filming anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on September 15, 2013, 10:33:04 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on September 15, 2013, 10:54:06 PM

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on September 15, 2013, 11:58:27 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on September 16, 2013, 12:12:40 AM

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 17, 2013, 10:24:26 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 17, 2013, 02:31:51 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 18, 2013, 05:49:38 AM
So if you have a burning desire to see Margary's actress (Natalie Dormer) naked, go see "Rush" this weekend.  Mr. Skin was on local radio just now and said she's nude within the first 5 mins of the movie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on September 18, 2013, 05:57:03 AM
Er, she did that in GoT anyway though.  I remember it because the dude was gay.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on September 18, 2013, 06:13:12 AM
Not that I would recommend to anybody watching "The Tudors", but she was quite openminded there as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 18, 2013, 07:56:38 AM
Er, she did that in GoT anyway though.  I remember it because the dude was gay.


Ah, I haven't watched beyond the first few episodes, so I figured it was a big deal since he was so thrilled.  Carry on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on September 18, 2013, 08:18:08 AM
She's got a nice bod, but she's permenantly duck-faced (even in Captain America) and it kinda puts me off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on September 18, 2013, 08:21:12 AM
Not that I would recommend to anybody watching "The Tudors", but she was quite openminded there as well.

Not to go off the rails here, but I loved Tudors.  Maybe it is my interest in the time period.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on September 18, 2013, 08:35:49 AM
Fair enough! I just quit watching it and can't even remember why anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on September 18, 2013, 03:21:18 PM
That girl can't nip down to the 7-11 without showing her cans.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on September 18, 2013, 07:33:32 PM
I thought The Tudors was pretty good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 20, 2013, 01:38:03 PM
She's got a nice bod, but she's permenantly duck-faced (even in Captain America) and it kinda puts me off.


I have no idea why, but her duck-face mouth thing just does it for me.  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on September 20, 2013, 01:49:54 PM
Abso-fuckin-lutely ditto!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on September 20, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
Normally, I can't stand the duckface.  On her, yes please.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on September 20, 2013, 02:00:43 PM
Fair dos.  As long as I can have Sophie Turner, I'm ok.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 20, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
She's got a slutty mouth, not a duckface.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on September 20, 2013, 03:34:55 PM
She's got a slutty mouth, not a duckface.

I was trying to think of a way to say something like that.  I'm not sure I'd go with "slutty mouth", but it is much more attractive than a duckface.

(http://i.imgur.com/prWUVyO.jpg)

It's like she's just thought of an absolutely filthy joke and she's trying to keep from cracking a smile.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 21, 2013, 03:45:55 AM
I think the word y'all are looking for is 'pout', and yes she is cute with it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on September 21, 2013, 06:02:53 AM
Whatev.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: tazelbain on September 21, 2013, 09:10:42 AM
Its a smirk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on January 13, 2014, 04:56:33 AM
Season 4 trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZY43QSx3Fk)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 13, 2014, 08:37:11 AM
Dornish prince's spear dance... fuck yeah.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 13, 2014, 03:51:59 PM
Wouldn't recommend watching that trailer if you are avoiding spoilers.


But if you don't care, then fuck yeah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 13, 2014, 07:20:37 PM
There is nothing spoilery on that trailer unless you already know what it is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 14, 2014, 12:08:32 AM
Some of those scenes become sort of spoilery once you know some of what happens next season.

Anyone still actively avoiding spoilers for this particular property has put a fair amount of effort in, so personally, I'd skip it.

However, based on that trailer, I like their Oberon more than the one in my head, and the same goes for the events in the north. Looks like they are burning right through into Dance with Dany's story. Still disappointed they aren't going to Dorne, because not doing so now means the beginning of Feast will likely be as poorly set up as it was on paper.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 14, 2014, 02:44:20 PM
I've been reading book 4. How the fuck could they NOT go to Dorne?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on January 14, 2014, 03:40:49 PM
Err, they're still mostly finishing up book 3 with this series, augmented by parts of 4 (from what I gather).  They could only cram Dorne in at the very end, and it probably doesn't make much budget sense to hire a whole new group of actors who'll just appear for an episode or two.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on January 14, 2014, 04:38:50 PM
I thought this series was a hybrid of SOS and FFC, since those two are contemporaneous?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 14, 2014, 04:58:11 PM
Book four and five are contemporaneous, this is still book three. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 15, 2014, 12:59:52 AM
Err, they're still mostly finishing up book 3 with this series, augmented by parts of 4 (from what I gather).  They could only cram Dorne in at the very end, and it probably doesn't make much budget sense to hire a whole new group of actors who'll just appear for an episode or two.

They could easily introduce Arianne, her relationship with Myrcella, and avoid having the first Dorne chapters full of characters you don't care about telling the audience about things that already happened.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on January 15, 2014, 02:31:15 AM
Season 4 trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZY43QSx3Fk)

*yawn*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 15, 2014, 03:09:16 AM
Are you just posting 'I do not like GoT' or does the actual trailer bother you in some way?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 15, 2014, 03:12:30 AM
Are you just posting 'I do not like GoT' or does the actual trailer bother you in some way?

I guess the latter. To me it looked rather disjointed. Short snippets jumping from one scene to the other. Looked a bit confusing and didn't tell anything except "New season is coming"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 15, 2014, 04:17:20 AM
It's not meant to, it's a teaser.  It's just meant to get you hyped.  The only folks who'll get really stoked are the ones who already know the story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on January 15, 2014, 05:21:53 AM
"All my favorite characters who are still alive are there!!!!"

E: I keep wanting to call Jorah Mormont the Bear Jew.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on January 15, 2014, 05:23:49 AM
"All my favorite characters who are still alive are there!!!!"

"At least partly through the first episode maybe!!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on January 15, 2014, 06:09:56 AM
It's not meant to, it's a teaser.  It's just meant to get you hyped.  The only folks who'll get really stoked are the ones who already know the story.

I don't know, the Season 3 teaser was outstanding.  This one was kind of meh.  That's not a knock on the show in any way.  They could put up a blank screen with just the Season 4 start date and I'd be hyped, but the quality of the actual Season 4 trailer wasn't anywhere near as good as last year's.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on January 17, 2014, 08:46:51 AM
The Tyrion scenes got me excited because I've been looking forward to seeing how Dinklage plays Tyrion at the end of his rope.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 22, 2014, 09:53:48 PM
I know that I am years late to the party, but I just started watching this and it is damn good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on January 23, 2014, 02:38:57 PM
Yeah...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 23, 2014, 03:28:53 PM
I know that I am years late to the party, but I just started watching this and it is damn good.

Aww, that's cute.  :heart:

As you go along, can you post your opinion about the characters and their future actions? And how you see the show progressing.

I think that could be fun to read.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 23, 2014, 03:59:17 PM
That's just evil.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 23, 2014, 04:10:48 PM
I can't tell if I am being picked on or if you guys are sincere. It's even harder because I avoided nearly all of this thread to avoid spoilers. My next day off I plan on marathon viewing the rest of season 1 and 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on January 23, 2014, 05:38:19 PM
I can't tell if I am being picked on or if you guys are sincere. It's even harder because I avoided nearly all of this thread to avoid spoilers. My next day off I plan on marathon viewing the rest of season 1 and 2.
They are sincerely eager to watch you lose your faith in humanity.  Don't indulge their voyeuristic sadism.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 23, 2014, 08:35:31 PM
Reporting in. Fuck the Lanisters. That is all for now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 24, 2014, 12:52:04 AM
From whence are we getting this report - how far have you watched?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on January 24, 2014, 05:46:56 AM
Fuck the Lanisters.

Everyone else has.  HEY-O!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 24, 2014, 09:09:39 AM
From whence are we getting this report - how far have you watched?

Half way through season 1.  I can already tell this is going to be a wild ride.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 24, 2014, 10:13:03 AM
If you say that after only half of season 1, wait until season fucking 3. You will throw your television.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 24, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
Shhhh, this is going to be fun.  Do keep watch and report back please!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on January 24, 2014, 02:05:38 PM
Do you like to be royally pissed off?  Then GoT is the right show for you!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 24, 2014, 02:21:34 PM
Game of Thrones! The show that makes you want to punch babies!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on January 24, 2014, 02:25:41 PM
I don't know.  I was certainly surprised by a lot of things but I don't think I was ever pissed off by anything.  Maybe because my three favorite characters are still breathing (so far).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on January 24, 2014, 02:28:02 PM
Game of Thrones!  Because Fuck You that's why!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on January 24, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
From whence are we getting this report - how far have you watched?

Half way through season 1.  I can already tell this is going to be a wild ride.
Burn through the series as fast as you god damned can.  This entire thread is filled with spoilers, and the internet is a giant spoiler magnet wit this show as the center.  It will really enhance the experience if you can get through the series without spoilers.  They wont ruin it, because I read all the books long before and knew what was going to happen (And I love the hell out of the show), but you can only go through the events of the story for the first time once.  So whether its the books or the show, read/watch them as fast as you can and avoid spoilers.  Don't even click on this thread anymore, I'm serious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on January 24, 2014, 04:17:17 PM

Burn through the series as fast as you god damned can.  This entire thread is filled with spoilers, and the internet is a giant spoiler magnet wit this show as the center.  It will really enhance the experience if you can get through the series without spoilers.  They wont ruin it, because I read all the books long before and knew what was going to happen (And I love the hell out of the show), but you can only go through the events of the story for the first time once.  So whether its the books or the show, read/watch them as fast as you can and avoid spoilers.  Don't even click on this thread anymore, I'm serious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 24, 2014, 10:16:46 PM
Seriously, fuck this show and fuck the friend that insisted that I had to watch it. Some of these characters better suffer harshly later on or I'm going to lose my shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on January 24, 2014, 10:42:06 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/82533/brick-laugh.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on January 24, 2014, 11:23:26 PM
Seriously, fuck this show and fuck the friend that insisted that I had to watch it. Some of these characters better suffer harshly later on or I'm going to lose my shit.

"Some"????

Do you not know of G.R.R. Martin's reputation?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 25, 2014, 08:56:56 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/82533/brick-laugh.gif)

See? I told you guys this would be fun!   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 25, 2014, 09:29:54 PM
Oh, you guys can fuck right off too. You knew what I was in for and not one of you chose to warn me. I don't know if I can continue after watching Ned lose his head. I mean for fucks sake does every good guy get fucked over in this series?

Edit..Finishing last episode of season one now. Why do I have no power to stop watching? I'm not even being dramatic, this show is truly infuriating. I haven't felt this upset about a show since that dude had Sparticus's wife killed in Sparticus.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 25, 2014, 10:40:34 PM
Heh.

Heh heh.

Heh heh heh heh.


BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 25, 2014, 11:25:38 PM
Oh, you guys can fuck right off too. You knew what I was in for and not one of you chose to warn me. I don't know if I can continue after watching Ned lose his head. I mean for fucks sake does every good guy get fucked over in this series?

Edit..Finishing last episode of season one now. Why do I have no power to stop watching? I'm not even being dramatic, this show is truly infuriating. I haven't felt this upset about a show since that dude had Sparticus's wife killed in Sparticus.
I'm going to save you some mind blow (not that it'll help), nothing good happens in this series. No one evil dies. And characters you like in the beginning you wont like very soon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 26, 2014, 12:19:46 AM
No one evil dies.

That's not quite true.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on January 26, 2014, 12:50:43 AM
The only character in the show that I would trust to feed my dog while I went on vacation is Hodor. Maybe Tyrion so far too, but I'm sure that's going to change. For a society that loves to gas on about honor and whatnot the nobility turn into treacherous dicks at the first sign they might have to wake up 10 minutes early if they don't murder and betray people before they go to bed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fordel on January 26, 2014, 01:29:17 AM
So just like real life!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on January 26, 2014, 02:45:45 AM
Oh, you guys can fuck right off too. You knew what I was in for and not one of you chose to warn me. I don't know if I can continue after watching Ned lose his head. I mean for fucks sake does every good guy get fucked over in this series?

Edit..Finishing last episode of season one now. Why do I have no power to stop watching? I'm not even being dramatic, this show is truly infuriating. I haven't felt this upset about a show since that dude had Sparticus's wife killed in Sparticus.

The irony about all this hand wringing (from everyone, not just you) is that it is exactly BECAUSE of all this shit that people can't stop watching the show.  I am sure that they will endlessly protest that this isn't the case, that they are THIS CLOSE to not watching the show any more because of all the killing off of their favorites characters, but that is 27 kinds of bullshit.

And your particular rage about Ned losing his head, that is just precious  :awesome_for_real:  You just got your GoT cherry popped.  You'll soon forget about good ole Ned. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on January 26, 2014, 03:19:02 AM
Did the fact that it was Sean Bean playing Ned NOT tip you off?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on January 26, 2014, 05:51:47 AM
I would not go as far as saying every character who dies deserved it (I still have not read the books). But the writers for this show do a really good job at putting in scenes were you think "Wow, that was badass" which later turn out to be the reason why they die.


edit: fixed grammar


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 26, 2014, 07:39:04 AM
Power Corrupts and Heroism only gets you killed.

These are the themes of Game of Thrones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 26, 2014, 07:44:13 AM
Also people put in dangerous situations who constantly make stupid choices tend to die even if they are the good guys.  People complain that Martin goes out of his way to kill his characters, in reality we are just used to writers going out of their way to save characters who should die.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 26, 2014, 07:46:31 AM
That used to be the main complaint. Until like book 5 where even that theme gets discarded for... well you'll see.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on January 26, 2014, 11:18:11 AM
Oh, you guys can fuck right off too. You knew what I was in for and not one of you chose to warn me. I don't know if I can continue after watching Ned lose his head. I mean for fucks sake does every good guy get fucked over in this series?

Edit..Finishing last episode of season one now. Why do I have no power to stop watching? I'm not even being dramatic, this show is truly infuriating. I haven't felt this upset about a show since that dude had Sparticus's wife killed in Sparticus.
I did warn you, and trust me, it gets worse.  GRRM is a literary sadist, and the show does a good job of maintaining that punch-in-the-gut delivery.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 26, 2014, 02:55:52 PM
Yeah, but it's not just that they cut off Ned's head, it's that an episode later they made his daughter stare at his head on a pike as an example and then an episode after they stabbed a baby to drive home the brutality. All, I need to be okay with the universe is for Geoffrey to get what's coming to him.

I am not coming back to this thread until I catch up because I almost cannot resist the urge to dig through spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on January 27, 2014, 10:05:55 AM
Also people put in dangerous situations who constantly make stupid choices tend to die even if they are the good guys.  People complain that Martin goes out of his way to kill his characters, in reality we are just used to writers going out of their way to save characters who should die.

Yeah, I very much agree with this.  It becomes especially apparent on a re-read (or re-watch) that people make a lot of very bad decisions that lead up to their demise -- you just don't notice it at the time because you're used to heroes having their poor choices turn out okay for dramatic convenience.

Ned is a good guy but almost every single choice he makes suffers from the problem of trying to make too many people happy.  He knew it was a bad idea to go to King's Landing, but he couldn't say no to his nagging wife.  He knew the Lannisters were snakes, but he thought if he took the high road they'd be grateful and leave quietly so he wouldn't have to kill them.  He STILL knew the Lannisters were snakes and thought they'd be merciful to him if he gave a fake confession.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on January 27, 2014, 11:10:05 AM
All the Starks are retards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on January 27, 2014, 11:59:13 AM
Eh, one of them hasn't been as bad as the rest.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on January 27, 2014, 03:38:58 PM
Who, the 5 year old?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on January 27, 2014, 04:16:00 PM
I think Bran's genuinely the smartest one of the whole family.  He does make decisions that turn out to be incorrect with benefit of hindsight (and tragic consequences), like climbing the tower, and sending the army away, but I think in those cases the consequences were genuinely unforeseeable -- nobody could have called that there would be psycho Lannisters in that tower, or that the ironborn were going to do a suicide run at Winterfell (which is basically what it was even if Theon didn't know it).

Arya and Sansa do dumb stuff but it's not on the level of Ned, Cat, Robb, or Jon, all of whom do completely boneheaded things repeatedly despite knowing better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on January 28, 2014, 06:55:30 AM
Maybe, but I'm not sure that shoots down my point.

So the smartest of them was still retarded in the context of the text ?

Ok.

 :why_so_serious:

(No, seriously, I don't care, don't engage the Ironwood Troll.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on January 28, 2014, 10:29:04 AM
Well Sansa is supposed to be 13 and Bran 8, but I think GRRM screwed up their ages or something cuz it doesn't make much sense for them to be that young but thinking and talking like adults even in the context of a harsh medieval world where people grow up a lot faster. The TV show corrects this somewhat by casting people who clearly look older than their ages stated in the book and then kind of ignores what he wrote and has them act like older children & teens would.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 28, 2014, 11:21:29 AM
I think folks simplify Ned so that they can have a simple lesson out of a fairly unsimplified narrative.

For example, he's called upon to be the Hand. Everyone now says, "Oh, don't be the Hand, stay in Winterfell." In a kingdom like Westeros, with its recent past, you know what message that says to your former/current friend the King and the Lannisters who more or less have him in the palm of their hands? "I'm getting ready to rebel against you next spring." Which might mean: "Ok, then we march against you right now or in some other way get ready to fuck you over before you do the same to us." Remember, nobody knows that this is going to be a really bad winter or that ice zombies are coming south or that Daenerys is about to wake dragons or any of that shit.

He comes south. Everybody says, "Be the Hand! Make deals! Be cunning! Be sneaky! Don't value honor!" Look, first off, the guy does not have his own spy network in King's Landing. He just doesn't. It doesn't matter if you're a treacherous douchebag or an honorable good guy, you can't just get your own spies by taking out an ad in the town crier's daily yells. Plus, if your own guys are insanely loyal to you and people in general trust you, that's a political asset in most circumstances, and Ned knows enough to work that advantage for what it's worth. It's just not worth enough in this situation--but it can be even in a place like Westeros.

I think where you can say Ned makes genuine mistakes is when he doesn't keep heading home after fighting with Jamie and breaking with Robert. By that time, he knows enough to know that the political game is rigged against him, the stakes are the highest, and that he doesn't have the tools he needs. Where he is unambiguously stupid is confronting Cersei. But to some extent the first book/season is the story of his nearly inevitable doom in a situation where being cunning would save him only because he would have been 'working the situation' for the last ten years rather than just seeing to his own power base in the north.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 28, 2014, 11:30:04 AM
Ned's lesson was as much about the value of honor amongst a kingdom full of honorless, ass-fucking shits.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on January 28, 2014, 11:42:59 AM
Now be fair.  The only actual buggery I recall was between two rather likeable fellows.   :why_so_serious:

Now if you had said sibling-fucking shits...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 28, 2014, 02:00:17 PM
Ned's mistake is not taking his chances and killing Cersei. The book would have turned out much different if he simply said "welp going to murder Cersei and all her bastard born." Or better side with Renly. Hot damn things would have been different if he merely sided with the one guy capable of mobilizing the largest army in Westeroes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on January 28, 2014, 02:17:25 PM
Comparing Ned to Rob really shows the difference though. Ned was just Lawful Stupid, showing us how behaving like a Paladin can screw you over when nobody else gives a shit about honor. Plus, he knew he was out of his Element and doomed, but he couldn't help himself. Rob on the other hand was a fucking idiot on numerous occasions without external inputs or a rigid system of values that forced him to behave that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 28, 2014, 04:48:57 PM
Well, I am all caught up. I feel kind of ambivalent about the show. None of the characters do what I want them to do, and none of the things happen that I want to happen, yet I could not stop watching it. I know I hate GRRM for sadistically torturing readers and viewers.  My only hope is that Daenerys burns the whole world to the ground, and or Arya Stark grows up and becomes an vicious assassin handing out punishment. If I go by the show so far though none of that glorious stuff will happen.

I will say it again fuck this show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on January 28, 2014, 04:50:24 PM
Was it in this thread were people were happy that Rob finally acted like a king when he dealt with the mistakes of (and yelled at) his uncle ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on January 28, 2014, 04:51:25 PM
I will say it again fuck this show.

Jolly Gregor 3.0 just wants to give you a hug.

(http://highlighthollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/GOT-Mountain.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on January 28, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
I am just hoping for Geoffrey to die. But if the Starks keep dieing, I migh not be able to keep watching. I was pretty close to throwing something at my screen when John got almost killed. Twice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on January 28, 2014, 05:13:08 PM
Well Sansa is supposed to be 13 and Bran 8, but I think GRRM screwed up their ages or something cuz it doesn't make much sense for them to be that young but thinking and talking like adults even in the context of a harsh medieval world where people grow up a lot faster. The TV show corrects this somewhat by casting people who clearly look older than their ages stated in the book and then kind of ignores what he wrote and has them act like older children & teens would.

I sometimes wonder whether GRRM has ever met any kids.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 28, 2014, 06:07:44 PM
That new Gregor is horrible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 28, 2014, 10:16:44 PM
Well Sansa is supposed to be 13 and Bran 8, but I think GRRM screwed up their ages or something cuz it doesn't make much sense for them to be that young but thinking and talking like adults even in the context of a harsh medieval world where people grow up a lot faster. The TV show corrects this somewhat by casting people who clearly look older than their ages stated in the book and then kind of ignores what he wrote and has them act like older children & teens would.

I sometimes wonder whether GRRM has ever met any kids.

Not any that escaped unmolested.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 28, 2014, 11:48:26 PM
I am just hoping for Geoffrey to die. But if the Starks keep dieing, I migh not be able to keep watching. I was pretty close to throwing something at my screen when John got almost killed. Twice.

If we can make wishes I'd hope little princess Daenerys gets her face pushed into the dirt. And that nothing (too) bad happens to Cersei. Unlike many here I find her the most relate- and likeable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 28, 2014, 11:58:04 PM
In the context of the 16th century, the ages as written are fine. But for the tv show everyone who didn't die already is still too damn young.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 29, 2014, 05:49:17 AM
Cersei for 5 books and it never happens. Dany however.... her obvious main character status makes her dumb and dumber decisions later feel like a slap in the face compared to all the people who died doing far less retarded shit or was more capable of handling her special set of problems.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on January 29, 2014, 06:03:08 AM
I am just hoping for Geoffrey to die. But if the Starks keep dieing, I migh not be able to keep watching. I was pretty close to throwing something at my screen when John got almost killed. Twice.

If we can make wishes I'd hope little princess Daenerys gets her face pushed into the dirt. And that nothing (too) bad happens to Cersei. Unlike many here I find her the most relate- and likeable.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE me some Cersei.  Probably my favorite character (and Lena Headey...yum) in the show.  But likeable and relatable?  Oh Gods, no.  Perhaps you meant the words opposite to those.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 29, 2014, 06:12:24 AM
Cersei for 5 books and it never happens. Dany however.... her obvious main character status makes her dumb and dumber decisions later feel like a slap in the face compared to all the people who died doing far less retarded shit or was more capable of handling her special set of problems.

Martin (and his TV partners) are not writing a story about how life will eventually deal out justice, or how dumb decisions lead to bad consequences. He's trying to transplant the War of the Roses and the Hundred Years' War into a fantasy setting. In those wars, which we know through a combination of tall tales and fairly straightforward historical documents, dumb and brutal actions sometimes made you a winner, sometimes led to consequences, and sometimes were just dumb and brutal with no particular follow-through. I don't think you should count on narrative closure or the expected thing happening in any character's arc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on January 29, 2014, 07:31:59 AM
I am just hoping for Geoffrey to die.

His name is Joffrey, dammit!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 29, 2014, 08:02:06 AM
Cersei for 5 books and it never happens. Dany however.... her obvious main character status makes her dumb and dumber decisions later feel like a slap in the face compared to all the people who died doing far less retarded shit or was more capable of handling her special set of problems.

Martin (and his TV partners) are not writing a story about how life will eventually deal out justice, or how dumb decisions lead to bad consequences. He's trying to transplant the War of the Roses and the Hundred Years' War into a fantasy setting. In those wars, which we know through a combination of tall tales and fairly straightforward historical documents, dumb and brutal actions sometimes made you a winner, sometimes led to consequences, and sometimes were just dumb and brutal with no particular follow-through. I don't think you should count on narrative closure or the expected thing happening in any character's arc.

Meh, Martin is writing a story about dragons vs zombies.  Everything else is just filler, he just tricks you into thinking other stuff is the main plot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 29, 2014, 12:37:20 PM
If we can make wishes I'd hope little princess Daenerys gets her face pushed into the dirt. And that nothing (too) bad happens to Cersei. Unlike many here I find her the most relate- and likeable.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE me some Cersei.  Probably my favorite character (and Lena Headey...yum) in the show.  But likeable and relatable?  Oh Gods, no.  Perhaps you meant the words opposite to those.

Yes, she get's described as villain, which I find a bit hard to understand seeing in what a world of psychopaths she resides. Is she that bad? Cersei has flaws, but those make her intriguing:

  • She wants power for powers sake, and is quite cunning, but not as much as she thinks, and once she has it she actually pretty bad at handling it.
  • She has a hedonistic, pleasure seeking trait, to the point of being irresponsible: Sleeping with her own brother, heavy drinking (the later one is more strongly emphasized in the books)
  • Fitting to that: classic Cersei of getting shitfaced while Kings Landing is sieged. And sneering in contempt at the other ladies present. [Exactly what I would have done in that situation]
  • She is 100% loyal to those she likes (Jamie and Joffrey). And the others? Well them fuck them all.
  • She dislike the role society forced her in and rebels against that (a situation she shares with Arya). (Compare that to the boring cow Catelyn Stark)
  • She is bitter and holds grudges, but they are well deserved. Her father treats as her a marriage pawn, twice. Jamie gets all the glory, and even Tyrion (who is clearly despised by Twyin) gets put ahead of her when to rule Kings Landing as Hand of the King)
  • She can be friendly, smiling and seductive, but underneath is a big schemer and not wimpy in the slightest, but
  • Sometimes her anger becomes stronger than the manipulator and she snaps and starts threatening people when it's really stupid to do so: Ned, Littlefinger, Margaery.

So off all the people that are not complete monsters (Joffrey, The Mountain, etc...) Cersei (and Shae and Tyrion, Westeros sweetest couple) are the most human, and as I said relatable. Twyin is admirable, but he is someone I'd want to marry, not identify with. Who else is there? Arya...a kid, Sansa...a dumb boring kid, Catelyn...ugh.


Uff, that got pretty long. I hope it brings my point across at least somewhat?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 29, 2014, 01:29:55 PM
/* slowly backs away from Calapine */


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 29, 2014, 01:53:39 PM
There is a vast chasm between intriguing and "relatable and likeable". Also, she is none of those things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 29, 2014, 02:40:45 PM
Arya and Sansa are horrible characters who I really dislike.

I'm rooting for the Ice Demons to ride down everyone and the Wildlings take over King's Landing.

Fin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 29, 2014, 02:48:20 PM
/* slowly backs away from Calapine */

Awww!  :heartbreak: It's me Cala. I post kitten pics in the cute picture thread and I am always nice to everyone. You can trust me!  



Arya and Sansa are horrible characters who I really dislike.

I'm rooting for the Ice Demons to ride down everyone and the Wildlings take over King's Landing.

Fin.

Oh, don't quite agree. Arya is plucky! The "Mary Sue" aspect of her is laid on too thick, which lessens the character a bit.

Sansa is uninteresting in her current state. I'd so laugh if all the misfortunes she endures cause her to toughen up, come out of the left field and in the when the end dust settles be the only one left standing. Sansa the Terrible, sitting on the Iron Throne!  :wink:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on January 29, 2014, 03:05:51 PM
We have not forgotten the condom wall.

Is this a spoiler thread or not?  Sansa will either likely die a horrible death for thinking she's smarter than she really is, or she's going to come out of this looking better than any Stark.  She may have realized how to play the game. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 29, 2014, 03:12:44 PM
My biggest dark horse is Sansa because she's so fucking boring.

I keep hoping Arya dies needlessly since so many people seem to think she's interesting and not a blatant ripoff of the orphan-becomes-assassin story we've heard a million times.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on January 29, 2014, 03:20:21 PM
My biggest dark horse is Sansa because she's so fucking boring.

I keep hoping Arya dies needlessly since so many people seem to think she's interesting and not a blatant ripoff of the orphan-becomes-assassin story we've heard a million times.

Martin's wife made him promise that Arya doesn't die.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 29, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
We have not forgotten the condom wall.

Is this a spoiler thread or not?  Sansa will either likely die a horrible death for thinking she's smarter than she really is, or she's going to come out of this looking better than any Stark.  She may have realized how to play the game. 

We had a non spoiler thread but Martin killed it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on January 29, 2014, 03:35:54 PM
I am just hoping for Geoffrey to die.

His name is Joffrey, dammit!
Stupid mental autocorrect. And I even thought of looking up his name. I am sorry.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on January 29, 2014, 03:39:33 PM
My biggest dark horse is Sansa because she's so fucking boring.

I keep hoping Arya dies needlessly since so many people seem to think she's interesting and not a blatant ripoff of the orphan-becomes-assassin story we've heard a million times.

Martin's wife made him promise that Arya doesn't die.
So she is semi-safe for as long as that marriage lasts ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on January 30, 2014, 12:59:59 AM
Hmmmmm, Sophie Turner.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 30, 2014, 08:04:20 AM
Funny how GRRM spends so much time killing off the good characters that he often forgets that his "main characters" are rapidly becoming more irritating to read about as their main character status becomes even more obvious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 30, 2014, 08:10:55 AM
The only female characters I like in the books are Melisandra and Brienne of Tarth.

The only male character I like is Tyrion, but even that's running thin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 30, 2014, 09:00:04 AM
How could you not like Arya? Her time with the Hound was great. Sure, she's a bit Mary Sue but she's a better read than Cersei's "if I had a cock, I'd be running this bitch, why don't people who do everything I say succeed at anything, I want to fuck my brother!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 30, 2014, 09:06:55 AM
Because Arya is the fantasy trope mistreated child who trains to kick ass.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 30, 2014, 09:20:03 AM
Because Arya is the fantasy trope mistreated child who trains to kick ass.
I can forgive that though because it is my favorite character theme.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 30, 2014, 09:56:34 AM
Because Arya is the fantasy trope mistreated child who trains to kick ass.

But she's so awesome on the TV show.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 30, 2014, 10:06:59 AM
They are all fantasy tropes, but there is nothing wrong with a well written trope.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 30, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Arya just comes off as bratty. Really, really bratty. It doesn't help that she thinks she is the most awesome person in the room at all times.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on January 30, 2014, 10:25:06 AM
Arya just comes off as bratty. Really, really bratty. It doesn't help that she thinks she is the most awesome person in the room at all times.
I really don't see it that way at all. How old is she supposed to be, like 10 or something? Seems pretty accurate for a 10 year old.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 30, 2014, 10:37:21 AM
Still annoying. I'd rather hear about a 10 year old doing shit 10 year olds don't do than actually be inside a 10 year olds mind while their doing it. Same with Bran. God so bland. No amount of lore building and supernatural shit makes his crippled ass interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 30, 2014, 11:18:41 AM
They are all fantasy tropes, but there is nothing wrong with a well written trope.

I don't think she's well-written. She's intentionally created for the purpose of people liking her, the plucky child who suffers tragic family problems, and ends up seeking revenge. She's instantly going to be the character people reading the story would identify with, because they are most likely nerds who have suffered under the hands of people stronger.

She has no depth. She's a revenge machine in the form of a child. What I dislike about the character the most isn't that she's a trope, it's that it's obvious and fans keep listing her as one of their favorites. It says a lot about the person that would find Arya Stark tolerable. She's a murdering pyschopath.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on January 30, 2014, 11:22:09 AM
It says a lot about the person that would find Arya Stark tolerable. She's a murdering pyschopath.

:why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 30, 2014, 11:24:54 AM
She's a 10 year old kid that saw her father beheaded for trying to do the right thing, was yanked around an entire country at war watching everybody around her die in HORRIBLE ways and whose best friend turned out to be a shape shifting assassin. How fucking stable would you be?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Der Helm on January 30, 2014, 11:29:52 AM
While I was pretty sure what was going to happen when she approached those guys at the campfire in the last episode, her killing the guy (and how) was still a pretty big  :ye_gods: moment for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 30, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
She's a 10 year old kid that saw her father beheaded for trying to do the right thing, was yanked around an entire country at war watching everybody around her die in HORRIBLE ways and whose best friend turned out to be a shape shifting assassin. How fucking stable would you be?

Not. That's the issue. GRRM controls all that shit and he put her in the middle of it so she would be rootable for doing the exact same shit everyone else is doing. So she gets a pass even though she's basically a shallow murder-foil at this juncture.

EDIT: The difference between her and Cersei in my mind is razor thin when it comes to motivations of vengeance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 30, 2014, 12:06:09 PM
Motivations of vengeance? Sure. Affect of her bloodlust - Cersei has her beat hands down simply because she controls the levers of power. Arya's is a justifiable murder spree. Cersei's is just a petty, vindictive grasping for power to prove that she's every bit the "man" her father was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 30, 2014, 12:35:46 PM
Motivations of vengeance? Sure. Affect of her bloodlust - Cersei has her beat hands down simply because she controls the levers of power. Arya's is a justifiable murder spree. Cersei's is just a petty, vindictive grasping for power to prove that she's every bit the "man" her father was.

It's hardly petty. Cersei is just what would have happened to Arya if she grew up, less the incest. Cersei was married off like cattle, treated like crap by her philandering husband, and had him killed. Arya has the exact same fears that she would have been married off as a lady to some dick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on January 30, 2014, 12:48:49 PM
less the incest

Don't be so sure, some of her brothers are hotties as well!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 30, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
Oh god! Such a sanctimonious, jugmentmental bunch! I'd want to see you guys living in the Game of Throne universe. Probably would get stabbed in a week for being obnoxious  :-P


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on January 30, 2014, 01:17:11 PM
Sam Tarley seems to be doing just fine, actually.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on January 30, 2014, 01:19:26 PM
I fully expect Arya to get pregnant and have to kill herself and unborn for some mass shadow beast voodoo.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 31, 2014, 11:31:12 AM
She's a 10 year old kid that saw her father beheaded for trying to do the right thing, was yanked around an entire country at war watching everybody around her die in HORRIBLE ways and whose best friend turned out to be a shape shifting assassin. How fucking stable would you be?

Not. That's the issue. GRRM controls all that shit and he put her in the middle of it so she would be rootable for doing the exact same shit everyone else is doing. So she gets a pass even though she's basically a shallow murder-foil at this juncture.

EDIT: The difference between her and Cersei in my mind is razor thin when it comes to motivations of vengeance.

This is like saying, "I just don't understand why L. Frank Baum's Oz books don't have more gritty Machiavellian political maneuvering between Ozma and Glinda, Baum controls all that shit and he just keeps making them be friends and stuff."

It basically means you don't really understand story-telling and fiction. Or the kind of story and setting Martin's working with. You're saying, "I'd like the preteen daughter of a man who just lost his head in a dynastic political struggle to not be in the middle of bad shit so that she can develop into a more rounded character".  And this is where? or what? in the setting and narrative that Martin is working with? If you want realistic outcomes, she'd either have been caught and stuck in the same hostage situation as Sansa; or killed and raped somewhere on the road. Happy with those? If you want "Oh, please not the angry little revenge-seeking determined child, not a female Bruce Wayne", ok, then? She finds a job working in a pub somewhere that is miraculously one of the few places that doesn't get burnt or ransacked by roving armies? She gets adopted by some nice visiting Braavosi merchant and taken out of the story completely? She has lots of the classic emotional ambiguity and experiential complexity that 12-year olds are known for?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2014, 11:34:16 AM
I understand story-telling. I also understand manipulating your audience. GRRM does the latter on numerous levels, but Arya's character stands out to me because people fall for it.

EDIT: To go even further with it, I argue some of the internal consistency of his story telling. Somebody should have ended up raped and dead on the road. Why not her? She's saved numerous times by various Deus Ex Machina forces while other characters are thrown to the wolves, mostly because he's a sadist who likes to set his readers up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on January 31, 2014, 11:51:46 AM
Sounds like some people are taking this too seriously, keep in mind it's still fictional fantasy pulp. On the upper end of that catagory, but not exactly great literature.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 31, 2014, 01:05:41 PM
That really is a specious, idiotic argument to make about any sort of entertainment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2014, 02:02:40 PM
That really is a specious, idiotic argument to make about any sort of entertainment.

It's more of my opinion on why I don't like the character. I think she's shallow, and that GRRM manipulates the audience with her Dark Avenger trope.

As an example of the more complex character I do like, I think Jaime Lannister is especially well-written.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 31, 2014, 02:24:42 PM
Jamie Lannister is one that has just gotten more interesting over time. Arya did as well, though her time

 seems to be dragging on.

Cersei has gotten much less interesting when she doesn't have foils to play off of like Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2014, 02:34:17 PM
I think Jaime had more internal conflict from his backstory alone as the Kingslayer. He takes a ton of shit for killing a guy that was an insane murdering rapist, because he took an oath to protect said guy. It's a tough moral nut that kept getting worse and worse until he acted, and his motivations are cast into some doubt because his family betrayed the King.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on January 31, 2014, 02:53:39 PM
He's still a guy who fucks his sister and kicks a kid out of a window.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2014, 03:24:04 PM
He's still a guy who fucks his sister and kicks a kid out of a window.

No doubt, but he's got a ton of internal conflicts and shifting priorities as things unfold. There's history, change, and in some cases character growth in opposite directions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 31, 2014, 04:01:08 PM
I think Jaime had more internal conflict from his backstory alone as the Kingslayer. He takes a ton of shit for killing a guy that was an insane murdering rapist, because he took an oath to protect said guy. It's a tough moral nut that kept getting worse and worse until he acted, and his motivations are cast into some doubt because his family betrayed the King.

It wasn't even just that, he also has to go his whole life hearing about the other guys.  The ones who served the crazy murdering torture rape fire maniac right until the very end.  Those guys? oh they are fucking legendary heroes of legend that sweat glory and jizz honor.  Yeah, those guys who stopped him when he tried to stop the crazy fuck from raping his wife, everyone thinks they are swell. Can't really blame the guy from having a different view on the whole "honor" thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on January 31, 2014, 04:49:35 PM
Chalk me up as another member of the 'Jaime Lannister is the most interesting Lannister' camp; I think he's probably the character who feels the most human out of the lot of them.

Jamie Lannister is one that has just gotten more interesting over time. Arya did as well, though her time

 seems to be dragging on.

Cersei has gotten much less interesting when she doesn't have foils to play off of like Tyrion.

Everything is dragging in book 4; I think it's a symptom of GRRM getting lost in the woods and not having a clear path out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on January 31, 2014, 04:53:15 PM
Jamie's a fool and a tool who's been used and reused time and again and never realizes it.  His sister, his father, his kings all used him with not a second thought.  He's not died because he was pretty and had a gift for swordplay.  Now he's trying to set his own course and I expect him to fail spectacularly.   


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2014, 04:59:37 PM
Pretty much every character is a fool at some point, if not multiple points. The least foolish character in the whole thing seems to be Patchface.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on February 01, 2014, 05:06:54 AM
Jaime Lannister is the most honest character in the series. Everyone else has their head very far up their own ass for better or for worse. If he never met Cersei, like the bitch wasn't born, he'd  be a lot like Tywins brother Kevan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on February 01, 2014, 07:45:32 AM
Except for kicking Bran out the window, Jaime seems a decent chap.  It looks like he is becoming a better person, thanks in no small part to big ole whatsherface. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on February 01, 2014, 07:50:30 AM
I think losing his hand and being the fuck away from his sister is what sobered him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on February 01, 2014, 10:40:08 AM
Except for kicking Bran out the window, Jaime seems a decent chap.

This can also be attributed to panic, since he was about to be caught doing something that could ruin both himself and his sister.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 01, 2014, 10:59:22 AM
If by ruin you mean get their heads detached from their shoulders, we aren't talking about about besmirching their reputation here.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on February 01, 2014, 11:13:44 AM
Pushing Bran out of the window wasn't really his call.

Cersei freaking the fuck out
Jaime : Can we get back to sex
Cersei : He fucking saw us
Jaime : Yeah but I'm about to nut
Cersei : HE SAW US
Jaime : He's like 8
Cersei : !^@^!%#!%$&!@%$&#@!^
Jaime : Ok but after this I need to nut
Jaime walks up to bran... : no hard feelings k? *push*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on February 01, 2014, 03:03:03 PM
Except for kicking Bran out the window, Jaime seems a decent chap.  It looks like he is becoming a better person, thanks in no small part to big ole whatsherface. 

Not to mention killing off Jory and Ned's guards and running a spear through Ned's leg and impairing his ability to escape when things went pear shaped?

I think the TV series is a lot kinder to Jamie than the books are. Having said that, I like his character - when things have to be done, he does them. In fact, as someone who isn't a fan of Bran, I find that not killing him is his biggest failing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 01, 2014, 03:53:47 PM
All of those other things were perfectly justified. He was defending his brother, whom the Starks kidnapped for no damn reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on February 01, 2014, 05:38:07 PM
All of those other things were perfectly justified. He was defending his brother, whom the Starks kidnapped for no damn reason.

meh - the killing of the guards and Jory I couldn't justify. Getting pissed at Ned and maiming him for something his wife did before Ned could sort it out is a bit of a stretch but I'll go along with it.

Personally I like Jamie because he's the kingslayer, the one who had the guts to do what had to be done. But I still think he gets his kicks from hurting people emotionally (Brienne) and physically. It's the flaws that make him human. When I was reading the books, you could tell that Joffrey was his son, because the arrogance and brutality of Joffrey is there in Jamie, but more controlled and contained. Doesn't help that Cersei is far worse.

I have a weird list of characters that appeal to me:
Tyrion
The Hound
Arya
Jamie
Jorrah
Ned

Having said that, the deaths of The King in the North and Cat were non issues for me and


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 01, 2014, 06:04:18 PM
Really? if Arya was kidnapped and Ned had mowed down a few Lannister lackeys over it nobody would have batted an eye.  People only care because they knew and liked Jory, but imo that situation was perfectly played by Martin into making us root for the wrong side.  I don't even think it needs justification.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on February 01, 2014, 06:46:46 PM
But that didn't happen so we'll never know.

He didn't go all murderer when Robert Arryn's death was announced given the impression that Arryn was almost a father figure. Nor when the mad king cooked Rickard and Brandon Stark alive. In fact there's no impression that Ned would have done the same as Jamie and he would have had more personal reasons. It's why Jamie is more interesting than Ned, but he is in no way a saint even by GoT standards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 01, 2014, 07:17:37 PM
I didn't say he would have, i said if he had nobody would have held it against him.  We hold it against Jamie because at that point all we knew about him was that he threw Bran out a window and the Lannisters were clearly the bad guys and Jory was awesome, but his actions were perfectly justified and if he had done something similar in a much later book nobody would bat an eye over it either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on February 01, 2014, 09:19:16 PM
All of those other things were perfectly justified. He was defending his brother, whom the Starks kidnapped for no damn reason.

Eh? Now this is only from watching the show, so I have no idea how the books are different, but they (read: the idiot Catelyn) kidnapped him because they thought he was responsible for an assassination attempt on Bran. They were, of course, wrong, but given what they knew it was hardly "no damn reason". Personally, I would have found things far more interesting had Ned found out it was Jaime who had pushed Bran out the window and Cersei who had ordered the assassination (she did, right? I don't really remember how clearly that's spelled out) and why. I imagine Ned would have killed all sorts of people. Or tried to. Or been far more prepared for things. Of course, you couldn't have had Sean Bean play him in the show without him still getting killed. It seems to be a rule of video entertainment that Sean Bean = dead character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on February 01, 2014, 10:42:27 PM
Personally, I would have found things far more interesting had Ned found out it was Jaime who had pushed Bran out the window and Cersei who had ordered the assassination (she did, right? I don't really remember how clearly that's spelled out) and why.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Margalis on February 01, 2014, 11:34:33 PM
I only read the first book. At the time I remember thinking that the Jaime / Cersei stuff was silly - they were presented as cartoonishly evil. They're so evil that they are brother and sister having sex - gross! It's like GRRM hung up a neon sign with an arrow pointing them that read "you're supposed to dislike these people." It's like a reverse Save the Cat introduction - instead of saving a cat they have sex and shove a kid out a window. A lot of the unlikable characters were set up in that fashion - central casting evil types.

I honestly don't get what the fuss about the series is about. I liked the first book well enough but it was very clear that the series was going to meander forever. I mean, IIRC the first chapter is a teaser about some evil ice people that never come back into play at any point in the rest of the book. There were a lot of ideas in there that didn't seem to be going anywhere - the pet wolves for example.

IMO GRRM is similar to Stephen King, in that they are really good at certain types of things, especially tantalizing setups and character interactions, but have trouble forming a coherent narrative that works from start to finish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 01, 2014, 11:53:00 PM
I only read the first book. At the time I remember thinking that the Jaime / Cersei stuff was silly - they were presented as cartoonishly evil. They're so evil that they are brother and sister having sex - gross! It's like GRRM hung up a neon sign with an arrow pointing them that read "you're supposed to dislike these people." It's like a reverse Save the Cat introduction - instead of saving a cat they have sex and shove a kid out a window. A lot of the unlikable characters were set up in that fashion - central casting evil types.

I honestly don't get what the fuss about the series is about. I liked the first book well enough but it was very clear that the series was going to meander forever. I mean, IIRC the first chapter is a teaser about some evil ice people that never come back into play at any point in the rest of the book. There were a lot of ideas in there that didn't seem to be going anywhere - the pet wolves for example.

IMO GRRM is similar to Stephen King, in that they are really good at certain types of things, especially tantalizing setups and character interactions, but have trouble forming a coherent narrative that works from start to finish.


My fear is that GRRM is not Stephen King but rather Robert Jordan. Any fan of fantasy should desperately fear that.

Also, the first book is really evil in a way. It sets you up to see very clear sides much like what you're used to in fantasy fiction but as the series progress you see things are not what they seemed. Tyrion is a pretty decent fellow. Jamie is a conflicted and tortured man and the thing he is most reviled for is the single most honorable thing he has ever done. In fact, Ned, who you're led to believe is a hero, is a sanctimonious prick when it comes to Jamie. Not only did Jamie save the entire city, he also did not take the throne for himself or his father. He handed it over. And Ned has looked down on him for it ever since. Cersie? Ok, yeah, Cersei is pretty bad and Joffrey is probably the series most clear-cut villain character.

Now, I don't know if he planned this from the start or if he is pulling this out of his ass as he goes. The first book almost feels like it comes from a totally seperate book series than the other books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on February 02, 2014, 12:32:16 AM
You forgot the bit where the great king Robert Barathian is pretty damn bad too. Tywin Lannister comes across as a better person who may or may not have tried to save the Targaryan babies.

Barathian was a prick who was ready to kill an entire family just for revenge over a woman who didn't really love him. The crusade seems almost more for his ego than for freedom from the mad king. He owed the most to Jamie but instead treated him pretty shabbily.

I'm wondering if GRRM will give this an ironic twist and set Jon Snow up to be a Targaryan-Stark and not Ned's bastard after all.

Of course, he'll have to write that around the last book.

BTW - I like Jamie as a character and I really like how he's been adapted to the screen. Other than humping his sister mind you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on February 02, 2014, 12:48:16 AM
I'm wondering if GRRM will give this an ironic twist and

Yeah, that's the theory I'm going with.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 02, 2014, 01:06:19 AM
I'm wondering if GRRM will give this an ironic twist and

Yeah, that's the theory I'm going with.  



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on February 02, 2014, 10:57:29 AM

Yeah, I can't see it being anyone else. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 02, 2014, 02:53:03 PM
Just on the point about book and series 1 feeling so seperate.

I gather the original intent was a trilogy, Game was book 1, Clash, Storm, Feast, and Dance would be book 2, then what is coming in Winds and Dream would be book 3.

In practice I think the final series (if we ever see it) will have 4 distinct sections.

Act :grin:: The end of Roberts reign.
Act :drill:: The war of n Kings.
Act :uhrr:: The fucking about times we didn't need to see.
Act :drillf:: Zombies vs Dragons smackdown apocalypse


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 02, 2014, 04:58:20 PM
The "fucking about stuff we didn't need to see" is more aptly named "the collapse of the seven kingdoms, five of which we don't really give a fuck about".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on February 02, 2014, 07:39:32 PM
Also "and stuff that happens across the Narrow Sea that might one day be relevant in the seven kingdoms, maybe" which are the least interesting bits to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on February 02, 2014, 08:39:17 PM
I'm almost done with Feast for Crows and it REALLY suffers from "the most interesting stuff happens off screen" -itis. Total mistake to cut that into 2 books. He needed someone to dial his ass back or something because easily half of that book was maneuvering and set up for really tiny happenings. The TV writers would do well to cut the ever living fuck out of this book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on February 02, 2014, 09:09:33 PM
I'm almost done with Feast for Crows and it REALLY suffers from "the most interesting stuff happens off screen" -itis. Total mistake to cut that into 2 books. He needed someone to dial his ass back or something because easily half of that book was maneuvering and set up for really tiny happenings. The TV writers would do well to cut the ever living fuck out of this book.

But Martin is counting on those books to pad the show so he has time to finish writing the series!

Honestly, I love the show, even with its issues. The books? Didn't even get part-way through book one before I dropped it because it just wasn't that good (before the show aired). When I tried again after the show aired... it came across even worse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on February 03, 2014, 02:53:01 AM
I read and liked the first two books but after S3 on TV I won't read any more.  Any character I like gets killed.  If GRRM wrote The Hobbit, Bilbo would be murdered by Gollum and Gandalf would be poisoned by Bombur.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on February 03, 2014, 02:57:05 AM
Not really if GRRM wrote the book the 13 dwarves would be 4 at the end of the story, mr.oakenshield would be missing a leg, bilbo would be a treacherous bastard and gandalf would have been nuking orcs, elves and hobbits for conspiring against him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on February 03, 2014, 03:45:43 AM
Not really if GRRM wrote the book the 13 dwarves would be 4 at the end of the story, mr.oakenshield would be missing a leg, bilbo would be a treacherous bastard and gandalf would have been nuking orcs, elves and hobbits for conspiring against him.

While fucking his sister!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 03, 2014, 07:36:50 AM
I read and liked the first two books but after S3 on TV I won't read any more.  Any character I like gets killed.  If GRRM wrote The Hobbit, Bilbo would be murdered by Gollum and Gandalf would be poisoned by Bombur.

I wonder how much of this is to serve the plot and how much is GRRM in danger of becoming the M. Night Shalyman of books where he feels like he has to use the same trick over and over because it's what people expect of him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on February 03, 2014, 07:46:58 AM
I honestly think that the next season after the upcoming one, presuming they do it, will necessarily have to begin to ignore and rewrite significant chunks of the last two books in the series. And in at least one case, if the next book isn't out by then, they'll have to past the timeframe of the books as they stand.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on February 03, 2014, 04:48:59 PM
Personally I'm getting a serious 'Lost' vibe from this show. I bailed on it when the 'Tailies' appeared.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on February 04, 2014, 07:35:06 AM
Personally I'm getting a serious 'Lost' vibe from this show. I bailed on it when the 'Tailies' appeared.

That is just an exasperating comparison.  I want to spit and hiss.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on February 04, 2014, 04:18:46 PM
Personally I'm getting a serious 'Lost' vibe from this show. I bailed on it when the 'Tailies' appeared.

How ridiculous to compare plot developments taken from published books with those of 'Lost', a previously unpublished story that was developed season-by-season for TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on February 04, 2014, 05:24:27 PM
My point is that there is no ending for GoT yet and soon the TV show will catch up to the books and then what?  Does anyone think GRRM will stay ahead of the show?  I don't.  So there will be lots of filler episodes, probably an entire filler season hoping that GRRM can get his act together to and finish the series.  Or maybe this will be start as a series of novels and end as a TV show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on February 04, 2014, 05:28:45 PM
My bet is Martin dies and Brandon Sanderson finishes it.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 04, 2014, 08:19:46 PM
Nah, Jordan saw the end coming and left very detailed notes on the rest of the story and explicit instructions on what he wanted done (finishing it), Martin is going to die suddenly of a heart attack mid baconator and take it all to the grave with him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on February 04, 2014, 09:37:37 PM
Nah, Jordan saw the end coming and left very detailed notes on the rest of the story and explicit instructions on what he wanted done (finishing it), Martin is going to die suddenly of a heart attack mid baconator and take it all to the grave with him.

Martin had to give the Game of Thrones showrunners a rough outline of how the books end before the series was greenlight, so the outline is out there.  It would just be up to the estate to authorize it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on February 04, 2014, 10:11:53 PM
My point is that there is no ending for GoT yet and soon the TV show will catch up to the books and then what?  Does anyone think GRRM will stay ahead of the show?  I don't.  So there will be lots of filler episodes, probably an entire filler season hoping that GRRM can get his act together to and finish the series.  Or maybe this will be start as a series of novels and end as a TV show.

He filled the producers in on where the books are going.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on February 05, 2014, 08:12:18 AM
I trust HBO to end the show well even if GRRM is not around to do it for them.  Personally, I would end it dark and dismal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on February 05, 2014, 08:27:28 AM
I'm still rooting for the Wildlings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on February 05, 2014, 08:38:31 AM
I would be perfectly ok with a series ending that is mostly just the white walkers marching south and killing everyone and everything since most everyone ignored the warnings.  No crappy deus ex mechina ending of some mystical thing stopping them or Daenerys showing up with a flight of dragons or something similar.  Just a season of fighting and losing and running getting more and more hopeless until it ends with Westeros being completely frozen over and dead with no happy ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on February 05, 2014, 09:16:34 AM
I wouldn't complain about a topless Daenerys riding a flying dragon into the sunset either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 05, 2014, 11:17:05 AM
There is no satisfying way to end something like this. Suck it up and manage your expectations.

Even Shakespeare didn't manage it in his Henry VI War of the Roses trilogy, and much as I enjoy these books, they ain't Shakespeare.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on February 05, 2014, 04:38:19 PM
My bet is Martin dies and Brandon Sanderson finishes it.  :grin:

My bet is that Martin dies and Varys finishes it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on February 06, 2014, 02:56:38 PM
Sansa is uninteresting in her current state. I'd so laugh if all the misfortunes she endures cause her to toughen up, come out of the left field and in the when the end dust settles be the only one left standing. Sansa the Terrible, sitting on the Iron Throne!  :wink:

I'm going through the series again during my commute, listening to Ray Dotrice's excellent audiobooks, and came across this prophesy in A Storm of Swords (all references to events later than the TV series)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Evil Elvis on February 06, 2014, 04:20:52 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 06, 2014, 05:20:39 PM
Yes, all of that already happened.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on February 06, 2014, 10:17:44 PM

That is a trivial episode to be the subject of a prophesy, completely out of place with what's referenced in the first line.
It seems more likely that it and your event both foreshadow something yet to come.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on February 10, 2014, 12:15:00 PM
14 minute Season 4 "Foreshadowing" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5iS3tULXMQ).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on February 10, 2014, 12:55:41 PM
I haven't read the series since Dragons came out and I have a hard time keeping the story and the timeline in my head. I read them all originally when the third book came out and then stopped.  I then reread them all again for the last book. So where the story starts and ends is lost to me.

Love the show though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 18, 2014, 12:46:55 AM

That is a trivial episode to be the subject of a prophesy, completely out of place with what's referenced in the first line.
It seems more likely that it and your event both foreshadow something yet to come.

I tend to agree, the real question is who is the giant and which castle are we talking about.

Robert Strong is only current giant character, but you have to imagine he will die at someone else's hand.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 18, 2014, 10:59:32 AM
There is already a prophecy for that too. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on February 22, 2014, 12:24:45 PM
There is already a prophecy for that too. 

Absolutely fits, but not fighting.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on February 22, 2014, 06:17:20 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on February 22, 2014, 06:19:03 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on February 23, 2014, 12:53:42 PM
There is already a prophecy for that too.  
Absolutely fits, but not fighting.

Meh. This is getting mean.  :heartbreak:

Can someone read the spoilers and tell me what I am missing? In a non-spoilery way, of course.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on February 23, 2014, 01:17:47 PM
Only some speculation about Prophecies you probably haven't heard about and who those prophecies might apply to. Only real spoiler being some names of people who are still alive in later books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on February 23, 2014, 01:37:36 PM
Only some speculation about Prophecies you probably haven't heard about and who those prophecies might apply to. Only real spoiler being some names of people who are still alive in later books.

I think that counts as spoiler.  :why_so_serious:


(Seriously: Dankeschön!)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 24, 2014, 03:09:09 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on February 24, 2014, 06:09:02 AM


[/quote]



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on February 24, 2014, 08:53:43 AM
Yeah, Martin hasn't been subtle or tricky with any of his prophecies. He's left it up to the characters to misinterpret given the information they have at hand but laid it all out pretty clearly for the reader.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on February 24, 2014, 05:03:20 PM




Eldaec is referring to the other prophesy. If both tie together then sure they rule out other alternatives, but if not, then not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on February 25, 2014, 05:15:51 AM
I've seen people argue both, but agree that the savage giant in the snow castle is more likely.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on April 07, 2014, 08:43:58 AM
Its back...and a nice slow burn to start...oh and with a little random Hound violence to finish it up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 07, 2014, 09:08:23 AM
Hound and Arya stuff was hilarious. I vote that they scrap Martin's plot altogether and just keep that one developing as they see fit, because it's tone-perfect.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 07, 2014, 01:37:28 PM
You forgot the best one:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 07, 2014, 01:37:56 PM
Good episode, shame they are no longer releasing it on iTunes where I was happy to hand over cash.

So instead I got to watch it earlier at a faster download speed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on April 07, 2014, 01:46:26 PM
Is there a legal way to watch this without having HBO?  I don't feel like waiting a year for the Blu-ray to come out this time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 07, 2014, 02:07:37 PM
Is there a legal way to watch this without having HBO?  I don't feel like waiting a year for the Blu-ray to come out this time.
No.  Even the seasons that have come out on DVD are not available for legal streaming outside of HBO Go (which requires a cable subscription).

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 07, 2014, 02:11:26 PM
Is there a legal way to watch this without having HBO?  I don't feel like waiting a year for the Blu-ray to come out this time.
Make friends with someone with HBO and on demand access.  I have a dozen friends that come over and watch 10 episode marathons at my place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on April 07, 2014, 03:31:41 PM
Hound and Arya stuff was hilarious. I vote that they scrap Martin's plot altogether and just keep that one developing as they see fit, because it's tone-perfect.


Yup, they need some type of Arya-and-the-Hound spinoff series.  Where they wander around Westeros murdering people.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 07, 2014, 04:03:08 PM
Arya and the Hound, or Tyrion and Bronn, hell i would settle for Jamie and Brienne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 07, 2014, 10:20:54 PM
I thought it was fairly slow for an opener, but no complaints.  The Arya/Hound stuff was great as always.  I am still chuckling to myself over the "cunts" lines.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 08, 2014, 07:54:13 AM
Do we know what the Cersei part regarding the 'symptoms' and her references to 'you are too late' were about?  Did she screw anyone (as in, literally) lately?

Jamie doing frustrated metal-hand-wave to the non-Maester Qyburn me chuckle.  :heart:

Overall as other said typical opener episode, much setting up, slow place. If I had one complaint it was they could be a bit more subtle in times:

At the Tyrion welcoming ceremony I thought the second it started: "Oh...they didn't put him on a horse so he has to look up!" and then "Tyrion just said that new foreign guy is a badass. Now we will see a scene showing how badass he is!"  :roll:


All in all this show is really enjoyable when watched with a friend. Always turns into a game of "Who you'd like to sleep with?"  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 08, 2014, 08:54:51 AM
Do we know what the Cersei part regarding the 'symptoms' and her references to 'you are too late' were about?  Did she screw anyone (as in, literally) lately?

Pretty much anyone that would... they dealt with her infidelities a lot in the 4th book and how that affected her relationship with Jamie. I don't remember mention of a pregnancy, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 08, 2014, 01:27:23 PM
I suspected Lancel walking in on them any moment to make it clear for Jaime what she meant.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 08, 2014, 11:35:58 PM
I don't think there is any pregnancy involved.  Also, they played it up a little, but Cersei really, really, REALLY is not okay with Jaime's losing a hand.  As in, game over.  On the same token, Jaime is supposed to be far more devastated by it as well.  It is no small thing that the best swordsman in Westeros has lost his main sword hand.  He is a poor shadow of himself with his off-hand.

At least, this is how it is in my own head.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 09, 2014, 12:55:26 AM
I thought that was a really good episode. Lots of adaptation going on, the only scenes I remember as consistent with the book were Arya's and Jon's. Enjoyed the reasonably subtle references to what happens next.

Only misstep was reintroducing Dontos like that. I understand why they did it, but it came across like he was only there because they had realised at the last minute that they had no other way to deliver the plot device. The exchange in the godswood felt unearned.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 09, 2014, 06:47:29 AM
Dontos was already introduced, they even showed it again on the previously on section.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 09, 2014, 07:32:53 AM
Yes, but it was a long time ago, a one time thing, and they gave his lines since that to someone else. Presumably because they forgot they needed dontos to obscure the actions of another player.

Wasn't a big deal, but that scene felt awkward. Possibly just because by now I'd assumed he had been written out.

Under the circumstances, I think I'd have had Shae take the Dontos part.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 07:40:11 AM
I too found that a little ' :uhrr:'

In addition, the recasting of the Dragon Woman Shagger was awful.  It threw me out every time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 09, 2014, 08:11:46 AM
I too found that a little ' :uhrr:'

In addition, the recasting of the Dragon Woman Shagger was awful.  It threw me out every time.

It was not just a recasting.  The character's demeanor changed as well, less swagger.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 08:39:00 AM
It was awful.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 09, 2014, 08:44:44 AM
FUCK, that dude was a recast? I was like "What happened to this character?" Goddamnit. The first guy was good.

Anyway, episode sucked given how the last season ended.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on April 09, 2014, 08:54:02 AM
The new Daario is a serious downgrade, no doubt about it.   Upon checking, seems like the old-Daario (Skrein) got noticed and pulled the lead role in the next Transporter.  Kudos to him, he was pretty awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on April 09, 2014, 08:54:59 AM
Is there a legal way to watch this without having HBO?  I don't feel like waiting a year for the Blu-ray to come out this time.

HBO CEO has publicly announced that he doesn't care that people share logins.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 09:47:25 AM
HBO really is the best, eh ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 09, 2014, 09:52:21 AM
It'd be the best if they had some sort of deal to get access to the streaming on its own without needing a full cable package.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 09, 2014, 09:55:11 AM
6.6M viewers for the premiere. That is fucking staggering.

When is Showtime going to option Wheel of Time? It was the other 'big' fantasy series of the past 20 years, wasn't it? It would be well served by the medium, IMO- so much time wasted describing clothing, accents, peccadillos, etc- stuff that TV shows you in the background while other shit is going on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 09, 2014, 10:12:47 AM
WoT would work better as a movie series than a TV series. About 6 movies could handle it nicely, but a TV series of 120 hours would end up dragging into the annoying repetitive stuff that drove me away from the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 09, 2014, 10:13:59 AM
It was, and they wouldn't even if they could.  Not enough fodder for tits, blood and fucking which -let's face it- is the biggest draw of GoT, in addition to the "oh no, they didn't!" shake-em up of common tropes.

The series WOT was aimed at young adults/ juveniles and totally feels like that when you read it.  Plus it's 15 damn books long. Even cutting out a ton of the stupid side shit you're in for a long ass series run. Good luck with that!

Plus, I'm pretty sure they can't.  It's in production as a movie at the moment. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1277941/
Meaning that even if the project flops, it'll probably be tied-up in development hell until those rights expire. I don't mark Jordan or his wife as having been savvy enough to specify production rights were granted exclusively for a movie, letting them option TV separately.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 09, 2014, 11:17:38 AM
I am just interested in seeing how many death threats whoever is cast as Nynaeve gets  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on April 09, 2014, 11:52:17 AM
WoT would work better as a movie series than a TV series. About 6 movies could handle it nicely, but a TV series of 120 hours would end up dragging into the annoying repetitive stuff that drove me away from the books.

A WoT series should really end with book 4 when Rand fights Moradin (?).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 09, 2014, 12:50:38 PM
.....I assume you mean book 3, where he fought Ishamael.  Who became Moradin.  Who he fought at the end.   :awesome_for_real:

And no, I believe the story would work best up through book six.  Then you could pretty much cut over to the Sanderson stuff and miss almost nothing important at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 01:21:50 PM
I am just interested in seeing how many death threats whoever is cast as Nynaeve gets  :drill:

Who's that ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 09, 2014, 01:56:22 PM
It'd be the best if they had some sort of deal to get access to the streaming on its own without needing a full cable package.

I think they know that's the future, and probably will sometime in the next 5-10 years, but right now I am sure they are paid WAY too much in their cable deals to take that leap.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 09, 2014, 03:07:57 PM
I am just interested in seeing how many death threats whoever is cast as Nynaeve gets  :drill:

Who's that ?

WoT character. She has all the charm and grace of a rabid pitbull suffering from extreme lack of self confidence and an especially itchy case of mange. And a small cock.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 09, 2014, 03:08:24 PM
It'd be the best if they had some sort of deal to get access to the streaming on its own without needing a full cable package.

I think they know that's the future, and probably will sometime in the next 5-10 years, but right now I am sure they are paid WAY too much in their cable deals to take that leap.
Stretch that time frame out.  Once Comcast/ TW merge they have no incentive to let anyone get streaming access to individual channels  that they own (HBO is a Time Warner subsidiary) and more incentive to force people to pay for cable bundles to access the channel content.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 09, 2014, 03:10:43 PM
I wish fucking Comcast would allow me to watch HBO Go on my goddamned TiVo OR my goddamned Samsung Smart TV. Other service providers do, but they keep handwaving it away due to bullshit technical problems. I can do it through my 360, but that is in my family room, not my bedroom gdi.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 09, 2014, 03:58:07 PM
WoT would be fucking terrible as any kind of visual adaptation. Unless they pretended most of it was never written.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 09, 2014, 04:14:12 PM
I wish fucking Comcast would allow me to watch HBO Go on my goddamned TiVo OR my goddamned Samsung Smart TV. Other service providers do, but they keep handwaving it away due to bullshit technical problems. I can do it through my 360, but that is in my family room, not my bedroom gdi.

"We'd have to give them a cut of the take or hire additional programmers to make our backend talk to their OS. We're not going to be doing doing that."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 09, 2014, 04:56:32 PM
Comcast can't even tie all their fucking cable outlets into one workable customer service database or write decent fucking DVR software.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 09, 2014, 10:00:48 PM
Shorten WoT significantly by cutting out the tons of needless crap, and make it more "adult" and it could be good.  There is a core of a good story in there, somewhere. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 10, 2014, 01:53:42 AM
Probably been posted before - I don't care:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaD8rouJn0#t=289

:D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 10, 2014, 04:38:48 AM
Hadn't seen it.  Was worth a few laughs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on April 10, 2014, 12:17:11 PM
Hadn't seen it.  Was worth a few laughs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Krz-dyD-UQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Krz-dyD-UQ)  :awesome_for_real:

Also might have been posted but I'm too lazy to go back through 70+ pages.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 10, 2014, 12:37:01 PM
LOLed at "Lord Friendzone."  So apt.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 11, 2014, 03:33:23 AM
Hadn't seen it.  Was worth a few laughs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Krz-dyD-UQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Krz-dyD-UQ)  :awesome_for_real:

Also might have been posted but I'm too lazy to go back through 70+ pages.

That is now exactly the second BLR video I have seen, and both made me cry with laughter.  I don't dare explore further to see what else they have, for feel that I will never find my way out again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoppala on April 13, 2014, 06:57:25 AM
(http://cdn.memeslanding.com/2013/4/6/memeslanding.com_156_1366567201.jpg)

King of the Friendszone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on April 13, 2014, 07:01:05 PM
Oh. My Gosh.

Finally.  :evil:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 13, 2014, 07:09:05 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on April 13, 2014, 07:40:11 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 13, 2014, 08:41:16 PM
And so the meandering shall begin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 13, 2014, 09:27:10 PM
To my mind it's the second last great thing that comes out of the books



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 13, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
But... but... how can you kill the hero of the show?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 14, 2014, 12:05:49 AM
I think you mean actor - he went out there and nailed the role perfectly - possibly more so than JRRM would have imagined possible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Daztur on April 14, 2014, 06:10:43 AM
WoT would be fucking terrible as any kind of visual adaptation. Unless they pretended most of it was never written.


Exactly. Then you'd still have enough to make an OK adaptation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2014, 06:11:51 AM
You can't really make WoT or any other "heavy magic" fantasy for TV and not have it be shit, even if the overall story is decent.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on April 14, 2014, 08:40:55 AM
My favorite fantasy series when it comes to possible tv adaptions would probably be Robin Hobb's farseer trilogy (and the rest of the books in the elderlings realm).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 14, 2014, 08:50:58 AM
I think we're almost ready for a Covenant movie/series.

Except for the fact that No-one has a fucking clue what leprosy actually IS anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 14, 2014, 08:59:16 AM
I think we're almost ready for a Covenant movie/series.

Except for the fact that No-one has a fucking clue what leprosy actually IS anymore.


They can just double down on the rape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_urvjCXg6c


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 14, 2014, 10:06:53 AM
I think we're almost ready for a Covenant movie/series.

Except for the fact that No-one has a fucking clue what leprosy actually IS anymore.


We're never going to be ready because of the rape.  If anything we're further away because of that one scene, which is so pivotal to the character you can't leave it out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 14, 2014, 12:46:04 PM
I don't agree that it couldn't be done.  Look what almost happened to Brienne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 14, 2014, 12:59:24 PM
Almost, and we wouldn't have been expected to think of the rapist as the hero of the story afterwards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 14, 2014, 01:27:06 PM
I dunno, I wouldn't put it past GRRM to try and make a likeable viewpoint character out of a rapist at some point. Heck, we're all rooting at this point in the show for the sister-fucker who tried to murder a little boy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 14, 2014, 01:46:34 PM
Almost, and we wouldn't have been expected to think of the rapist as the hero of the story afterwards.

Heh.  The hero.  What version did you read ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 14, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
Almost, and we wouldn't have been expected to think of the rapist as the hero of the story afterwards.

Heh.  The hero.  What version did you read ?

And therin lies the other problem.  People need a protagonist to get behind, or at least that's what anyone in Hollywood willing to put the cash behind it will say.  And then the script editing process will make the film look like the Will Smith I, Robot movie look like a faithful translation of Asimov by comparison.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2014, 06:20:15 PM
Apparently the musicians Joffrey threw out were Sigur Ros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 14, 2014, 09:01:50 PM
Apparently the musicians Joffrey threw out were Sigur Ros.

Yep. You can find their version of The Rains of Castamere here on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3QW8PVyyNM).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2014, 01:04:14 AM
Almost, and we wouldn't have been expected to think of the rapist as the hero of the story afterwards.

Heh.  The hero.  What version did you read ?

And therin lies the other problem.  People need a protagonist to get behind, or at least that's what anyone in Hollywood willing to put the cash behind it will say.  And then the script editing process will make the film look like the Will Smith I, Robot movie look like a faithful translation of Asimov by comparison.

Ach, you're both probably right.  I just think that we have the tech and the writers and there are SOOoooo many good things being put on screens right now that it's doable, if not wise.  (Also, the heroes were Foamfollower and Mhoram.  I'm always surprised at people who don't get that.  The story wasn't about Covenant, after all.  Not really.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 15, 2014, 02:50:13 AM
Covenant was the anti-hero in the first book.  He did do rape rape but also defeated Lord Foul.  Mhoram rocked, by far my favorite character of the series.

I'm surprised Joffrey didn't have the singers crucified.  It was a (intentional?) pretty horrible version of the song.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2014, 03:06:54 AM
Accidental hero at best.  He didn't DO anything.


Oh and as for Game of Thrones, we've seen it in the UK now and, frankly, I found it all rather slow and plodding.  The wedding was slightly too ridiculous to get tense about, so when it all kicked off it was like 'oh, ok'.

Sophie Turner tho.  Damn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tmon on April 15, 2014, 08:14:18 AM
Oh. My Gosh.

Finally.  :evil:

And there was much rejoicing.  My wife actually cheered and she hasn't really watched since season 1.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 15, 2014, 08:33:52 AM
Apparently the musicians Joffrey threw out were Sigur Ros.

I tried playing their one song on Rocksmith - those are some weird motherfuckers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on April 15, 2014, 08:45:04 AM
They're from Iceland, what do you expect?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 15, 2014, 10:34:21 AM
Oh and as for Game of Thrones, we've seen it in the UK now and, frankly, I found it all rather slow and plodding.  The wedding was slightly too ridiculous to get tense about, so when it all kicked off it was like 'oh, ok'.

Yeah this entirely. It was kind of disappointing that someone like Tyrion, Arya or Sansa didn't actually get to jam a pointy thing into him.

Still, looked kinda painful, which was a plus.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 15, 2014, 10:39:57 AM
Oh and as for Game of Thrones, we've seen it in the UK now and, frankly, I found it all rather slow and plodding.  The wedding was slightly too ridiculous to get tense about, so when it all kicked off it was like 'oh, ok'.
Yeah this entirely. It was kind of disappointing that someone like Tyrion, Arya or Sansa didn't actually get to jam a pointy thing into him.

Still, looked kinda painful, which was a plus.
Props to Jack Gleeson.  He did a great job adding a nice mix of things to create a horrible human being on screen that was ridiculous in all the right ways. 

You don't need blood to die painfully...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2014, 10:59:55 AM
It was a pretty big let-down for the death of a horrible character, especially after the brutality of the Red Wedding.  More interesting consequences are going to result from it than had someone gotten mad and lopped his head off, but Joffrey was someone most wanted to die spectacularly.  Possibly because we wanted to imagine ourselves in the killer's place stabbing that little shit over and over...

I'm not sure any death will carry much weight after the Red Wedding though.  That whole scene was an OMGWTF moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 15, 2014, 11:03:34 AM
Well, it's kind of how it happened in the book.  So, I'm not surprised that's how they had it go down.

It allows for a lot more intrigue than the Hound riding up and lopping his head off.  A lot of pieces move due to this.  Plus, more death.. yay.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on April 15, 2014, 11:17:44 AM
I thought it was a perfect counterpoint to the Red Wedding.  The Starks died in a massacre while Joffrey died alone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 15, 2014, 11:36:31 AM
Joffrey was acting like a little spoiled bitch, and he died like a little spoiled bitch.  It was exactly the anonymous, ignoble death he deserved.  No glory for him who never earned any.

Fucking well played by the actor though.  That kid has chops, though I'm afraid everyone is going to hate him for the rest of his career.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 15, 2014, 11:49:11 AM
Well, it's kind of how it happened in the book.  So, I'm not surprised that's how they had it go down.

It allows for a lot more intrigue than the Hound riding up and lopping his head off.  A lot of pieces move due to this.  Plus, more death.. yay.

Yeah, when you see a half dozen characters all just glaring at Joffrey through the last 10 minutes or so of the episode who clearly would enjoy seeing him dead and then he gets poisoned, it's a total Who Shot Mr. Burns (J.R. was slightly before my time) moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on April 15, 2014, 12:29:34 PM
I just want to echo the thoughts regarding Joffrey; glad he's dead and the actor should be fairly proud of his work. He was the perfect psychotic, spoiled shit of a person. Not having read the books I was surprised at the death, albeit only in the how... I was half expecting someone to put a crossbow bolt into the bastard given how much he fondled the crossbow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on April 15, 2014, 12:42:42 PM
Quote
That kid has chops, though I'm afraid everyone is going to hate him for the rest of his career.

If you take him at his word, we all just watched the end of his career (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/king-joffrey-jack-gleeson-retires-from-acting-after-game-of-thrones-season-4-9258777.html).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 15, 2014, 12:48:02 PM
Quote
That kid has chops, though I'm afraid everyone is going to hate him for the rest of his career.
If you take him at his word, we all just watched the end of his career (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/king-joffrey-jack-gleeson-retires-from-acting-after-game-of-thrones-season-4-9258777.html).
Don't buy it.  He shows up every 40 years or so as some young character and then retires almost immediately so that we do not realize he is a vampire.

http://jackmblogs.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/whatever-happened-to-nellie-oleson-from-little-house-on-the-prairie-played-by-alison-arngrim/ (http://jackmblogs.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/whatever-happened-to-nellie-oleson-from-little-house-on-the-prairie-played-by-alison-arngrim/)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 15, 2014, 12:55:52 PM
I enjoyed it a lot for the performances. Tyrion obviously, but Jamie, all the Tyrells, Joffery, pretty much everyone actually.

As a filthy book reader, I'm interested to know how obvious it is to TV-only people whodunnit? In the books this was a way to make the reader feel smart, and a shock to make you start thinking about the consequences, not an actual mystery. On TV I can't decide if it is only obvious if you know the answer.

Dontos's intervention was ridiculous once again. And nothing in the TV show explains why...

Elsewhere I was a big fan of the Bolton family reunion scene, that relationship never really made sense to me the books. OTOH  the Stannis stuff was dull and didn't seem to cover any new ground, also given they did the 'OMFG TO THE WALL!' plot point at the end of last season I don't really understand why they are still fucking around burning people on Dragonstone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 15, 2014, 01:19:38 PM
Dontos's intervention was ridiculous once again. And nothing in the TV show explains why...

She didn't. He was Joffrey's jester and he was even shown being pelted with fruit during the wedding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 15, 2014, 02:15:28 PM
I wasn't referring to Dontos in the spoiler.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on April 15, 2014, 02:30:23 PM
As a filthy book reader, I'm interested to know how obvious it is to TV-only people whodunnit? In the books this was a way to make the reader feel smart, and a shock to make you start thinking about the consequences, not an actual mystery. On TV I can't decide if it is only obvious if you know the answer.

I'll try to remember to let you know if I am right.  After a few minutes, it seems obvious, and I'm not one that reads things into TV shows.  Walking Dead rabbit snare?  Didn't see it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 15, 2014, 02:33:41 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 15, 2014, 02:52:10 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 15, 2014, 03:14:33 PM
The exact mechanics of how the deed was done ultimately aren't that integral to the plot -- they might just leave that bit of exposition out.  Given the players involved it's not at all a stretch that they'd have come up with some clever way to accomplish their goal even if the particular cleverness isn't spelled out for the audience.  It's certainly cool to see and it's a nice bit of foreshadowing in the books but it's not critical to anything else.

Basically later on when so-and-so says "surprise, it was me," the audience isn't going to say "wait, I demand you stop everything and explain how you did it."  By that point it's irrelevant anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2014, 03:25:34 PM
Quote
That kid has chops, though I'm afraid everyone is going to hate him for the rest of his career.

If you take him at his word, we all just watched the end of his career (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/king-joffrey-jack-gleeson-retires-from-acting-after-game-of-thrones-season-4-9258777.html).

Good for him.  I wish I'd known what I didn't want to do at his age.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 15, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Oh. My Gosh.

Finally.  :evil:

And there was much rejoicing.  My wife actually cheered and she hasn't really watched since season 1.

I thought it was a mood killer. And that's with knowing what's going to happen. (Spoilerd myself by chance beforehand)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 15, 2014, 05:36:33 PM
My personal prediction for the Game of Throne story will be it's going to do a Battlestar Galactia Season 4.

aka, "What the fuck? I think I stop caring"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 15, 2014, 06:36:54 PM
I remember when the book came out there was a certain amount of debate over what exactly had actually happened (whodunit and how). The TV show doesn't even really make it ambiguous, save for whatever happens next with
The showrunners have been honest about how they think after this season they'll have to leave the books as a strict guide--that there is just nothing to really hang most of the show on visually and narratively.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on April 15, 2014, 07:01:20 PM
I feel like I should just say that I enjoyed the shout-outs about the name of the sword. I recognized Moorecock and Wolf, not sure if there were others. Is that in the book?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 15, 2014, 07:21:30 PM
I remember when the book came out there was a certain amount of debate over what exactly had actually happened (whodunit and how). The TV show doesn't even really make it ambiguous, save for whatever happens next with
The showrunners have been honest about how they think after this season they'll have to leave the books as a strict guide--that there is just nothing to really hang most of the show on visually and narratively.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 16, 2014, 12:17:40 AM
I didn't hate book 4 and 5 as much as most, but I don't think it would be impossible to go ahead and compress them into 10 hours combined, or to rework them over 2 seasons without much outright deviation.

Shit at the wall is filmable, the journey to the citadel is filmable, King's Landing and Winterfell are basically fine even if it could use a grown up editor in a few sections. Dorne needs better pacing but is a perfectly salvageable. You could film as much or as little Braavos as you liked and it would get lapped up.

The riverlands stories and the trip on the Essos river could stand to be substantially abridged without needing to seriously change the plot. But if season 3 and the opener for season 4  told me anything, it was  that these guys are pretty good at shooting character based 'walking about' scenes.

The only  real headaches I see are the iron islands and finding a decent set piece for season 5 episode 9.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 16, 2014, 06:33:25 AM

I'm just assuming that any reinforcement done by others to make sure it happened was done off screen. Putting an actual scene in the show would have been hitting non-book readers over the head with "HEY LOOK, THIS PLOT DEVICE IS SUPER IMPORTANT", which I'm glad they avoided doing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 16, 2014, 08:01:05 AM
I remember when the book came out there was a certain amount of debate over what exactly had actually happened (whodunit and how). The TV show doesn't even really make it ambiguous, save for whatever happens next with
The showrunners have been honest about how they think after this season they'll have to leave the books as a strict guide--that there is just nothing to really hang most of the show on visually and narratively.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 16, 2014, 08:14:34 AM

I'm just assuming that any reinforcement done by others to make sure it happened was done off screen. Putting an actual scene in the show would have been hitting non-book readers over the head with "HEY LOOK, THIS PLOT DEVICE IS SUPER IMPORTANT", which I'm glad they avoided doing.

I'd agree with that but would have preferred it if Dontos was simply not involved if they can't fit the whole plotline in.

Would have been better if Sansa just disappeared until they want to explain properly where she has gone.

In general I'd like the TV show to be more willing to leave stuff up in the air if they can't do it justice on screen and it isn't completely necessary to spell it out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 16, 2014, 08:39:19 AM
Another thing I thought of from the last episode.  Prince Oberyn or whatever, from Dorne.  That guy was awesome and hilarious.  I like the liberty they took. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 16, 2014, 10:46:15 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2014, 06:35:43 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 16, 2014, 07:17:38 PM

So boring the only thing I remember is Ayra is going blind and than not being blind. Or something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 16, 2014, 09:52:38 PM

So boring the only thing I remember is Ayra is going blind and than not being blind. Or something.
Because Cat's second-person-passive narrative voice is a really crappy artsy-fartsy literary device that GRRM probably pulled just to see if his publishers would let him.  As long as they don't copy the stupidity by having Arya describe those events rather than just shooting them, they'll work fine on the screen.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 16, 2014, 10:51:52 PM

I remember many times reading through these books, and maybe even more so in the last couple, where I thought to myself that Martin got lazy and skipped over the action scenes.  This included some of what was happening with Dany, some stuff with Jaime, and probably some stuff around the Wall.  He seems to dislike describing the actual battles and fight scenes, which is odd because I never got the impression that he was bad at it.  Maybe these books aren't supposed to be all about that sort of thing, but that doesn't mean he couldn't spice them up a little more.  And it certainly means that there are opportunities for the TV writers to make things more lively.  Much of the shit surrounding Dany and the Wall could be made fairly epic if they choose to condense it an liven it up.  They can do the same with Arya, too.

Oh, and nobody has said anything on the subject recently:  I love all the byplay with Ramsay and Reek, and now with daddy Bolton in the mix as well.  They guy playing Ramsay is so good at his job that I bet people give him a wide berth at the grocery store.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 17, 2014, 04:03:01 AM
He's certainly ready to be the next person everyone agrees to hate. That whole plotline is a test of whether the producers can handle not just departing from the books, but going beyond what's been published so far--both that plot and Dany's plot will be up to Dance with Dragons more or less by the end of this season, maybe almost to the end of it, unless they plan


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 17, 2014, 04:48:43 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 17, 2014, 06:38:36 AM
They won't have much trouble slowing Dany down to get her back in alignment with Kings Landing and the Wall by the end of the season. There is a fair amount to get through in other locations. Plus Theon's PoV is extra material. They could also add some extra Davos PoV content.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 18, 2014, 11:29:22 PM
I just got caught up on this. I actually was impressed with how well the Joffrey wedding feast stuff came together. It fit pretty well with the tone of the book event.

One thing that I really think they fucked up was using Bronn instead of Illyn Payne for the "silent swordsman" thing. It isn't like Payne hasn't already been in the show either. :headscratch:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 18, 2014, 11:38:50 PM
I just got caught up on this. I actually was impressed with how well the Joffrey wedding feast stuff came together. It fit pretty well with the tone of the book event.

One thing that I really think they fucked up was using Bronn instead of Illyn Payne for the "silent swordsman" thing. It isn't like Payne hasn't already been in the show either. :headscratch:
$ Blz ya'll.

It is cheaper to use Bronn, a regular, than to bring in Payne... and it works just about as well.  Plus, Bronn has a certain appeal to the audience so they've got to be looking for ways to show more of him.
See below.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on April 18, 2014, 11:57:10 PM
Payne's actor has terminal cancer and is doing his preferred music stuff in his remaining time (and I guess they decided it would be tacky to recast him).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 19, 2014, 12:03:08 AM
Payne's actor has terminal cancer and is doing his preferred music stuff in his remaining time (and I guess they decided it would be tacky to recast him).
Didn't know.  Sad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 19, 2014, 12:18:37 AM
Yeah, he just released an album with Roger Daltrey if I'm not mistaken. Lucky to actually live long enough to see it released since I think his initial prognosis didn't give him this long. Under the circumstances I thought it was a good idea to use a Bronn instead since I seem to recall him just kinda fading out of the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 19, 2014, 01:33:22 AM
Didn't know the real reason, but it occured to me that Bronn would probably be better than Payne for the feast riverlands story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 19, 2014, 06:05:15 AM
Ahh that makes some sense. It is just that Bronn is the least likely to keep his mouth shut of just about anyone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 19, 2014, 06:16:24 AM
Pancreatic cancer at that.  Fuck that shit. :x

Bronn is a good choice because it means they can do banter and he does nothing of note in the forth and fifth books.  As for plot reasons, Bronn would only talk for gold, where Tyrion and Jaimie will pay the best gold.  Once Jaimie can use a sword again it won't matter anyways, so I think they're more worried about someone who won't go gossiping down at the tavern than him being paid off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 19, 2014, 06:50:03 AM
I like the TV version of Bronn, so by all means use him as the stand-in for people that need to otherwise be cut out.  I had all but forgot about Payne until this thread brought it up, so it works.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 19, 2014, 06:59:03 AM
Yeah, great change.  I was going to really miss Bronn otherwise.  He could easily take the role of Steelshanks during Jamies riverland adventures.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 19, 2014, 03:17:42 PM
Bronn in the show has been less of a blatant opportunist than Bronn in the book, showing a subtext of actual respect and (for a sellsword) loyalty to Tyrion.  And having Bronn instead of Payne does allow them to show rather than tell, since much of the purpose of those scenes is Jaime trying to reconcile his internal conflicts which is hard to do on the screen without an actual dialogue.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 19, 2014, 07:07:04 PM
The loyalty is going to be thrown out the window soon enough unless they decided to totally write a certain someone out of the next important bit of the Tyrion storyline.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 20, 2014, 09:07:19 AM
That had nothing to do with loyalty, the guy is just not stupid. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 20, 2014, 01:11:56 PM
Have to agree. His loyalty is that of a employee and a friend, not a vassal. He does a couple of things later on that emphasise it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 21, 2014, 12:26:18 PM
They really botched that Cersei-Jaime scene.  That makes the further actions with Jaime far less sympathetic and makes Cersei more so.  Ohh well.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 21, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
The director said in an interview that it was intended to be seen as consensual by the end of it.  If that was the case he failed miserably as a director because it looks like rape the whole way through.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 21, 2014, 02:24:04 PM
That had nothing to do with loyalty, the guy is just not stupid. 

As a sellsword there comes a time when there is nothing more you can do and you just need to move along.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 21, 2014, 02:25:09 PM
The director said in an interview that it was intended to be seen as consensual by the end of it.  If that was the case he failed miserably as a director because it looks like rape the whole way through.

Yes I thought I recalled from the book it was a mutal if sick thing but as shown it was about as rapey as you can get the entire way through.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 21, 2014, 03:24:09 PM
...and the rest of the episode was pretty lacklustre.

The stuff at the wall was good, they seem to be doing a better job of establishing Jon's development than the book did.

Also, Carcetti's accent appears to have become even more Irish. I think it was an improvement.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 21, 2014, 03:51:05 PM
The actor is Irish (at least by birth), so he can probably do that accent credibly  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 21, 2014, 05:24:55 PM
They definitely went full-rapey on that scene rather than mutual sick. It has an interesting impact on both characters. Cersei will probably look more like a victim when the time comes and Jaime's rehabilitation into complexity and sympathy just went completely south.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 21, 2014, 05:40:29 PM
...and the rest of the episode was pretty lacklustre.

The stuff at the wall was good, they seem to be doing a better job of establishing Jon's development than the book did.

Also, Carcetti's accent appears to have become even more Irish. I think it was an improvement.

I think that they were trying to tell us that everything we've seen of Littlefinger up to now has been pretense, and now that he's won his game and is claiming the prize his courtly accent slips along with the mask of normality.  *This* gloating sociopath is the real person.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 21, 2014, 06:59:53 PM
They really botched that Cersei-Jaime scene.  That makes the further actions with Jaime far less sympathetic and makes Cersei more so.  Ohh well.  :oh_i_see:

Yeah wanted to punch my computer. I have a feeling Cersei is going to be toned down once her time to shine is shown in full detail. Why are they uncomfortable showing how much of a crazy cunt she is is beyond me. And Jaime raping Cersei is sooo not what happened that I just think the writers went into full retard mode. I mean Jaime is above that shit even if he isn't against sister fucking and child murder.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 21, 2014, 07:04:49 PM
It's been a while but that was really a very mediocre episode in what has long been a well-developed interpretation of the books. All it needed was Bran doing more boring shit to flesh it out and it would have been utter crap. The writers need to go back and look at what made the rest of the series set the bar as apart from Tywin's lecture on what makes a good king the rest was pretty sub-par. Jamie's character took a step backwards in a Walking Dead kind of way (aka shit writing/change in direction).

It almost feels like they are about to lose their way - not surprising, the last 2 books were utter meandering rubbish especially as GRRM seems to have painted himself into a corner that he can't see his way clear of. Arya/Clegane need to go their separate ways (and I was really enjoying their storyline), Dany's story - bored the shit out of me in the books at this point in time (Andrea from WD anyone?) and needs a massive streamline because the writing's on the wall for her to become tedious if the books are followed... nah, I'll shut up, just a rant because this episode to me was just - disappointing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 21, 2014, 07:39:54 PM
Btw the spoiler is how the actual scene is written in the book.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 22, 2014, 12:30:08 AM
They definitely went full-rapey on that scene rather than mutual sick. It has an interesting impact on both characters. Cersei will probably look more like a victim when the time comes and Jaime's rehabilitation into complexity and sympathy just went completely south.


I agree the scene was just bad. But they'll recover.

Jamie has a good opportunities to get back on track with Brienne and presumably Bronn,  plus most people are so desperate to see Cersei as a panto villain that I imagine they'll just pander to that with her.

Intrigued to see how they'll handle the Jamie/Tyrion stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 22, 2014, 01:16:26 AM
I actually think it probably has more to do with the Irish Film that Littlefinger has done in between scenes.   :why_so_serious:

It was very, very, very jarring.  If it was meant, fair enough.

Also, I haven't read the books and if that scene was meant to be consensual then, er, it kinda failed badly.  I mean, I get that she could have put a stop to it, but it also came across really, really, really rapey.


(But we can't do rape scenes in fantasy shows.  lol.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 22, 2014, 01:46:14 AM
The context in the books is pretty different from the show. In the book Jamie isn't at the wedding and returns from captivity to be greeted Joffrey's corpse; in the show's he's already been kicking his heels around King's landing for a few weeks and months. So in the books Cersei is painted as completely lost and broken, and Jamie's return offers her some sense of stability and security. The show... well they just got the tone all wrong.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 22, 2014, 02:13:37 AM
They really botched that Cersei-Jaime scene.  That makes the further actions with Jaime far less sympathetic and makes Cersei more so.  Ohh well.  :oh_i_see:

The more I think about it, the more I'm kinda ok with that. Jamie shouldn't really be that sympathetic. Popular villains "redeeming" themselves and becoming anti-heroes can be a bit of an annoying and overused trope sometimes (Venom, Magneto, Sabretooth and a ton of other Marvel characters, Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc...) and is rarely done in a convincing manner. GoT has two characters that sort of fit that mold in Jamie and the Hound, one of whom attempted to murder a child and the other who actually did. In the real world I'm pretty sure none of us would root for child killers regardless of how humorously they use the word "cunt". This last episode reminded us with both of them that regardless of what good things they might go on to do, neither of these characters are people you would actually want to be around. They aren't good people, and they aren't just going to transform overnight.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 22, 2014, 02:40:55 AM
Trouble is, the hound was right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 22, 2014, 03:22:41 AM
I think there is a difference between child murder and child rapist and murder. I mean Jaime was never a "good guy" in a opinion just honest and implosive. If he wasn't a lannister his natural swordsmanship would have granted him some leverage but he'd probably be dead by now. To say Jaime was never a good guy and hence unlikable is really bullshit considering the book your reading turns a 11 year old girl into a murdering sociopath, who we also root for because at least she does it for honor  :awesome_for_real: or coin  :oh_i_see: or cause she wanna  :why_so_serious:. Jaime has many lows, but to say he has "that" low is rather insulting to the character and what's left of the complexity of every character.

Some are straight up fucked up in the head and are merely protected by status and being on the right side of conflicts, The Mountain, Bastard, The Goat, Joffery, etc. Some are bad people in a bad world they help create, a lot of the Lords like Bolton, Tywin, Frey, are in that category. Some are bad people cause bad is either than being a target, Bronn, The Hound, etc. And the list kinda goes on. Everyone on that list has standards of evil that defines how far their willing to go and how much they give a fuck.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 22, 2014, 05:34:32 AM
(But we can't do rape scenes in fantasy shows.  lol.)

If anything this sort of proves that thesis.  Even Martin himself is trying REALLY HARD to distance himself from it, because it's gone over worse than a lead balloon at a children's party.
http://grrm.livejournal.com/367116.html?thread=19030284#t19030284

And these are characters that we're supposed to hate and only partially empathize with Jamie as he changes. Folks who had a previous sexual relationship.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 22, 2014, 05:50:47 AM
My Lol should have been bigger.  Clearly.   :why_so_serious:

I find it fascinating that he's going having to do this.

Why, sure, the murder, wholesale slaughter and incest are AOK, but jeeeez, that's not what THAT scene was intended to convey. 

(Again; Big Fat LOL in here.  Just so we're clear.  Let's not get serious about Sarah Connor.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 22, 2014, 06:40:13 AM
The problem isn't rape, they've had rapes before. The problem is showing something that  is clearly rape and acting like it wasn't. The director said it was consensual by the end, the show carried no rape warning. We were supposed to look at that scene and not see a rape, and that IS pretty fucked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 22, 2014, 07:01:42 AM
Yeah, as I said, if that was the intention, it was botched.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 22, 2014, 07:14:50 AM
The director said in an interview that it was intended to be seen as consensual by the end of it.  If that was the case he failed miserably as a director because it looks like rape the whole way through.

My wife saw it as consensual by the end, I didn't really, but I guess to be fair his presentation did get through to some people but it seems to have been way too subtle for most.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on April 22, 2014, 07:36:55 AM
There was nothing consensual there that I could see and I was expecting it to be consensual and as the scene played out I was looking for some evidence that they hadn't completely changed the intent of it. It's making me more sympathetic to some of the critiques about the treatment of women and nudity and so on. I can see how the scene might have been filmed and come out that way, but I can't imagine someone didn't review this and not think "Houston, we have a problem" unless they're complete idiots.

There's also an entire aspect of the scene with Jaime offering to throw away everything to be with Cersei that's totally absent. This, to me, is as much a reason for changes in his character as losing his hand. It's where he realizes that despite everything else, she's just not that into him, and he's basically just another pawn.

And yes, in storytelling rape is worse than murder or incest. Well, consensual incest I'm not sure anyone other than British tabloids and Waterstones cares about. Murder in the context of a fantasy novel is pretty minor. People die and they die a lot. Even the attempted murder of Bran is in context of someone acting against an enemy of their house, plus he doesn't actually die and it becomes part of his arc. Rape is different and even more so when it's a very personal rape of someone the character supposedly cares about. It's something you have an impersonal and utterly evil character do. Even for someone who's a villain, you don't have them rape someone if they're a POV character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on April 22, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
Even for someone who's a villain, you don't have them rape someone if they're a POV character.

What? Why not - I've seen it happen before, in a way that makes sense. Ken Follet's "The Pillars of the Earth," if you're interested.

Not defending the scene - seemed very rape-y to me. Just wanted to respond to this bit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on April 22, 2014, 09:35:57 AM
They really botched that Cersei-Jaime scene.  That makes the further actions with Jaime far less sympathetic and makes Cersei more so.  Ohh well.  :oh_i_see:

The more I think about it, the more I'm kinda ok with that. Jamie shouldn't really be that sympathetic. Popular villains "redeeming" themselves and becoming anti-heroes can be a bit of an annoying and overused trope sometimes (Venom, Magneto, Sabretooth and a ton of other Marvel characters, Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc...) and is rarely done in a convincing manner...

It's interesting that you mentioned Spike, because he was also part of a very controversial rape scene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Red_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)#Writing) that was intended to course-correct how he was being perceived by Buffy's audience. It did not go over well.

Yeah, I didn't care for this scene, either, it didn't feel right. I feel they botched the few scenes they have had to show the pivotal turn in Cercei and Jaime's relationship, so critical to both of them. Granted, POV writing for page after page is a lot simpler than depicting it on screen, but Jaime's feelings and motivations aren't that complex.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 22, 2014, 10:16:11 AM
I think the previous scene where he shows up the first time and she dumps him portrayed a significant change. This one sent people mixed messages, I guess kind of showing how messed up he is, but there's plenty of time to recover.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on April 22, 2014, 11:27:00 AM
Dude was a poorly treated prisoner of war who then sneaked across hostile lands to get back to the woman he loves, losing his hand in the process, only to be thoroughly rebuked by her upon his return.  Then the guy watches his son die an agonizing death at his wedding, in front of hundreds of onlookers.  If that doesn't make a man a little crazy, what does?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on April 22, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
I think the previous scene where he shows up the first time and she dumps him portrayed a significant change. This one sent people mixed messages, I guess kind of showing how messed up he is, but there's plenty of time to recover.

True enough.

I am also disappointed that he's clean-shaven again (in the books he retained the beard, to Cersei's irritation) and he's not wearing the white. But perhaps I'm getting slightly ahead of where the show is at, and his gold armor does look pretty damn good.

P.S. I also appreciated how Arya regularly now just slides the steel in. Sociopath style points.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 22, 2014, 11:33:02 AM
Quote from: Ser Davos
A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.

Through all this, worth remembering that GRRM (presumably) doesn't intend to fully redeem Jamie and the Hound or anyone else. He is, fairly consistently, allowing characters to do good and bad as it makes sense for the character, without it locking them into a redemption or damnation story.

(with the exception of 3 specific plot armored individuals)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 22, 2014, 12:22:44 PM
This seems to completely derail Jaime's arc; it's the kind of thing that is just going to kill any sympathy for the character other than from a pretty unsavory segment of fans, and it really detracts from what Martin was doing in terms of finding people on all sides to have some sympathy for. I think it's an abject failure on the part of the directors, and maybe it's just me, but I think I read an acknowledgement of that between the lines of GRRM's post.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 22, 2014, 01:20:25 PM
Funny how quickly the mood here sours after so much praise for the show. Not that I disagree with the assessment that it wasn't the most interesting episode.

About little-finger. I wasn't aware that it's an Irish accent, but it's really obvious he is talking in a "I am a villain" drawl.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 22, 2014, 01:40:35 PM
People criticising one scene doesn't mean they now hate the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 22, 2014, 01:46:48 PM
People criticising one scene doesn't mean they now hate the show.

No, of course not. (And it's not what I meant either.)

I only saw the episode today, so I read all replies in a row and the tone was markedly different from usual in here.  :-)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 22, 2014, 02:05:04 PM
I'm actually kind of surprised that people have clutched the pearls SO HARD about that rape scene. Jamie Lannister is a vile, incestuous murderer who tried to kill a child, for fuck's sake. His sister gladly killed her husband and tried to have her own brother killed, fathered a bastard child of incest who she gladly put on the throne despite him being a murderous little shit. Rape is suddenly supposed to make Jamie Lannister irredeemable? These are complex characters thankfully, much more so than we saw in the beginning of the books. Had Jamie done the rape then, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash. But now because he's suddenly revealed to have a reason to slay the king he was sworn to protect and he's gone a bit squidgy for Brienne, the rape makes everyone lose their shit.

Was the scene consensual? No. It never occurred to me that the director might be trying to make it consensual, which I guess shows how badly he fucked it up. But if you keep looking to this show for the good in characters, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. I think the scene showed that neither character, for whatever good they might do, is in any way redeemable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: tazelbain on April 22, 2014, 02:40:08 PM
Either they royally fucked up the scene; or they are making TV Jaimie less grey than Book Jaimie.  Both of options suck, so ya I can understand why people are bit miffed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 22, 2014, 02:47:46 PM
I'm actually kind of surprised that people have clutched the pearls SO HARD about that rape scene. Jamie Lannister is a vile, incestuous murderer who tried to kill a child, for fuck's sake. His sister gladly killed her husband and tried to have her own brother killed, fathered a bastard child of incest who she gladly put on the throne despite him being a murderous little shit. Rape is suddenly supposed to make Jamie Lannister irredeemable? These are complex characters thankfully, much more so than we saw in the beginning of the books. Had Jamie done the rape then, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash. But now because he's suddenly revealed to have a reason to slay the king he was sworn to protect and he's gone a bit squidgy for Brienne, the rape makes everyone lose their shit.

Was the scene consensual? No. It never occurred to me that the director might be trying to make it consensual, which I guess shows how badly he fucked it up. But if you keep looking to this show for the good in characters, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. I think the scene showed that neither character, for whatever good they might do, is in any way redeemable.

I think it was because the whole journey with Brienne actually did a damn good job of humanising him, especially when you found out WHY he was The Kingslayer.

So there's that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 22, 2014, 03:02:20 PM
They screwed up the scene.  It was intended to do what the book did, but without her being so exuberant about it.  It ended up with her being so subtle about it that most people did not perceive her shift in attitude.  There are dozens of news stories out there covering what the director thought he shot as opposed to what we saw.  Frankly, I can't imagine the scene from the book going to screen without it looking ridiculous.

Either way: The guy is not redeemed.  He was not redeemed in the books.  He is never a good guy.  Everything he does, he does for selfish reasons - it just so happens that those selfish reasons are protecting 'his' people.  If it had not been Brienee in that pit, he'd have happily watched the bear kill the person.  Not good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on April 22, 2014, 03:21:52 PM
About little-finger. I wasn't aware that it's an Irish accent, but it's really obvious he is talking in a "I am a villain" drawl.
I didn't pick up on the Irish, either, but certainly the mustache-twirling. He may have been coached to approach it that way, going hand-in-hand with the scene which preceded it: the ridiculous horror-cliche sequence of Sansa in the Godswood as Dontos arrives. Game of Thrones has a specific, effective voice when it comes to its horror elements, and that sure wasn't it. But then, nothing horrible was happening in the Godswood, it was a manufactured attempt at suspense, maybe they felt they needed the pacing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 22, 2014, 03:22:07 PM
I'm actually kind of surprised that people have clutched the pearls SO HARD about that rape scene. Jamie Lannister is a vile, incestuous murderer who tried to kill a child, for fuck's sake. His sister gladly killed her husband and tried to have her own brother killed, fathered a bastard child of incest who she gladly put on the throne despite him being a murderous little shit. Rape is suddenly supposed to make Jamie Lannister irredeemable? These are complex characters thankfully, much more so than we saw in the beginning of the books. Had Jamie done the rape then, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash. But now because he's suddenly revealed to have a reason to slay the king he was sworn to protect and he's gone a bit squidgy for Brienne, the rape makes everyone lose their shit.

Was the scene consensual? No. It never occurred to me that the director might be trying to make it consensual, which I guess shows how badly he fucked it up. But if you keep looking to this show for the good in characters, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. I think the scene showed that neither character, for whatever good they might do, is in any way redeemable.

I think it was because the whole journey with Brienne actually did a damn good job of humanising him, especially when you found out WHY he was The Kingslayer.

So there's that.


Again, he is still a guy that pushed a 10 year old out a window to cover up the fact that he was fucking his sister. "But he's been acting nicer lately and he had a really good reason to stab the Mad King in the back" doesn't really change that or suddenly make him way too noble of a guy to do what he did in this scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 22, 2014, 03:29:27 PM
Either they royally fucked up the scene

This is what happened. The director has explicitly come out and said they were shooting for consensual but weird.

Quote from: Alex Graves
What was talked about was that it was not consensual as it began, but Jaime and Cersei, their entire sexual relationship has been based on and interwoven with risk. And Jaime is very much ready to have sex with her because he hasn’t made love to her since he got back, and she’s sort of cajoled into it, and it is consensual. Ultimately, it was meant to be consensual. [The writers] tried to complicate it a little more with her rejecting his new hand and the state of things.

The thing about it is that Jaime has come home and is trying to convince himself that things are the same: that he and Cersei are a unit, they’re in love, they have sex, everything comes out of that bond. And he’s desperate to reinvigorate that and it has not been working. That’s part of what’s behind him, that lie he’s telling himself, that seasons two and three didn’t happen. So it’s a last act of stupid clinging to what’s been home for him, because it will never be the same. It’s also setting up something that happens in the finale. For Cersei, she is so blindsided and in the middle of the audacious murder of Joffrey at his own wedding, she’s standing there pondering all this with her other son, her sweet son. And her father comes in and basically says, “There is no way you’re going to have control over this kid” and takes him away. So she’s just empty. She’s decimated. What I said is what we just talked about. It’s just fleshing it out.

It’s my cut of the scene. The consensual part of it was that she wraps her legs around him, and she’s holding on to the table, clearly not to escape but to get some grounding in what’s going on. And also, the other thing that I think is clear before they hit the ground is she starts to make out with him. The big things to us that were so important, and that hopefully were not missed, is that before he rips her undergarment, she’s way into kissing him back. She’s kissing him aplenty.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 22, 2014, 03:32:22 PM
About little-finger. I wasn't aware that it's an Irish accent, but it's really obvious he is talking in a "I am a villain" drawl.
I didn't pick up on the Irish, either, but certainly the mustache-twirling. He may have been coached to approach it that way, going hand-in-hand with the scene which preceded it: the ridiculous horror-cliche sequence of Sansa in the Godswood as Dontos arrives. Game of Thrones has a specific, effective voice when it comes to its horror elements, and that sure wasn't it. But then, nothing horrible was happening in the Godswood, it was a manufactured attempt at suspense, maybe they felt they needed the pacing.

On Littlefinger, I liked the performance, but can't help thinking it would have had more impact if it had been saved as part of a bigger reveal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 22, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
People criticising one scene doesn't mean they now hate the show.
I invite you to read the internet at large. It's awash with people forever swearing off Game of Thrones for supporting patriarchy, enabling Rape Culture, and not giving trigger warnings. These people are obviously fucking retards who probably shouldn't have been watching GoT in the first place, but they exist and there apparently a lot of them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on April 22, 2014, 03:54:33 PM
Again, he is still a guy that pushed a 10 year old out a window to cover up the fact that he was fucking his sister. "But he's been acting nicer lately and he had a really good reason to stab the Mad King in the back" doesn't really change that or suddenly make him way too noble of a guy to do what he did in this scene.

For me it's less them screwing up his redemption arc - which it does, of course - and more that the change from creepy, fucked up incest between consenting adults next to their son's corpse (which uh ... I think does well enough all on its own to remind people THESE TWO ARE FUCKED UP) to rape is unnecessary, and adds nothing to the characters or their arcs. Jaime isn't a good person, but he has a code, and above all else, in a super fucked up way, part of that code is driven by the fact he loves his sister and would do anything, including murder children, to protect her from harm. Raping her is a violation of that code, and thus IS out of character, no matter how many kids he tries to off. And that it wasn't intended to be seen that way makes it even more fucked up.

I could go on and on about this (the Dany/Drogo change actually pisses me off more), but at the end of the day, the main thing I have to shake my head at is that people adapting the show apparently read the books and went, "Hey, you know what this needs? MORE rape!" There was more than enough already, thank you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on April 22, 2014, 03:57:56 PM
On Jaime: "sympathetic" is a more useful term to evaluate how Jaime comes across rather than "good guy / bad guy". It's something the books accomplished, regardless of actions, for a number of characters. Something about how seeing things from someone else's point of view is supposed to inform how you judge them, IDK, seems crazy.

Still, this was just one scene, there will be more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 22, 2014, 03:58:18 PM
I'm actually kind of surprised that people have clutched the pearls SO HARD about that rape scene. Jamie Lannister is a vile, incestuous murderer who tried to kill a child, for fuck's sake. His sister gladly killed her husband and tried to have her own brother killed, fathered a bastard child of incest who she gladly put on the throne despite him being a murderous little shit. Rape is suddenly supposed to make Jamie Lannister irredeemable? These are complex characters thankfully, much more so than we saw in the beginning of the books. Had Jamie done the rape then, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash. But now because he's suddenly revealed to have a reason to slay the king he was sworn to protect and he's gone a bit squidgy for Brienne, the rape makes everyone lose their shit.

Was the scene consensual? No. It never occurred to me that the director might be trying to make it consensual, which I guess shows how badly he fucked it up. But if you keep looking to this show for the good in characters, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. I think the scene showed that neither character, for whatever good they might do, is in any way redeemable.


I would have expected you of the people here, as an author, to have a better grasp of his character arc. TV Jaime and Book Jaime are now very different entities. I don't think this is something we'd have seen from Book Jaime, especially towards Cersei, and certainly not at the point he was at in his character growth at this point in the books. It's not about "oh he's a good guy now" it's "he's a better guy than he was" and they just tossed that whole thing out the window.

EDIT: Ummm, I think that may come across ruder than I meant it. Sorry!

Quote from: Alex Graves
What was talked about was that it was not consensual as it began, but Jaime and Cersei, their entire sexual relationship has been based on and interwoven with risk. And Jaime is very much ready to have sex with her because he hasn’t made love to her since he got back, and she’s sort of cajoled into it, and it is consensual. Ultimately, it was meant to be consensual. [The writers] tried to complicate it a little more with her rejecting his new hand and the state of things.

The thing about it is that Jaime has come home and is trying to convince himself that things are the same: that he and Cersei are a unit, they’re in love, they have sex, everything comes out of that bond. And he’s desperate to reinvigorate that and it has not been working. That’s part of what’s behind him, that lie he’s telling himself, that seasons two and three didn’t happen. So it’s a last act of stupid clinging to what’s been home for him, because it will never be the same. It’s also setting up something that happens in the finale. For Cersei, she is so blindsided and in the middle of the audacious murder of Joffrey at his own wedding, she’s standing there pondering all this with her other son, her sweet son. And her father comes in and basically says, “There is no way you’re going to have control over this kid” and takes him away. So she’s just empty. She’s decimated. What I said is what we just talked about. It’s just fleshing it out.

It’s my cut of the scene. The consensual part of it was that she wraps her legs around him, and she’s holding on to the table, clearly not to escape but to get some grounding in what’s going on. And also, the other thing that I think is clear before they hit the ground is she starts to make out with him. The big things to us that were so important, and that hopefully were not missed, is that before he rips her undergarment, she’s way into kissing him back. She’s kissing him aplenty.

Christ on a stick. "Oh sure, it STARTS as kinda rapey but you know, she decides she's into it so it's cool." Unbelievable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 22, 2014, 04:00:27 PM
People criticising one scene doesn't mean they now hate the show.
I invite you to read the internet at large. It's awash with people forever swearing off Game of Thrones for supporting patriarchy, enabling Rape Culture, and not giving trigger warnings. These people are obviously fucking retards who probably shouldn't have been watching GoT in the first place, but they exist and there apparently a lot of them.

This (as in, people being stupid) is why I am pretty selective with the forum browsing. Despite being into interneting since 19,  I still don't manage not to not care what people say. Even things like someone saying "DA2 is better than the Witcher 2" upsets me.  I just take everything to personal.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on April 22, 2014, 04:02:24 PM
People criticising one scene doesn't mean they now hate the show.
I invite you to read the internet at large. It's awash with people forever swearing off Game of Thrones for supporting patriarchy, enabling Rape Culture, and not giving trigger warnings. These people are obviously fucking retards who probably shouldn't have been watching GoT in the first place, but they exist and there apparently a lot of them.

This (as in, people being stupid) is why I am pretty selective with the forum browsing. Despite being into interneting since 19,  I still don't manage not to care what people say. Even things like someone saying "DA2 is better than the Witcher 2" upsets me.  I just take everything to personal.  :oh_i_see:

I like DA2 better than the Witcher 2, but I still love you, calapine. <3


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2014, 04:07:20 PM
Christ on a stick. "Oh sure, it STARTS as kinda rapey but you know, she decides she's into it so it's cool." Unbelievable.
It starts "kinda rapey" in the book too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 22, 2014, 04:13:16 PM
I did not really notice how "much different" it was from the books (or honestly how non-consensual it was in the show) because as soon as I realized "oh yeah, this is where they have sex next to the corpse" I kinda shut my eye-brain connection off  and zoned out because of how the brother-sister sexual relationship thing creeps me the fuck out.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 22, 2014, 04:16:55 PM
This (as in, people being stupid) is why I am pretty selective with the forum browsing. Despite being into interneting since 19,  I still don't manage not to care what people say. Even things like someone saying "DA2 is better than the Witcher 2" upsets me.  I just take everything to personal.  :oh_i_see:

I like DA2 better than the Witcher 2, but I still love you, calapine. <3

 :heart: Same!  It wasn't a random example. ;)

Back to GOT:

Christ on a stick. "Oh sure, it STARTS as kinda rapey but you know, she decides she's into it so it's cool." Unbelievable.
It starts "kinda rapey" in the book too.

Agree with those saying it was just a badly done scene. When seeing the episode I didn't think of it as rape, but now when reading the discussion about it I realize that's only because I know the show and intrpet Jamies/Cerseis action in a certain way. Had I just stumbled over it while zapping TV and not having prior knowledge it would have been an unambiguous rape scene. I think something being shown needing explanation/not being able to stand on its own is a good sign of bad film making here.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 22, 2014, 04:23:22 PM
Christ on a stick. "Oh sure, it STARTS as kinda rapey but you know, she decides she's into it so it's cool." Unbelievable.
It starts "kinda rapey" in the book too.

Not really. I just posted the scene in the books, she was entirely objecting to the PUBLIC LOCATION than the sex itself. They have sex in plenty of fucked up locations with Jaime usually having to be the one saying its ok to bone here and cersei whining about how they'll get caught.

The TV interpretation pisses me off because it puts one more notch in the Cersei isn't really a bad person noose the tv writers are hanging themselves with. Because Feast of Crows is right around the corner.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on April 22, 2014, 04:35:19 PM
Another issue here isn't the what, it's the who. Jaime doesn't rape a camp follower. He doesn't rape some woman he comes across on the road. He doesn't rape his worst enemy's wife. He rapes the woman who is the love of his life. That's a huge part of the reaction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 22, 2014, 04:43:28 PM
And the director's explanation actually makes the reaction worse.  'It wasn't rape after she started liking it'.  Shit, if I could see the upside for it, I'd think they were trolling as a PR move.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 22, 2014, 05:32:49 PM
People criticising one scene doesn't mean they now hate the show.
I invite you to read the internet at large. It's awash with people forever swearing off Game of Thrones for supporting patriarchy, enabling Rape Culture, and not giving trigger warnings. These people are obviously fucking retards who probably shouldn't have been watching GoT in the first place, but they exist and there apparently a lot of them.

Could you please keep the extra bobariffic shit over in Politics? kthnx


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 22, 2014, 05:48:49 PM
People criticising one scene doesn't mean they now hate the show.
I invite you to read the internet at large. It's awash with people forever swearing off Game of Thrones for supporting patriarchy, enabling Rape Culture, and not giving trigger warnings. These people are obviously fucking retards who probably shouldn't have been watching GoT in the first place, but they exist and there apparently a lot of them.

Could you please keep the extra bobariffic shit over in Politics? kthnx

Eat a fucking turd. Just because it's related to something political doesn't mean it's not true or directly related to something a person in this thread said. Those are literally word for word from people's tweets. Trigger warning for you eating a fucking turd. kthnx? yvw!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Trippy on April 22, 2014, 05:51:00 PM
Could you please keep the extra bobariffic shit over in Politics? kthnx


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 22, 2014, 06:37:18 PM
Could you please keep the extra bobariffic shit over in Politics? kthnx


oh snap.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 22, 2014, 07:20:45 PM
These are the same creators that put a pregnant woman at the Red Wedding, even though she wasn't present in the book, and stabbed her in the belly.  So now they're showing rape?  Color me shocked. 

They keep taking the books to the EXXXTREEEEMMMEEE. 

At least the Red Wedding made sense.  Rape or consensual sex with your sister up against the coffin of your son is ridiculous, even for this show. And book (which I haven't read so apologies if the book does it different).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 22, 2014, 08:49:49 PM
Could you please keep the extra bobariffic shit over in Politics? kthnx


Seriously, what part of the original post was "bobariffic"? Eldaec said that one scene wasn'r going to make people hate the show. Literally thousands of people are tweeting that the now hate the show and will never watch it again, often with one or more of the three reasons I listed included in the tweets. THere was nothing trollish, combative, and I didn't even swear until the third sentence. Really, I don't get what part of it needs to stay in Politics, so if you could be more specific that would be great.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Trippy on April 22, 2014, 10:39:00 PM
It was your reply to him that I was responding to, not your original post.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soulflame on April 22, 2014, 10:39:18 PM
Either they royally fucked up the scene; or they are making TV Jaimie less grey than Book Jaimie.  Both of options suck, so ya I can understand why people are bit miffed.
I am at a loss as to how you can make someone who threw a child out of a window in order to cover up his incestuous relationship gray.  That's not even the worst thing that he's done.

He isn't gray.  He isn't redeemable.  He's a failed child murderer who also used to fuck his sister.

Gray.  Jesus H. Christ.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on April 22, 2014, 11:30:46 PM
I suspect much of the reaction is shock by people who were deluded into thinking Jaime was about to become a White Hat. Personally I suspect all the White Hats are dead. The most positively written characters are a Smuggler who supports a regime of religious persecution and human sacrifice, and an Oathbreaker and Liar.

But yes, this was filmed as a rape scene. At best you could interpret it as "She liked it in the end", which makes the rape scene even more insulting, not less so. I just didn't think that out of character for somebody who kills little children and bangs his sister, whose only redeeming quality is that he isn't a complete bastard to people he knows and likes. Westeros is a crapsack world, this has to pass for morally grey in this world. Some people thought this is a world were somebody can redeem himself from his past deeds and become a changed man. I don't envy these people the ride they are in for.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 22, 2014, 11:31:40 PM
I'm actually kind of surprised that people have clutched the pearls SO HARD about that rape scene. Jamie Lannister is a vile, incestuous murderer who tried to kill a child, for fuck's sake. His sister gladly killed her husband and tried to have her own brother killed, fathered a bastard child of incest who she gladly put on the throne despite him being a murderous little shit. Rape is suddenly supposed to make Jamie Lannister irredeemable? These are complex characters thankfully, much more so than we saw in the beginning of the books. Had Jamie done the rape then, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash. But now because he's suddenly revealed to have a reason to slay the king he was sworn to protect and he's gone a bit squidgy for Brienne, the rape makes everyone lose their shit.

Was the scene consensual? No. It never occurred to me that the director might be trying to make it consensual, which I guess shows how badly he fucked it up. But if you keep looking to this show for the good in characters, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. I think the scene showed that neither character, for whatever good they might do, is in any way redeemable.

I agree with this in terms of the story.

I think that he's a good character (I don't mean that in a moral sense) who's had a interesting story arc in the shows and the rape scene was the first reminder in a long time of his earlier characterisation. When viewers have been starting to feel some empathy towards a previously hateful character that kind of reminder can be a bit harsh.

The scene itself was problematic though, as are a lot of the responses. I didn't pick up on the fact that Cersei was repulsed by his hand, it wasn't shown clearly enough. I absolutely didn't get any impression of the supposed consensual nature towards the end - it looked like rape from start to finish. The scene felt badly edited to me.

And, more importantly, "it becomes consensual by the end"!? WTF? Rape is rape. There's no such thing as "rapey". You can't slightly rape someone! As much as people might like to, you can't separate culture from reality, especially when it deals with real issues like rape. We live in societies where rape isn't taken seriously, where women are routinely ignored when they make accusations of rape and where there is a normalisation of sexual violence towards women. For the director to even think, let alone say, that rape can "become consensual" indicates, to me, a fairly sick & damaged mindset and society.

I'm going to commit a cardinal sin, and I apologise for it, but in the "Men's Rights" shitthread someone asked what reasons there could be for men being feminists. This, to me, is one of the most important ones. Do you have sisters? A mother? Female friends or partners? Well they live in a society where rape is defended, denied and happens far, FAR more frequently than most men can accept, and the portrayal of rape in popular culture is part of that. Fighting against that is important.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 22, 2014, 11:39:39 PM
I suspect much of the reaction is shock by people who were deluded into thinking Jaime was about to become a White Hat. Personally I suspect all the White Hats are dead. The most positively written characters are a Smuggler who supports a regime of religious persecution and human sacrifice, and an Oathbreaker and Liar.

But yes, this was filmed as a rape scene. At best you could interpret it as "She liked it in the end", which makes the rape scene even more insulting, not less so. I just didn't think that out of character for somebody who kills little children and bangs his sister, whose only redeeming quality is that he isn't a complete bastard to people he knows and likes. Westeros is a crapsack world, this has to pass for morally grey in this world. Some people thought this is a world were somebody can redeem himself from his past deeds and become a changed man. I don't envy these people the ride they are in for.

You make Jaimes character uncomplicated. Your divorcing the bad things he's done from the reasons and impulses he does them. There is a distinct separation between the folks who revel in the morally black, those who stand within the grey and those who just do black things. Jaime is willing to do some things and not others. That's the point of his character, and to strip that is to make him a nameless mook of which we have plenty. Does Jaime become a good character? No... but he becomes a likable one, something the last 2  books in the series will rapidly get rid of.

Funny how this show shows what people are casually ok with. Mass murder. COOL. Baby killing? Please more of that. Beheading of innocent people? Tough cookies. Incest? Please do that on camera. I'm just waiting for the reality TV version of game of thrones set in some crapsack part eastern European would sell gangbusters. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 22, 2014, 11:40:16 PM
Either they royally fucked up the scene; or they are making TV Jaimie less grey than Book Jaimie.  Both of options suck, so ya I can understand why people are bit miffed.
I am at a loss as to how you can make someone who threw a child out of a window in order to cover up his incestuous relationship gray.  That's not even the worst thing that he's done.

He isn't gray.  He isn't redeemable.  He's a failed child murderer who also used to fuck his sister.

Gray.  Jesus H. Christ.

Thinking back to my uni studies, historically, kid killing happened a lot - quite often at the hands of those lauded as heroes and just. The fact that child molesters within the RC church are considered to be redeemable by the RC church makes me wonder just how far a person can go before they aren't redeemable.

Jamie is an interesting study, there to make us question what is "right". That was the whole point of the kingslayer exposition with Brienne. Baratheon/Stark/Tully/Arryn were all trying to kill off the Targaryans because Robert was miffed at being snubbed by the woman he loved. For that they broke their oaths to the king and declared war on him with the aim to depose and kill him. Robert was a nasty spoilt piece of work, not the happy party animal we'd like to think.  By comparison, Jamie learnt of the plan to destroy the inhabitants of King's Landing and broke his oath by killing the mad king. Cersei had all of Robert's bastards put to death - Jamie wasn't overjoyed by what he tried to do to Bran (in the novels). Tywin had the Targaryan kids put to death, Robert forgave him for it. Aside from a bit of sister-fucking, Jamie pales into insignificance - until that screwed up tv scene.

Looking at how boring Bran's story is, I'm assuming that Jamie relised how fucking tedious Bran is and in a 4th wall moment, decided to do the audience a favour. Pity he failed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 22, 2014, 11:51:25 PM
I'll probably get a raft of shit for this, but I think the scene is ambiguous and that the reaction to the director's statement is being blown way out of proportion.  He's talking about how it is DEPICTED, not the objective nature of the act, which in all honesty would be based upon the subjective belief of the "victim." I put that word in quotes because there is only one person who could legitimately define whether something was consensual or not and that is Cersei and SHE DOESN'T EXIST.  If this were a real case there could easily be a circumstance where what we see from Cersei was feigned rejection at first (she is manipulative you know), or she changed her mind at some point after the initial rejection but before it got physical (to deny the ability to do this removes her agency), so what was shown could, in the subjective opinion of the only person who could classify it as consensual or non-consensual, be consensual or even move from one phase to another during the course of the event (established sexual relationships are dynamic and complex).  It is basically impossible to determine from third-party perspective what actually happened, yet all of these judgments and condemnations come from just that.

Now, you can argue about whether he succeeded or failed in communicating the ambiguity that he apparently thought he did (I lean towards the latter), but there seems to be a rather dubious groundswell of condemnation of the guy personally that I find highly questionable.  Suddenly he is a champion of rape as a result of discussing the depiction of a scene between fictional characters in a singularly morally fucked-up fantasy world.  I don't think that is right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2014, 12:01:57 AM
Except for Dany, Tyrion, and Jon. Nobody is a white hat, any more than Tony Soprano is a white hat. That doesn't mean people who have done bad things can't also do good things (which is a recurring theme of all the series).

On the scene itself, as quoted, the directors and actors were not trying to shoot a rape, the backstory is not a rape. So the interesting question is not 'what does this mean for Jamie?', the interesting question is 'what does it say about how people mentally assess rape when a cast and crew looked at what they produced, and didn't notice they accidentally depicted a rape?'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2014, 12:12:00 AM
Just on Ab's point, it is still fair to criticise the director and crew for not noticing that on a subject so sensitive they didn't achieve on screen what he says they were aiming for.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 23, 2014, 12:12:58 AM
I think I pretty plainly said that was the case, but that is not what I am seeing all over the place today.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 23, 2014, 12:39:19 AM
Either they royally fucked up the scene; or they are making TV Jaimie less grey than Book Jaimie.  Both of options suck, so ya I can understand why people are bit miffed.
I am at a loss as to how you can make someone who threw a child out of a window in order to cover up his incestuous relationship gray.  That's not even the worst thing that he's done.

He isn't gray.  He isn't redeemable.  He's a failed child murderer who also used to fuck his sister.

Gray.  Jesus H. Christ.
Uh, not sure if you read the books, but (minor spoilers):

Watched the episode last night.  I'm probably mentally biasing myself because I read the book first, but I can sort of see how they didn't make it full rape.  After the initial struggle, she seemed to stop really fighting it and was just very panicked about what they were doing in such a public place, not against the act itself. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2014, 01:20:26 AM
Again, he is still a guy that pushed a 10 year old out a window to cover up the fact that he was fucking his sister. "But he's been acting nicer lately and he had a really good reason to stab the Mad King in the back" doesn't really change that or suddenly make him way too noble of a guy to do what he did in this scene.

I said humanizing him.  Not sainting him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2014, 01:27:50 AM

The TV interpretation pisses me off because it puts one more notch in the Cersei isn't really a bad person noose the tv writers are hanging themselves with.


Which show have you been watching ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 23, 2014, 01:36:31 AM
Question: Does anyone think that Jamie's act becomes less heinous if Cersei stops fighting it at the end of that scene?

Because if you do then what you're saying is that if you try to have sex with someone and they clearly and loudly say no it's OK to carry on trying to have sex with them because they might stop saying no before you're finished.

My problem isn't with the characters - they're fictional, they're pretty much all really horrible people living in a really horrible world. My problem is with the real life responses to this scene, especially the idea that there is even a difference between rape and rape that becomes consensual eventually.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 23, 2014, 01:37:05 AM

The TV interpretation pisses me off because it puts one more notch in the Cersei isn't really a bad person noose the tv writers are hanging themselves with.


Which show have you been watching ?

The show makes the occasional argument that Cersei isn't that bad of a person, just a progressive woman bitter because of her lot in life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2014, 01:47:16 AM
No.  She makes that argument.

You may find it compelling.  I do not. 

If you do, you may also find that Littlefinger is your best friend, with many pearls of wisdom, such as hilarious jokes like 'Hey, don't trust me, I'll just betray you'.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 23, 2014, 02:02:11 AM
Jaime isn't a good person, but he has a code, and above all else, in a super fucked up way, part of that code is driven by the fact he loves his sister and would do anything, including murder children, to protect her from harm. Raping her is a violation of that code, and thus IS out of character, no matter how many kids he tries to off. And that it wasn't intended to be seen that way makes it even more fucked up.

I'd have to go back and reread the books, but I don't recall there being enough shown of their relationship aside from the lust that would suggest that he does have a code. Does he attempt to murder children because he loves her and wants to protect her from harm, or does he do it because he loves fucking her and wants to continue to be able to do it? It's such a dysfunctional relationship it's hard to tell what's in character or out of it, especially at a time when that relationship is falling apart. Their relationship seems so built on sex, that when he finally makes it home after everything he's been through and she doesn't want much to do with him and tells him as much, I'm don't really think you can say this for sure is out of character for him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 23, 2014, 03:53:24 AM
TBH, I'm not really certain that the scene needed to be there apart from a "hey lets be edgy" POV. They certainly fucked it up in translating the book and were either a) out for more ratings via contoversy or b) are a pack of dumb asses who couldn't direct/edit to convey the scene in the book or c) didn't watch what they had filmed and figured it would be ok as people have read the book and know the scene for what it is.

Stupidity either way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on April 23, 2014, 04:18:54 AM
Quote
The show makes the occasional argument that Cersei isn't that bad of a person, just a progressive woman bitter because of her lot in life.

I think it definitely makes that argument. However, just because it's a persuasive argument about Cersei's psychology and motivation doesn't make it a persuasive one in excusing her actions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2014, 05:17:12 AM
Ha.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 23, 2014, 06:41:36 AM
Question: Does anyone think that Jamie's act becomes less heinous if Cersei stops fighting it at the end of that scene?

Because if you do then what you're saying is that if you try to have sex with someone and they clearly and loudly say no it's OK to carry on trying to have sex with them because they might stop saying no before you're finished.

My problem isn't with the characters - they're fictional, they're pretty much all really horrible people living in a really horrible world. My problem is with the real life responses to this scene, especially the idea that there is even a difference between rape and rape that becomes consensual eventually.

I wouldn't expect a healthy sexual relationship from anyone in that situation.  I would expect most of the sex between Jamie and Cersei starts off very reluctantly by one of them until they give in to their urges.  While that is not ok for real people it makes perfect sense that it would be their standard interaction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2014, 07:50:20 AM

The TV interpretation pisses me off because it puts one more notch in the Cersei isn't really a bad person noose the tv writers are hanging themselves with.


Which show have you been watching ?

Also, does being a victim make someone less evil?

(ignoring the point that writers and director have flat out told us it was consensual)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 23, 2014, 08:07:18 AM
And, more importantly, "it becomes consensual by the end"!? WTF? Rape is rape. There's no such thing as "rapey". You can't slightly rape someone! As much as people might like to, you can't separate culture from reality, especially when it deals with real issues like rape. We live in societies where rape isn't taken seriously, where women are routinely ignored when they make accusations of rape and where there is a normalisation of sexual violence towards women. For the director to even think, let alone say, that rape can "become consensual" indicates, to me, a fairly sick & damaged mindset and society.

I'm going to commit a cardinal sin, and I apologise for it, but in the "Men's Rights" shitthread someone asked what reasons there could be for men being feminists. This, to me, is one of the most important ones. Do you have sisters? A mother? Female friends or partners? Well they live in a society where rape is defended, denied and happens far, FAR more frequently than most men can accept, and the portrayal of rape in popular culture is part of that. Fighting against that is important.

You mean a society like Westeros? Where there is basically a rape or murder situation in every other scene? This is not the place to grind your "rape culture" political axe, it's a very grim fantasy setting depicting the violent reality of medieval war. Right now I am reading a biography of Wellington on campaign and things are pretty bad even in the 19th century. Armies on the march were basically murder, rape & pillage machines to the local populace, and lookout if you're in a sieged town that's taken by storm. In medieval times any survivors amongst the vanquished were murdered unless they had value as a slave or for ransom. I assume most of the facebook types in a tizzy on the internet about how Jaime is perpetuating "rape culture" haven't read much about the brutal realities of warfare over most of human history.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 23, 2014, 08:10:51 AM
You mean a society like Westeros? Where there is basically a rape or murder situation in every other scene? This is not the place to grind your "rape culture" political axe, it's a very grim fantasy setting depicting the violent reality of medieval war. Right now I am reading a biography of Wellington on campaign and things are pretty bad even in the 19th century. Armies on the march were basically murder, rape & pillage machines to the local populace, and lookout if you're in a sieged town that's taken by storm. In medieval times any survivors amongst the vanquished were murdered unless they had value as a slave or for ransom. I assume most of the facebook types in a tizzy on the internet about how Jaime is perpetuating "rape culture" haven't read much about the brutal realities of warfare over most of human history.

You, er, missed where I said my problem isn't with the characters, but the real life responses to the scene that I have a problem with?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 23, 2014, 08:30:35 AM
I would have expected you of the people here, as an author, to have a better grasp of his character arc. TV Jaime and Book Jaime are now very different entities. I don't think this is something we'd have seen from Book Jaime, especially towards Cersei, and certainly not at the point he was at in his character growth at this point in the books. It's not about "oh he's a good guy now" it's "he's a better guy than he was" and they just tossed that whole thing out the window.

EDIT: Ummm, I think that may come across ruder than I meant it. Sorry!

Rude? You think I'm going to be bothered by rude? Have you not read my posts?  :why_so_serious:

Actually, the more I think about Cersei and Jamie's whole relationship, I'm not sure there's ever been a time where it couldn't be considered a little rapey. Most of Cersei's biggest issues in the book are with the lack of control and the lack of power she suffers simply because she is not a man, and is thus considered less than her father and her brothers - even her twisted, demon imp of a brother (since Tywin named Tyrion the Hand in his absence instead of Cersei). I can imagine the first sexual encounters between the two of them being Jamie forcing himself on her, either not understanding or not caring that incest is wrong. She probably considers most of her encounters with Robert to be rape (or at least rape-y).

Sympathetic is definitely a better description of Jamie's character arc - from pantomime villain to at least sympathetic - but make no mistake, I don't expect him to think any attempts to have sex with Cersei to be out of bounds - whether it's rape or not. His mindset is that I love this woman and I don't care how wrong it is - ANY of it. I've had this woman before, why can't I have her now, here, anywhere I want? Which is an interesting counterpoint considering how much he cares about the "rules" of honor such as being a member of the Kingsguard.

The scene was handled badly, especially considering the director's stated intent. It shouldn't have been that rapey if for no other reason than some people really can't stand rape in fiction. Kill a kid, you can be redeemed but rape a very twisted, crazy, evil woman who you've spent your entire life having twisted, incestuous sex with, even to the point that many murders have been committed to hide that relationship? It's a very weird, fucked up sense of morality that people project onto this show. Fuck, people CHEERED when TEENAGE Joffrey gets choked out by pigeon pie. I'm pretty sure they've mentioned the Hound as having raped women before yet his every murderous rampage is cheered on (partly because he's so darkly comic when he does it but still).

Rape is the ultimate fictional sin apparently. I don't mean that flippantly. It seems to be above killing household pets on the chart of "things people get pissy about in fictional characters."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on April 23, 2014, 08:37:51 AM
I have a very different take on Cersei / Jaime. I see their relationship starting out as a healthy affection for each other and a respite in each other from the requirements of being in a scheming dynastic family. If anything, it's one of the few relationships that is consensual.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 23, 2014, 08:43:46 AM
Actually... no. From every piece of CERSEI's own inner monologue she has always been the one to initiate the sexy times when they were younger. Jaime got more bold sure, but by that time Jaime was well into his teens and enjoying what he felt was near unlimited access to the only woman he loved. Keep in my Cersei was the one who orochrestaed much of Jaimes early decisions that led to the most traumatic and miserable parts of his early teens, young adult years.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 23, 2014, 08:52:31 AM
If they wanted to carry across the message they claim without setting off a reaction and having most of the audience miss it, they needed Cersei to break from the clinch, then go back to it deliberately.  Having her resist and Jaime overwhelms her resistance with his dick was a bad move, even in a narrative sense.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 23, 2014, 08:53:24 AM
I suspect much of the reaction is shock by people who were deluded into thinking Jaime was about to become a White Hat. Personally I suspect all the White Hats are dead. The most positively written characters are a Smuggler who supports a regime of religious persecution and human sacrifice, and an Oathbreaker and Liar.
I think that's a nuance most people mistake about this series.  They're used to black and white characters, rather than a bunch of tribal types who may be okay within their own circles but are despicable outside them.  (Which actually makes them much more like real people so the reactions to them is all the more amusing.)  The "evil" characters of the series are the ones who are jerks to their own.

There are very few good people in the books or show.  Those who could be considered that way mainly are because they have a strict moral code they adhere to.  Even the paragons of the series have their moments:  Ned, who opens the series beheading a man and likely has as high a bodycount as anyone in the series due to past wars.  Jon who kills a Brother, and more in the books.  Brienne is perhaps the most virtuous of the lot, but she flees rather than face trial and kills plenty of people.  The Hound is an unrepentant arse and murderer who happens to be good in comparison to many in the series simply because he doesn't go out of his way to cut a swath of destruction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 23, 2014, 09:02:41 AM
Actually... no. From every piece of CERSEI's own inner monologue she has always been the one to initiate the sexy times when they were younger. Jaime got more bold sure, but by that time Jaime was well into his teens and enjoying what he felt was near unlimited access to the only woman he loved.

That's probably me projecting then.  :why_so_serious: It's really funny how I would assume that Cersei was the party who was dominated in the early steps of the relationship - and I'm assuming that simply because she's a woman. That's some of the sexist baggage I come into this thing with based on my upbringing in the Deep South in the '70's. And it's even funnier to consider that my mother is a woman I've never considered to be a meek woman. Hell, she flat out told her kids that she did not need a man to be happy in her life (even though she and my father are about to celebrate their 50th anniversary, she's very much always "worn the pants" in the family).

That baggage is informing a lot of people's reactions to this show. As has been said, medieval life was fucking brutal. Morality was what your religious leaders said it was. Rape... FFS, raping was a REWARD for a soldier's service most of the time, even in wars based on religious reasons. Slaughter and pillage and raping the likes of which would make our own soldiers hurl was the norm, and I think both the book and the TV show have done a good job portraying that. But I also think many of the people who are not as versed in history or fantasy literature are viewing this show through really naive eyes.

I read the scene as rape - but I also think that Cersei was sort of into it by the end, surrendering herself to the inevitable, much like she did with Robert and perhaps hoping to grasp onto the happier moments of the past when she wasn't dealing with the death of her monster spawn that she somehow still loved. That in itself should signal to the viewers that this relationship is not what it once was. That shouldn't change people's views of Jamie except that people on this show suddenly want him to be a white knight and live happily ever after. Which again means people have not been paying fucking attention because ain't nobody getting out of here without getting a tremendous pile of shit dumped on their heads.

Who the hell thinks Cersei has been portrayed as a redeemable or sympathetic character? Sure, she's been able to give some justification for why she acts like a completely evil witch, but even to this point, I can't see how anyone could think that. She is not sympathetic, despite all the stupid shit she's had to endure. And holy shit, what she's going to do next season should pretty much shoot that feeling directly in the eye.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on April 23, 2014, 09:12:15 AM
I have a very different take on Cersei / Jaime. I see their relationship starting out as a healthy affection for each other and a respite in each other from the requirements of being in a scheming dynastic family. If anything, it's one of the few relationships that is consensual.

Agreed, that's in the books. Everything is completely consensual, frictions result from the stresses of being forced to keep it hidden, and how that threatens Cercei's driving motivations, but not Jamie's. (With Joffrey in place it means no less than the Crown of the Seven Kingdoms).

Also, let us not forget that, until the Usurper took the throne by force, Westeros was ruled by Targaryens, an entire lineage delivered through incest. Even though the views of of the Westerosi commoners on incest are generally similar to ours, they make exception for the Targaryens. Because incest is an abhorrent crime against the gods and nature, except when it isn't. And the spawn of incest is an abomination, like Joffrey and Aerys the Mad, but not like Tommen or Myrcella.  Or Gilly. Or Daenerys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 23, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
If book Jaime had arrived home weeks earlier and been rebuffed by his sister /lover / baby mama repeatedly... and then watched his child die... and then was rebuffed by her in the Sept.... are you so sure he would not have done the same as the show Jaime?  I'm not.  I see the TV version of the character as being very true to the book version.  They've just faced different circumstances.  They're both murderers, they've both led armies that raped and murdered with their full knowledge, they both condone the Mountain's acts, .... they're both crap in human form.  They're just charismatic crap.  I fully think, based upon the way the book scene is written, that Jaime was not going to stop even if Cersei had more clearly objected.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 23, 2014, 10:12:35 AM
I'm fully willing to credit that the director may have intended the scene to come off other than it did. But I don't get why he would still think it views that way once he looks it--because it doesn't.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 23, 2014, 10:16:25 AM
I'm fully willing to credit that the director may have intended the scene to come off other than it did. But I don't get why he would still think it views that way once he looks it--because it doesn't.

Observational bias of the creator. You know what you meant to show/ write/ draw so you see your intent even when others don't.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 23, 2014, 10:25:12 AM
If book Jaime had arrived home weeks earlier and been rebuffed by his sister /lover / baby mama repeatedly... and then watched his child die... and then was rebuffed by her in the Sept.... are you so sure he would not have done the same as the show Jaime?  I'm not.  I see the TV version of the character as being very true to the book version.  They've just faced different circumstances.  They're both murderers, they've both led armies that raped and murdered with their full knowledge, they both condone the Mountain's acts, .... they're both crap in human form.  They're just charismatic crap.  I fully think, based upon the way the book scene is written, that Jaime was not going to stop even if Cersei had more clearly objected.

Wait what? You are projecting very hard. And no, Jaime would have stopped because Cersei wears the pants. I mean dear me we taking this very personally.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 23, 2014, 10:57:40 AM
Rape is the ultimate fictional sin apparently. I don't mean that flippantly. It seems to be above killing household pets on the chart of "things people get pissy about in fictional characters."

I don't have a ton of time to respond to the rest of your post right now but for this, I think it makes sense for one particular reason - rape is still something you actually have to worry about in your normal life as a woman in this country, whereas stuff like dynastic murder, having your hand chopped off by your enemies, and invading armies burning your city down and such are not things that hit any real life fears or experiences for most people (in the US). It's far easier to distance yourself from that sort of thing than it is from a rape, especially once you slap historical costumes on folks, and I think the gulf gets even wider when you're watching a simulated rape compared to someone getting fake-stabbed. The rape is a lot easier to make look "real" on a TV budget and is thus way more disturbing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 23, 2014, 11:17:31 AM
Gonna be honest your probably as likely to be killed and your house broken into than sexually assaulted. And if the positions were reversed (cersei rapes a one handed depressed jaime) we wouldn't feel any outrage. We're just morally fucked up individuals at this point holding on to some taboos we're to afraid to cross or be ok with mostly because our standing with the other assholes we deal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 23, 2014, 11:22:01 AM
You are probably right, but I also think for Americans anyway, our really fucked hangups that we have about sex is part of it. We are all about violence, to the point where we actually (and I count myself among them) cheer when shit happens like Arya and the Hound killing those motherfuckers for chickens. That scene was funny as fuck and Arya stabbing that bastard in the throat was something we cheer. An 11-year old CHILD stabbing some guy in the throat is to be celebrated, laughed at and no one bats an eye. Maybe it's because that guy deserved it along with a lot of the people she wants to kill and maybe we can feel for her after all the crap she's had to endure.

And if you think about it, Cersei "deserves" some of that retribution because of the parts she's played in Arya being where she is. And yet... her rape by a man she clearly loves  (in her own twisted way) is not seen as retribution and is instead something viewers are finding evokes sympathy. We're downright squidgy about sex, especially sexual violence but the murdering kind we as viewers seem all to happy to accept, even to cheer on. We are some bloodthirsty cunts.

Again, not saying I agree with the rape or the way the scene was shot because it so clearly IS rape that I can't imagine how anyone even the director would think it otherwise. I find it really fucking crazy how up in arms people are about that one scene of sexual violence as compared to all the other scenes of murderous violence we have all eaten up without even a tsk tsk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 23, 2014, 11:51:55 AM
Gonna be honest your probably as likely to be killed and your house broken into than sexually assaulted. And if the positions were reversed (cersei rapes a one handed depressed jaime) we wouldn't feel any outrage. We're just morally fucked up individuals at this point holding on to some taboos we're to afraid to cross or be ok with mostly because our standing with the other assholes we deal.

Let's not go to politics, but no. You're wrong on all of these "points."  Even for you this was a boneheaded statement.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 23, 2014, 11:54:59 AM
Gonna be honest your probably as likely to be killed and your house broken into than sexually assaulted.

It's actually not even close (well, for murder, I have no idea why you threw having your house broken into unless you mean specifically murder as part of a home invasion, in which case it is even less common); rape is far more common than murder (over 5x as common in 2012) and that's not including the large number of unreported or unprosecuted cases of rape, nor is it including lesser kinds of sexual assault. Unreported murders, as you might imagine, are relatively rare on the other hand.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 23, 2014, 11:57:19 AM
...Wait what? You are projecting very hard. And no, Jaime would have stopped because Cersei wears the pants. I mean dear me we taking this very personally.
I have no idea why you think I'm taking this personally.

There was no tenderness, only hunger.  He didn't even hear her respond to him.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 23, 2014, 11:58:13 AM
We are all about violence, to the point where we actually (and I count myself among them) cheer when shit happens like Arya and the Hound killing those motherfuckers for chickens. That scene was funny as fuck and Arya stabbing that bastard in the throat was something we cheer. An 11-year old CHILD stabbing some guy in the throat is to be celebrated, laughed at and no one bats an eye.

Actually that scene bothered me*. I just didn't feel bringing it up would be of any value/insight for the forum discussion, so I didn't post about it.


*Same with Daenerys Targaryen, she is responsible for a lot of deaths, but it never seems to damage her good-girl image.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on April 23, 2014, 12:10:56 PM
They've done a good job of not mentioning the fact that Arya's 11, and that guy definitely was a dick.  Revenge killings are generally celebrated in our culture.

Similarly, Danaerys is crusading for justice and anti-slavery!  So that's also the good kind of killing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 23, 2014, 12:19:04 PM
*Same with Daenerys Targaryen, she is responsible for a lot of deaths, but it never seems to damage her good-girl image.

Ah yes Daenerys, the series' strong female character. Almost hard to remember her back in Season 1 when she was in a rapey relationship with Drogo that eventually became consensual.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 23, 2014, 12:27:51 PM
*Same with Daenerys Targaryen, she is responsible for a lot of deaths, but it never seems to damage her good-girl image.

Ah yes Daenerys, the series' strong female character. Almost hard to remember her back in Season 1 when she was in a rapey relationship with Drogo that eventually became consensual.

Another scene they bungled.  :awesome_for_real:

It seems like the directors take the "how hard can we shock the viewers" stance and in the process manage to fuck things up.  The book is brutal enough without having to turn the dial to 11.  Just like all of the baby murder.  I'm surprised they haven't filmed a flash back scene for the death of Ellia Martell and the baby Targaryens.  They could have Tywin yell "YAHTZEE!" from somewhere off screen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 23, 2014, 12:34:12 PM
*Same with Daenerys Targaryen, she is responsible for a lot of deaths, but it never seems to damage her good-girl image.

Ah yes Daenerys, the series' strong female character. Almost hard to remember her back in Season 1 when she was in a rapey relationship with Drogo that eventually became consensual.

Another scene they bungled.  :awesome_for_real:

It seems like the directors take the "how hard can we shock the viewers" stance and in the process manage to fuck things up.  The book is brutal enough without having to turn the dial to 11.  Just like all of the baby murder.  I'm surprised they haven't filmed a flash back scene for the death of Ellia Martell and the baby Targaryens.  They could have Tywin yell "YAHTZEE!" from somewhere off screen.

Yeah, no.  The book scene was ridiculous and it would have been idiotic if they tried to film it as it was.  The book went from retarded consensual wedding night to nightly rapes, the show made a whole lot more sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soulflame on April 23, 2014, 12:53:22 PM
Are you talking about dragon girl?  That wedding was not consensual.  That was her brother selling her off in exchange for a position with the guy she was forcibly married off to.

Of course, that turned out terribly well for him.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 23, 2014, 01:00:01 PM
Yeah, but in the book their first night together he was tender and basically didn't do anything until she said yes.  Then every night after that he plowed her like a blowup doll.  It was all very silly and the show did a much better job with the whole thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 23, 2014, 02:24:36 PM
Gonna be honest your probably as likely to be killed and your house broken into than sexually assaulted. And if the positions were reversed (cersei rapes a one handed depressed jaime) we wouldn't feel any outrage. We're just morally fucked up individuals at this point holding on to some taboos we're to afraid to cross or be ok with mostly because our standing with the other assholes we deal.

Let's not go to politics, but no. You're wrong on all of these "points."  Even for you this was a boneheaded statement.

I really don't want to get into politics but err no. Only 3 times less likely to be murdered, buy 4 times more likely to be robbed, 10 times more like to be assaulted, and 20 times more likely to be suffer through a home invasion. On the plus side your only 50% less likely to suffer someone intentionally setting your house on fire according to the fbi. The point is we don't bat our eyes at casual baby stabbing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 23, 2014, 02:27:23 PM
Hey, as long as it is casual, nobody objects to a good baby stabbing.  We're all just objecting to being required to dress up for it.

Right?

Guys?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2014, 03:12:30 PM
Rape is the ultimate fictional sin apparently. I don't mean that flippantly. It seems to be above killing household pets on the chart of "things people get pissy about in fictional characters."

I don't have a ton of time to respond to the rest of your post right now but for this, I think it makes sense for one particular reason - rape is still something you actually have to worry about in your normal life as a woman in this country,

The other big element in a fictional rape is that you get to see the impact on the victim - and it is impact that translates well though acting.

If Jamie had murdered Cersei, Cersei would have gone away. If he genuinely rapes her, you expect the narrative to explore the aftermath - so the event has more impact.

There was also a rape in episode 1 this season, you probably don't remember because it was an extra you won't see again - and you were being distracted by the prepubescent psychopath.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 23, 2014, 05:20:40 PM
This semester, I was teaching a non-Western epic that was written down from oral traditions in the 19th Century; it includes a major story element in which a woman is given away as a reward to heroic hunters, they attempt to rape her and are defeated by her animal 'double', and then she is given to a king whose animal 'double' eventually defeats hers after many nights of struggle. It's very clearly a story of rape and non-consent in some sense, and yet it's also set in a historical context where every modern idea we have about individuals doesn't really fit. Nobody in the story is a modern "choosing individual" in the sense that we today prize.

I'm ok when a story is trying to work with that kind of source material. The problem is that the book scene of Jaime and Cersei is NOT that. In fact, it's a rather explicit reference to a very similar scene in Richard III (and Shakespeare was just as prone to 'shock material' of this kind as Martin). The TV version just fucked it up because in part it lost the literary reference AND it lost the sense of historical alienness--that was a very modern scene of a very modern kind of rape. That's why it's so jarring, in addition to it breaking the character arc for Jamie that they were developing. I honestly think from what I can see so far, the showrunners didn't even know that that scene broke the character arc they were working towards, which raises concerns about the whole thing.

It's like any show where you suddenly have to ask, "Uh-oh, do they actually know where to take this thing? What to do with those people?" Occasionally everyone is panicking too early with those questions, but we have plenty of recent examples where it turns out that the first time you say, "Uh-oh, that doesn't look good" is only the beginning of the times where you're going to say, "Fuck, they're losing it." They're heading into a season ahead where their judgment MUST be consistently better than Martin's or it's going to be a dull mess, and if they think that the solution to 'dull mess' is to make stuff shocking just to keep it from being boring, we'll all end up hating the whole fucking thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 23, 2014, 11:27:09 PM
The bottom line is that the scene was clumsily handled and gave off the wrong impression of what was really meant to happen.  In the book, any explicit or implied objection Cersei may have had towards the act had to do with the totally inappropriate setting.  I mean, up against their dead son's coffin?  Does that still make it rape?  I am not qualified to answer that.  Martin fucked it up when he did that.  The director of the show fucked it up a good bit further by making it appear like clear rape.

But I think Haemish touches on an interesting point.  Jaime pulls her dress up, forces her down to the ground and has at it with this woman we are all meant to absolutely despise, despite her objections.  We are all in an uproar.  Had he forced her down to the floor, pulled out a dagger and stabbed her forty times in the brain, stood up and pissed into dead Joffrey's slightly ajar mouth...we'd all be celebrating and falling even more in love with Jaime Lannister. 

This in no way excuses the act that was portrayed, but some of you people have your moral compasses hugely out of whack.  Yeah, it is totally wrong, but at the same time it is an extremely honest depiction of what would have been very commonplace in that world.  But neither in that world nor this one is it worse than, say, killing a kid.  It's just odd to me how one thing will bother some people so much, when so many other things not only get a pass, but they even get us to cheer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on April 23, 2014, 11:29:07 PM
And around we go again..

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/82533/johnwayne.gif)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 24, 2014, 01:03:26 AM

This in no way excuses the act that was portrayed, but some of you people have your moral compasses hugely out of whack. 

Quote
“I can describe an axe entering a human skull in great explicit detail and no one will blink twice at it. I provide a similar description, just as detailed, of a penis entering a vagina, and I get letters about it and people swearing off. To my mind this is kind of frustrating, it’s madness. Ultimately, in the history of [the] world, penises entering vaginas have given a lot of people a lot of pleasure; axes entering skulls, well, not so much.” - A Song of Ice and Fire author, George R.R. Martin on American readers’ reactions to his sex scenes

It's fiction. Just because people watch it, it doesn't mean they are going to have a family fuck-fest at a funeral. It's also pretty obvious that people make compromises with double standards - watch it but don't do it. Having said that, I can understand why the scene is distasteful to many - I wasn't a fan of the representation.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2014, 01:31:34 AM
No-one else was disturbed by the big googly eyes they put on Joffreys corpse ?

That's what really made me shudder.

Gooooogly eyes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 24, 2014, 02:07:13 AM
No-one else was disturbed by the big googly eyes they put on Joffreys corpse ?

That's what really made me shudder.

Gooooogly eyes.


Yes, Google scares me too.



If you re-watch the first episode you will see the same stones are on the murdered Hand of the King, so it's nothing Joffrey specific.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 24, 2014, 02:38:05 AM
No-one else was disturbed by the big googly eyes they put on Joffreys corpse ?

That's what really made me shudder.

Gooooogly eyes.


They did the same thing with Jon Arryn's corpse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 24, 2014, 03:26:07 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/PTPRqxM.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 24, 2014, 05:50:14 AM
Much as I want to make the point that the past was different and all that, in late medieval Europe it would still have been considered shocking to rape your sister next to the body of the dead child born from incest between you.

It wasn't so shocking for the nobility to march into a town and rape and murder peasants in retaliation for popular unrest or because of religious heresy, etc.--crimes across the social hierarchy were generally a different matter. It also was not that shocking for Vikings to raid towns and take women (and men) as prizes. Etc. And what we would call rape certainly happened within arranged marriages.

But the stuff that really shocks in tales from the Hundred Years' War or the War of the Roses (and various retellings like Shakespeare's) was generally some form of exaggerated propaganda--which shows that yeah, you could shock people even then by saying, "Hey, didcha know Richard had his nephews murdered? They were just kids!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2014, 06:07:33 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/PTPRqxM.gif)

 :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 24, 2014, 06:22:21 AM
Heh that's a great pic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 24, 2014, 09:13:02 AM
That pic is total win.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on April 24, 2014, 02:00:39 PM
Jaime isn't a good person, but he has a code, and above all else, in a super fucked up way, part of that code is driven by the fact he loves his sister and would do anything, including murder children, to protect her from harm. Raping her is a violation of that code, and thus IS out of character, no matter how many kids he tries to off. And that it wasn't intended to be seen that way makes it even more fucked up.

I'd have to go back and reread the books, but I don't recall there being enough shown of their relationship aside from the lust that would suggest that he does have a code. Does he attempt to murder children because he loves her and wants to protect her from harm, or does he do it because he loves fucking her and wants to continue to be able to do it? It's such a dysfunctional relationship it's hard to tell what's in character or out of it, especially at a time when that relationship is falling apart. Their relationship seems so built on sex, that when he finally makes it home after everything he's been through and she doesn't want much to do with him and tells him as much, I'm don't really think you can say this for sure is out of character for him.

In the books, in his chapters, he goes on and on about how much he loves Cersei, how he's never been with anyone BUT Cersei, he's always been true to her "in his own way," etc. It doesn't make it less creepy (in fact ... pretty much the opposite), but he is way, way, way more into Cersei than Cersei is into him, and it's not for sex.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2014, 02:20:05 PM
Cersei is not into him at all.  Cersei is into Cersei with a dick.  In the book they are supposed to be twins and a lot closer in appearance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sjofn on April 24, 2014, 02:56:16 PM
Which has the insane side effect of you being more grossed out by Cersei for the incest than Jaime because hey, at least he loves her. Or maybe that's just me.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 24, 2014, 02:56:27 PM
A counterpoint: Brienne is pretty much everything Cersei is not.  And Jaime is cleary drawn there.  And yet, he continues to talk about Cersei and take actions (both in the book and show) that cling to his past relationship, despite it not being satisfying to him.  That says something to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 24, 2014, 03:15:07 PM
Brienne is everything he aspires to be as a knight. A great swordsman, utterly honorable and dutiful, completely loyal and also moral. Cersei is more like the Kingslayer part of him that he secretly loathes but can't resist.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 24, 2014, 03:16:42 PM
Wasn't Cersei already boffing Lancel by this stage of the books? I am bit fuzzy on when she moved her incest to her young cousin but they don't seem to even have that part in the show at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 24, 2014, 03:18:22 PM
Wasn't Cersei already boffing Lancel by this stage of the books?...
Yes.  Certainly.  And it was in the show.  Tyrion threatens Lancel over it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 24, 2014, 03:43:50 PM
I found an interesting interview with Martin - he brings up Jamie and Cersei:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423?page=3

Quote
It's a shockingly brutal story that you tell. The first major jolt comes when the knight Jaime Lannister pushes a child, Bran Stark, through a window because the child witnessed Jaime and Jaime's sister, Cersei – the wife of Westeros' King Robert – having sex. That moment grabs you by the throat.

I've had a million people tell me that was the moment that hooked them, where they said, "Well, this is just not the same story I read a million times before." Bran is the first viewpoint character. In the back of their heads, people are thinking Bran is the hero of the story. He's young King Arthur. We're going to follow this young boy – and then, boom: You don't expect something like that to happen to him. So that was successful [laughs].

Both Jaime and Cersei are clearly despicable in those moments. Later, though, we see a more humane side of Jaime when he rescues a woman, who had been an enemy, from rape. All of a sudden we don't know what to feel about Jaime.
One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don't have an answer. But when do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick. Michael Vick has served years in prison; he's apologized. Has he apologized sufficiently? Woody Allen: Is Woody Allen someone that we should laud, or someone that we should despise? Or Roman Polanski, Paula Deen. Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you're a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard? I don't know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about. I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what's the answer then?

More stuff in that sort of vein - it's a decent read


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 24, 2014, 05:44:43 PM
Quote from: HaemishM link=topic=15316.msg1281408#msg128i1408 date=1398377707
Brienne is everything he aspires to be as a knight. A great swordsman, utterly honorable and dutiful, completely loyal and also moral. Cersei is more like the Kingslayer part of him that he secretly loathes but can't resist.

The key thing I think he admires is her ability to retain faith in the idea that you can be moral.

Interesting you say he loathes the Kingslayer part of him, but that is the one choice that Brienne would (probably) also have made. I think what he loathes is not being the Kingslayer, but how he is judged for the only action he ever took that he is proud of. His weakness is that, being utterly spoiled up to that point, he stopped even trying to see the world in moral terms following his first setback.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 24, 2014, 06:05:46 PM
I agree, I think Jaime hates how people have used Kingslayer against him as a slur. Rather than him actually celebrated for ending the reign of an lunatic. Because it wasn't that people liked the king, it was that he was killed the wrong way. Like that matters.

Frankly, that's part of why I like Jaime. He's a fool in his own way, but we're all blinded by our own foolishness.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2014, 06:10:17 PM
Not just that, but he also sees the other side.  How the other kingsguard he served with and who honorably served the mad king to the very end are glorified and treated as heroes of legend.  People tell their kids stories about the sword of the morning and the white bull and the others, but when he tried to stop the mad king from raping and hurting his wife they were the ones who told him "nope, not your job buddy".  It's not surprising at all his view of honor and morality is completely fucked up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2014, 01:55:10 AM
Well, I guess I learned who Michael Vick is.  Not that I care.

And yes, if I was Jamie (not the other stuff, the Kingsguard stuff) I'd be well fucked off an jaded too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 25, 2014, 05:00:05 AM
He clearly receives a lot of undeserved shit for being a kingslayer, but on the other hand it fits with one of the overall themes in this series:  you break an oath, you will pay for it.  As far as penalties go, he has so far gotten off easier than just about everyone else.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 25, 2014, 08:34:35 AM
By 'easier' you mean 'not dead yet'? His son is dead and he lost a hand, he's been stripped of his skills and martial resources that defined him and people are basically laughing at him, his lover hates him, his brother might have killed his son, and his father attempts to force him into a political role he doesn't want.

Jamie is Titus Andronicus.





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 25, 2014, 09:50:08 AM
The first oath every knight swears is "protect the innocent", some of his oaths were completely contradictory and impossible to follow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 25, 2014, 10:21:46 AM
The first oath every knight swears is "protect the innocent", some of his oaths were completely contradictory and impossible to follow.
Not all oaths are created equal.  Oaths to the guy funding your paychecks historically trumps other oaths.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2014, 10:26:35 AM
Thankfully, this is not the case.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 25, 2014, 12:17:36 PM
Thankfully, this is not the case.
For Jaime?  No.  For pretty much everyone else in the KG of the Mad King?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 25, 2014, 12:40:39 PM
I don't know if I posted my opinion of this season yet, but the show is basically going to shit. Too many uninteresting characters. Too many storylines that don't matter (see: everything involving khaleesi (spelling? who cares)). It's basically Heroes post season-1 at this point. I know a lot of people are invested in the show and will disagree because they spent so much time reading poorly-edited do-nothing books, but I think I'm going to hold off until the end and bingewatch it while playing Hex or Diablo 3, and from there decide whether to watch season 5.

Also knowing that absolutely nothing happens in Dance with Dragons or whatever that last book was doesn't make it any more promising.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 25, 2014, 12:46:07 PM
A counterpoint: Brienne is pretty much everything Cersei is not.  And Jaime is cleary drawn there.  And yet, he continues to talk about Cersei and take actions (both in the book and show) that cling to his past relationship, despite it not being satisfying to him.  That says something to me.

Well, Cersei is certainly a 'hatefull woman' but that has been directed towards other people, not Jamie. She has an intruging side, and I am sure she can be quite nice to him. Secondly, Brienne might just be the right one for him, but that doesn't mean he consciously realized that. I don't think pre-losing-hand-Jamie was a very introspective/self-aware person.

Thankfully, this is not the case.
For Jaime?  No.  For pretty much everyone else in the KG of the Mad King?

It was the morally right decision though. (At least from what the TV show tells.)


Apropos morals, what the consensus on Tywin? He held a convincing speech last episode.  :grin:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 25, 2014, 12:53:22 PM
...
Quote
For Jaime?  No.  For pretty much everyone else in the KG of the Mad King?

It was the morally right decision though. (At least from what the TV show tells.)...
It was good for the world, but I still maintain Jaime did it because it was good for his family and him, not because he cared what was going to happen to the peasants.  At every point of the stories, I think Jaime would be happy to sit down and watch a bear tear a child apart if it was the community entertainment for the night and the child was not someone he knew.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2014, 01:03:23 PM

Apropos morals, what the consensus on Tywin? He held a convincing speech last episode.  :grin:



Insert Fry 'Not Sure If Serious' Pic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on April 25, 2014, 01:49:58 PM
The show is great just for the gifs it inspires:

(http://i.imgur.com/RkxjlGW.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 25, 2014, 02:00:56 PM
The show is great just for the gifs it inspires:

(http://i.imgur.com/RkxjlGW.gif)
Wait, that wasn't the actual scene? 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 25, 2014, 06:20:40 PM
Perhaps relevant.

http://imgur.com/gallery/9iCHB


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 25, 2014, 09:46:47 PM
Apropos morals, what the consensus on Tywin? He held a convincing speech last episode.
Insert Fry 'Not Sure If Serious' Pic.
I am referring to his 'What makes a good ruler?' lecture. (So we are not crosstalking). About that, yep I think he had some valid points.

But I don't mind being the contrarian on this. Everyone here has a guy/girl crush on Tyrion, I'd rather spend the night in Tywins bed instead.  :grin:


Perhaps relevant.

http://imgur.com/gallery/9iCHB


I think you missed a small detail:

(http://i.imgur.com/MEeTf3f.png?1)

Unless you think that sounds legit:

CERSEI: Just now, you were forcing yourself on me. I love and trust you, and you were making me feel powerless and violated.

JAIME: Thank you for having the trust in me to verbalize your experience.

CERSEI: You're welcome.

 :grin:



Unless...YOU were being sarcastic all along. In which case I profoundly apologize for my jumping to conclusions. And hope my ill-found mocking has not caused you any anguish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 25, 2014, 11:00:17 PM
I think Calapine's having a bad thread.  There is no way Khaldun missed the fact that it was obvious parody.

Unless of course now I am the victim of your own form of sarcasm, but your question on whether or not we all think Tywin is a swell guy makes me think this is not the case.

For the record, Tywin is smart and wise and certainly knows his way around a royal court.  But he is also totally ruthless and unquestionably a giant asshole.  Really, just flat out evil.  I do like that they are showing all sides of these people whenever possible, because of course nobody is so black and white good/evil all the time.  He's still a bad, bad man. 

His speech was spot on, and designed to make us temporarily feel warm and fuzzy for him.  He does sometimes appear to be a swell guy, but that is only because he is surrounded by even bigger assholes, some of whom are downright psychotic or otherwise mental.  Do keep in mind that with all the good words he was saying in his little speech with Tommen, he was talking to a boy that he KNOWS is a product of incest, and absolutely NOT the rightful heir to the throne.  And furthermore, the whole speech was basically to say to Tommen that, hey, a good king will listen to his advisors all the time...which means listening to Tywin Lannister. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 26, 2014, 02:15:28 AM

I am referring to his 'What makes a good ruler?' lecture. (So we are not crosstalking). About that, yep I think he had some valid points.

But I don't mind being the contrarian on this. Everyone here has a guy/girl crush on Tyrion, I'd rather spend the night in Tywins bed instead.  :grin:


No, I got what you were talking about :  You realise he had NO point at all except 'You'll listen to me or you'll end up on the slab like that wee cunt over there ?'  I mean, you got that right ?  It wasn't a speech about anything beyond 'I am in charge here prick.'



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 26, 2014, 03:32:18 AM
Geez, did I need to use green text? I wouldn't have thought it was required.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 26, 2014, 06:13:21 AM
Tywin is obsessed with the family legacy.  All else stems from that, including his being a ruthless asshole to anyone who doesn't agree with him.  Which is pretty much everyone, but then being a tyrant is rarely popular.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 26, 2014, 07:23:29 AM

I am referring to his 'What makes a good ruler?' lecture. (So we are not crosstalking). About that, yep I think he had some valid points.

But I don't mind being the contrarian on this. Everyone here has a guy/girl crush on Tyrion, I'd rather spend the night in Tywins bed instead.  :grin:


No, I got what you were talking about :  You realise he had NO point at all except 'You'll listen to me or you'll end up on the slab like that wee cunt over there ?'  I mean, you got that right ?  It wasn't a speech about anything beyond 'I am in charge here prick.'

Yeah he basically said that all the other kings died because they didn't heed their advisers and their wisdom.  When Tywin uses his pimp hand, the slap is only as hard as it needs to be.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 26, 2014, 08:05:48 AM
No, I got what you were talking about :  You realise he had NO point at all except 'You'll listen to me or you'll end up on the slab like that wee cunt over there ?'  I mean, you got that right ?  It wasn't a speech about anything beyond 'I am in charge here prick.'

Yes, but it was also honest advice. Little boy get's on a throne that killed the last three men that sat on that position. Should he have said "You are 12, just do what you want" or "Listen to your mother. Cersei always makes well reasoned decisions!"

Tommys (spelling?) is a naive kid whose first answer to what makes a good king is "be pious". Tywin teaches him right away "What's the point of being nice when it gets you killed and puts the bad guys in charge?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 26, 2014, 08:16:04 AM
Did you hear they took the word gullible out of the dictionary.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 26, 2014, 08:27:03 AM
Did you hear they took the word gullible out of the dictionary.

No, it's still there. Right beside my picture!


I am totally aware the main message was "Do what I say." But I also think Tywin meant every word of it. It's not like he killed Joffrey, in which case, yes, it would be nothing but a threat. Honestly, what would YOU have said?

In general Tywin is one of the view people you can trust - as long as you are a Lannister. He wants the best for his family, the problem is just that Tyron, Cersei and Jamie have a different opinion on what's "best" for them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 26, 2014, 08:37:13 AM
I don't think he meant every word of it.  I think he thought it was 'true' but that's not really important to him.  He could have found 50 other reasons why the other Kings sucked (which would pretty much amount to 'they're not me').  The message was 'listen to me and trust me and those I tell you to and it'll all be ok because I'm awesome'.

I have some passing familiarity with that state of mind.

As to 'as long as you're a Lannister', this is the man that's FUCKED all 3 of those kids.  Jesus.  He doesn't wants what's 'best' for them he wants what HE wants for them.  Massive difference.  Sure, you might agree with him because you think he's right at times, but even when he's wrong he won't give a flying fuck about your agreement.

Again, it sounds familiar somehow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 26, 2014, 09:06:10 AM
I don't think he meant every word of it.  I think he thought it was 'true' but that's not really important to him.  He could have found 50 other reasons why the other Kings sucked (which would pretty much amount to 'they're not me').  The message was 'listen to me and trust me and those I tell you to and it'll all be ok because I'm awesome'.

I think we not actually disagreeing and just arguing semantics now. Yes he basically said "Do what I say because I am awesome and know best". But he is actually right about that. Who else should Tommy follow? Cersei, Littlefinger? Tywin is ruthless but not psychotic, managed to strengthen his house and grow to be an old man, without losing either his cock, arm or head. That's a lot better than other people I can think of.


As to 'as long as you're a Lannister', this is the man that's FUCKED all 3 of those kids.  Jesus.  He doesn't wants what's 'best' for them he wants what HE wants for them.  Massive difference.  Sure, you might agree with him because you think he's right at times, but even when he's wrong he won't give a flying fuck about your agreement.

Again, it sounds familiar somehow.

Children having different ideas about how things should be run than their parents from another generation. Doesn't sound especially uniquely Lannister. I think "You shut up, marry the person you are told and put your life subservient to family good" isn't really strange or evil for an medieval aristocracy. Still a luxurious life and better than being a serf on a farm.

Edit: Not I that I say Tyrion or Cersei are wrong in wanting to go their own way. I personally have no intention of ever meeting my own father again. Horrible person.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 26, 2014, 09:49:22 AM
And now we're getting to the issue.  Tell me about your Mother.

(http://a2.files.saymedia-content.com/image/upload/c_fill,g_face,h_300,q_70,w_300/MTIwNjA4NjMzODE2OTA5MzI0.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on April 26, 2014, 11:59:39 AM
I don't get why so many people are upset about the rapey scene.  Cersei is an evil, evil person who has done some really horrible things (remember she killed her husband???).  I'm A-Ok with bad things happening to bad people, men or women.  I think a lot of the hand wringing, esp. from women, is because they were getting attached to Jamie through his adventures with Brienne and the rapeyness of that scene shattered all their fantasies of him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 26, 2014, 12:01:23 PM
They are upset that it's being called consensual.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on April 26, 2014, 12:04:35 PM
They are upset that it's being called consensual.

Really?  It clearly wasn't.  I don't know how anyone can say it was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 26, 2014, 12:16:03 PM
Because it was portrayed that way in the book, and confirmed by the author.  That's the big mistake here.  Well that, and the fact that the director probably doesn't know what consensual sex is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 26, 2014, 06:18:32 PM
Honestly watching that scene my take was that Cersei was putting on an act in order to manipulate Jamie with guilt later.  But that's what I automatically assume of Cersei in any situation -- any emotion she projects other than smug self-satisfaction is an act put on for the purpose of gaining power over someone or just fucking with them.  I didn't even believe her when she looked upset about Joffrey dying -- once she lost the ability to control him he wasn't useful to her any more.  She put on the bereaved mother act just so that she could fuck with Tyrion (who she hates because he's smarter than she is and therefore a threat).

Yeah, I don't have a high opinion of Cersei.   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 26, 2014, 07:36:55 PM
In general Tywin is one of the view people you can trust - as long as you are a Lannister. He wants the best for his family, the problem is just that Tyron, Cersei and Jamie have a different opinion on what's "best" for them.

Sure with your caveat - but this is the guy that came sniffing around at the end of the rebellion against the Targaryans and then was complicit in the killing of young children. Yet people kick up a fuss when Jamie tosses one kid off a tower. Tywin is ruthless and brutal and callous, something people forget outside of his dynastic manipulation of his children. Maybe the TV series didn't make as big a deal over his contempt for Tyrion, but it's hard to forget how he treated Tyrion's first wife (and whore).

I like the TV portrayal of him, but he's no better than the other characters in blurring the line between honour and barbarism.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 26, 2014, 11:26:08 PM
You could do a lot worse than Tywin teaching you how to play politics. He's got his family on the throne and if anything happens to this kid they're off it. Let grandpa run stuff while you watch and learn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 27, 2014, 01:57:43 AM
In general Tywin is one of the view people you can trust - as long as you are a Lannister. He wants the best for his family, the problem is just that Tyron, Cersei and Jamie have a different opinion on what's "best" for them.

Sure with your caveat - but this is the guy that came sniffing around at the end of the rebellion against the Targaryans and then was complicit in the killing of young children. Yet people kick up a fuss when Jamie tosses one kid off a tower. Tywin is ruthless and brutal and callous, something people forget outside of his dynastic manipulation of his children. Maybe the TV series didn't make as big a deal over his contempt for Tyrion, but it's hard to forget how he treated Tyrion's first wife (and whore).

I like the TV portrayal of him, but he's no better than the other characters in blurring the line between honour and barbarism.

Did you miss the scene where Tywin explained how he had wanted to drown Tyrion at birth and only the honour of the family name stopped him?

If anything I think TVTywin has been more contemptuous toward Tyrion than book Tywin. Though Charles Dance being awesome is part of that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 27, 2014, 07:13:05 AM
You could do a lot worse than Tywin teaching you how to play politics. He's got his family on the throne and if anything happens to this kid they're off it. Let grandpa run stuff while you watch and learn.

Exactly.  :heart: That was my point. Seems Bob and me are the only clear headed thinkers around here!  ;D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 27, 2014, 07:22:25 AM
And you know what? when the ice walkers and their zombie armies come marching down to roll over humanity i would want Tywin in charge of the defense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 27, 2014, 11:19:57 AM
You could do a lot worse than Tywin teaching you how to play politics. He's got his family on the throne and if anything happens to this kid they're off it. Let grandpa run stuff while you watch and learn.

Exactly.  :heart: That was my point. Seems Bob and me are the only clear headed thinkers around here!  ;D

You realise the full implications of that, right ?  You're in perfect agreement... with Angry Bob.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2014, 02:57:06 PM
I don't think you'd want Tywin in charge of the defenses. The guy does not think about the long game in the biggest sense. He thinks about how he and his house come out ahead in the next step. He'd make a great executive at Goldman-Sachs but not a great leader of the nation. If the White Walkers were closing on King's Landing, my assumption would be that he would be checking to see what of his house's wealth was mobile and would be preparing to ship across the Narrow Sea.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on April 27, 2014, 05:57:32 PM
I don't think you'd want Tywin in charge of the defenses. The guy does not think about the long game in the biggest sense. He thinks about how he and his house come out ahead in the next step. He'd make a great executive at Goldman-Sachs but not a great leader of the nation. If the White Walkers were closing on King's Landing, my assumption would be that he would be checking to see what of his house's wealth was mobile and would be preparing to ship across the Narrow Sea.


Not just that, but he doesn't exactly have a sterling record as a commander on the battlefield, unless I'm forgetting something. Didn't Robb/The North basically school him routinely and only struggle to win due to the sheer issue of numbers on the Lannister side? Regardless, Tywin, while an interesting character, isn't someone I'd want to entrust my fate to.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 27, 2014, 07:07:24 PM
I'm pretty sure the show just spoiled future book content.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 27, 2014, 07:22:02 PM
I'm pretty sure the show just spoiled future book content.

Superman's fortress of solitude, medieval edition is going to be awesome!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 27, 2014, 07:31:29 PM
Details please? I haven't been watching this season. Feel free to hide it in tags if necessary.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2014, 07:33:12 PM
I don't think you'd want Tywin in charge of the defenses. The guy does not think about the long game in the biggest sense. He thinks about how he and his house come out ahead in the next step. He'd make a great executive at Goldman-Sachs but not a great leader of the nation. If the White Walkers were closing on King's Landing, my assumption would be that he would be checking to see what of his house's wealth was mobile and would be preparing to ship across the Narrow Sea.

Yeah Tywin's not the guy you want in a crisis. He'll sell the country down the river so he can start over with his family on the other side of the seas.

The Lannister you want in a crisis is probably Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 27, 2014, 07:35:54 PM
Details please? I haven't been watching this season. Feel free to hide it in tags if necessary.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on April 27, 2014, 07:57:37 PM
I don't think you'd want Tywin in charge of the defenses. The guy does not think about the long game in the biggest sense. He thinks about how he and his house come out ahead in the next step. He'd make a great executive at Goldman-Sachs but not a great leader of the nation. If the White Walkers were closing on King's Landing, my assumption would be that he would be checking to see what of his house's wealth was mobile and would be preparing to ship across the Narrow Sea.

Yeah Tywin's not the guy you want in a crisis. He'll sell the country down the river so he can start over with his family on the other side of the seas.

The Lannister you want in a crisis is probably Tyrion.

I was thinking if you had to go with one of the ostensibly bad guys, you could do a lot worse than Randyll Tarly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 27, 2014, 08:01:47 PM
I just figured some sort of medieval "Redeker plan" was going to be necessary and Tywin would be the only one ruthless enough to put something like that into effect.  But yeah, Randyll Tarly would do fine as a battlefield commander.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2014, 08:09:08 PM
Good change to the Bran storyline.

And yeah, that was definitely more about


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 27, 2014, 08:30:18 PM
Man the only thing I thought to myself when this episode started (past the learning how to read parts) was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I'm tempted to fast forward through all Dany parts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 27, 2014, 08:33:13 PM
Details please? I haven't been watching this season. Feel free to hide it in tags if necessary.

I thought that was pretty heavily implied.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 27, 2014, 09:01:58 PM
I dunno what the hell else you'd think they'd be doing with them.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 27, 2014, 09:36:25 PM
Details please? I haven't been watching this season. Feel free to hide it in tags if necessary.

I thought that was pretty heavily implied.
Always figured the num num was enough.

Hmmm unless I see a female white walker the white walkers are treading the fine line of bullshit fictional race. Unless they really don't kill indiscriminately but attempt to set up white walker cults and kill the non believers....

Bran story... ehhh.....

This whole plotline about casters place makes a little less sense. Our King Behind the Wall couldn't give 2 shits about Castor. Nor would he check up on a incest camp of rape and incest. He'd literally either destroy the place as a "fuck you for feeding the white walkers you fucks" or leave him alone. No reason to go checking up on the white walker loving camp of incest and rape unless your planning to firebomb the place, which would have happened by now... and Jon Snow should be smart enough to guess as much himself.... i mean fuck tv writers can you be more contrived with your contrived plotlines.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 28, 2014, 12:18:59 AM
Thinking about Jon's future arc, I like that they found an excuse to have him do something with a bunch of NW guys before the thing that happens and then the thing Sam does.

And protecting his secret that he has no guys on the Wall feels important. Plus his own experience suggests captured crows get interrogated about this shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 28, 2014, 01:30:59 AM
Thinking about Jon's future arc, I like that they found an excuse to have him do something with a bunch of NW guys before the thing that happens and then the thing Sam does.

And protecting his secret that he has no guys on the Wall feels important. Plus his own experience suggests captured crows get interrogated about this shit.

Except the only thing keeping Mance from rolling over the wall in the book was the fact that his troops were ill-disciplined. The most he could do is send them in the general direction of castle black and hope for the best. His best fighters were the scouts, who he kept as scouts for obvious reasons and they were "suppose" to hit castle black while everyone was relaxing all cool in the yard. TV show advance party seems to be content bringing attention to themselves raiding villages around Castle Black...something that would have easily forced the hand of several northern houses to react to immediately. While book advance party actually tried to do their job.

So while TV show caster mission feels important, it also feels both impractical and fillerish, like anime filler. The main issue is that Mance army is very far away and is literally running from the white walkers and an army of undead. It really doesn't who is guarding castle black at this moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 28, 2014, 01:39:27 AM
TV show advance party seems to be content bringing attention to themselves raiding villages around Castle Black...something that would have easily forced the hand of several northern houses to react to immediately. While book advance party actually tried to do their job.

The Northern houses are a bit fucked at the moment, what with Winterfell being burned down and all, the Greyjoy's occupying Deepwood Motte, and most of the Northern Lords having just fought on the losing side of a war.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 28, 2014, 04:03:05 AM
"Sansa's not a killer. Not yet anyway." Nice direction if indeed they are foreshadowing something that hasn't been written into the books (yet).

The interplay between Bronn and Jamie and then Jamie was good even if Jamie has gone from rapey-sister-fucker to likable Jamie again. It just reinforces to me that the directors fucked up last week's episode badly.

I really hope they cut the hell out of the Dany story - what they did with Pale Worm gave him more depth in one scene than I've seen from him in the series.

I'm really hoping they ditch the books soon and just keep the bare bones. Even so, I'm hoping that they let Tywin  (book spoiler).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 28, 2014, 06:28:59 AM
I keep feeling pretty sure that we're


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 28, 2014, 06:31:46 AM
Thinking about Jon's future arc, I like that they found an excuse to have him do something with a bunch of NW guys before the thing that happens and then the thing Sam does.

And protecting his secret that he has no guys on the Wall feels important. Plus his own experience suggests captured crows get interrogated about this shit.

Except the only thing keeping Mance from rolling over the wall in the book was the fact that his troops were ill-disciplined. The most he could do is send them in the general direction of castle black and hope for the best. His best fighters were the scouts, who he kept as scouts for obvious reasons and they were "suppose" to hit castle black while everyone was relaxing all cool in the yard. TV show advance party seems to be content bringing attention to themselves raiding villages around Castle Black...something that would have easily forced the hand of several northern houses to react to immediately. While book advance party actually tried to do their job.


The scouts are attacking the areas controlled by the nightswatch specifically to draw them out and not have to attack their castle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 28, 2014, 06:35:51 AM
I don't think you'd want Tywin in charge of the defenses. The guy does not think about the long game in the biggest sense. He thinks about how he and his house come out ahead in the next step. He'd make a great executive at Goldman-Sachs but not a great leader of the nation. If the White Walkers were closing on King's Landing, my assumption would be that he would be checking to see what of his house's wealth was mobile and would be preparing to ship across the Narrow Sea.

Yeah Tywin's not the guy you want in a crisis. He'll sell the country down the river so he can start over with his family on the other side of the seas.

The Lannister you want in a crisis is probably Tyrion.

No probably about it.  Kings Landing is still in Lannister hands entirely because of Tyrion's preparations of the defenses and reinforcement of the city watch with whomever he could consript.  Had it been only dad in charge they wouldn't have been able to hold out until they were rescued by the reinforcements.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2014, 07:13:30 AM
Yes, that was my thought process as well. Given what we saw at Blackwater, the Dwarf takes the day.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 28, 2014, 08:46:46 AM
Thinking about Jon's future arc, I like that they found an excuse to have him do something with a bunch of NW guys before the thing that happens and then the thing Sam does.

And protecting his secret that he has no guys on the Wall feels important. Plus his own experience suggests captured crows get interrogated about this shit.

Except the only thing keeping Mance from rolling over the wall in the book was the fact that his troops were ill-disciplined. The most he could do is send them in the general direction of castle black and hope for the best. His best fighters were the scouts, who he kept as scouts for obvious reasons and they were "suppose" to hit castle black while everyone was relaxing all cool in the yard. TV show advance party seems to be content bringing attention to themselves raiding villages around Castle Black...something that would have easily forced the hand of several northern houses to react to immediately. While book advance party actually tried to do their job.


The scouts are attacking the areas controlled by the nightswatch specifically to draw them out and not have to attack their castle.

l

TV show advance party seems to be content bringing attention to themselves raiding villages around Castle Black...something that would have easily forced the hand of several northern houses to react to immediately. While book advance party actually tried to do their job.

The Northern houses are a bit fucked at the moment, what with Winterfell being burned down and all, the Greyjoy's occupying Deepwood Motte, and most of the Northern Lords having just fought on the losing side of a war.

Except even the most despot, crapsack, half starving northern house HATES the wildlings to the point of irrational racial rage of white cleansing. They wouldn't under no circumstances tolerate a significant number of wildings raiding south of the wall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 28, 2014, 09:53:15 AM
I don't think you'd want Tywin in charge of the defenses. The guy does not think about the long game in the biggest sense. He thinks about how he and his house come out ahead in the next step. He'd make a great executive at Goldman-Sachs but not a great leader of the nation. If the White Walkers were closing on King's Landing, my assumption would be that he would be checking to see what of his house's wealth was mobile and would be preparing to ship across the Narrow Sea.

Yeah Tywin's not the guy you want in a crisis. He'll sell the country down the river so he can start over with his family on the other side of the seas.

The Lannister you want in a crisis is probably Tyrion.

No probably about it.  Kings Landing is still in Lannister hands entirely because of Tyrion's preparations of the defenses and reinforcement of the city watch with whomever he could consript.  Had it been only dad in charge they wouldn't have been able to hold out until they were rescued by the reinforcements.

Also Tyrion has plot armour. If Tywin fucks up he's dead.

The guy you really want is Varys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 28, 2014, 10:14:48 AM
The whole Locke joining the Night's Watch and volunteering to go past the wall with Jon Snow seems like a "Bolton wants to find the supposedly dead Stark boys" addition to the plot line which I honestly don't remember from the books. Of course, the whole Reek storyline happens way later in the books than where events are now in the show so maybe I am confused by the order of things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 28, 2014, 10:26:43 AM
I think this is the first sign that they're preparing to move away from the novels more.  I'm betting that they've realized that they'll wrap up the show before GMR wraps up the books, and as a result, they can't have the show follow the books entirely... so they're starting to break away and write their own tale (with GMMR involved).  I'm sure the novels will continue to inspire the show, but I think we'll get farther and farther from the novels as we go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 28, 2014, 01:57:13 PM
I think we're seeing what they want to do with the Boltons and Reek, yeah. Though I can't imagine what would get Ramsay to go north of the Wall to find Bran--he may want to impress dear old Dad but not that much. Maybe Bran and Co. are going to come back south of the Wall for a while before he goes and does his thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 28, 2014, 02:44:08 PM
Or in other words these filler arcs are filler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on April 28, 2014, 05:02:41 PM

Also, Craster sucked - good thing he's dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 28, 2014, 05:35:48 PM
Oh. Apparently the credits showed that the White Walker with the horns was the Night's King before they took the credit off after people started to react.

This is somewhat notable if you've read the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 28, 2014, 06:36:48 PM
Oh. Apparently the credits showed that the White Walker with the horns was the Night's King before they took the credit off after people started to react.

This is somewhat notable if you've read the books.


wow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on April 28, 2014, 06:43:56 PM
And I wouldn't have even noticed if some assholes on the internet hadn't made such a big deal about it.

In fact, even after they did, I still had no idea until it was just spelled out for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 28, 2014, 07:42:23 PM
I think this is the first sign that they're preparing to move away from the novels more.  I'm betting that they've realized that they'll wrap up the show before GMR wraps up the books, and as a result, they can't have the show follow the books entirely... so they're starting to break away and write their own tale (with GMMR involved).  I'm sure the novels will continue to inspire the show, but I think we'll get farther and farther from the novels as we go.

The show at this point has become more important than the books, a massive worldwide hit, and I am guessing GRRM is perfectly happy with that. I am also going to guess GRRM probably enjoys collaborating on the show, bringing his work to life with a big budget and so many talented people, more than slogging away by himself at 900 page volumes in his office, that he isn't even all that great at writing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 28, 2014, 09:59:07 PM
Oh. Apparently the credits showed that the White Walker with the horns was the Night's King before they took the credit off after people started to react.

This is somewhat notable if you've read the books.

Yeah, I would have figured Coldhands for the Night King.  Either I was completely wrong, or they are really going in a substantially different direction now.  The fact that the passage through Nightfort and Coldhands were cut completely would argue for the latter.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 29, 2014, 07:32:17 AM
Nah, I'm betting Coldhands is Benjen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2014, 08:23:08 AM
Coldhands was obviously Benjen, and it wasn't the credits it was some episode synopsis that named that guy the night's king.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on April 29, 2014, 09:04:53 AM
A minor change, but an improvement over the books for how Pod was handled. Instead of a major coincidence dictating how his someone-to-talk-at character moved from one sympathetic POV character to another, his appointment to Brienne made perfect sense and created a satisfying emotional handoff between his final scene with Tyrion, Tyrion's with Jaime, and Jaime's with Brienne. All of three of which were excellent work from all actors involved. Maybe it's a little too neat and clean for this universe, but replacing a coincidence isn't much of a loss.

Also, now I know why Tommen is noticeably older this season than in the past one, and the books. From kittens to, well, you know.  :oh_i_see:
The opportunity of having Natalie Dormer flirt with someone is not one you want to pass up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 29, 2014, 09:19:40 AM
I also liked how they're handling Pod.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2014, 09:31:28 AM
I don't remember a coincidence, i remember Pod seeking out Brienne because he was pissed Tyrion bailed without him and he figured he would find him with Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 29, 2014, 12:04:53 PM
I like a lot of what they are doing that is different from the books. They are clearly padding this season a little bit, perhaps bringing some stories forward so they can wrap the whole show up in a season 6 or 7. Jon going to Craster's makes sense for a number of reasons and Bran being there gives him something to do. Having Pod leave King's Landing with Brienne was a good way to keep him involved without what felt like a huge coincidence from the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 29, 2014, 12:13:56 PM
Yay another total shit episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on April 29, 2014, 02:24:59 PM
I don't remember a coincidence, i remember Pod seeking out Brienne because he was pissed Tyrion bailed without him and he figured he would find him with Sansa.
Consulting the wiki, I see that's true, but it's funny how I forgot the details and just remember that it felt really farfetched. Apparently Pod hears from Sansa's former maid about Brienne's secret quest, is able to track her down as she is travelling on the roads without much of a clear itenerary, and then the famously solitary and independent Brienne takes him along.

The TV version is big improvement.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 29, 2014, 04:14:34 PM
I don't remember a coincidence, i remember Pod seeking out Brienne because he was pissed Tyrion bailed without him and he figured he would find him with Sansa.
Consulting the wiki, I see that's true, but it's funny how I forgot the details and just remember that it felt really farfetched. Apparently Pod hears from Sansa's former maid about Brienne's secret quest, is able to track her down as she is travelling on the roads without much of a clear itenerary, and then the famously solitary and independent Brienne takes him along.

The TV version is big improvement.

We kinda added that to her character. She isn't solitary, she just don't like douchebags and since that's every knight in westeros (even the gay ones) she tends to work alone. Granted cause she is a chic and from the least war'ring place in westeros she'd spends most of her time training anyway. She isn't exactly a seasoned warrior who goes out and slaughters folk solo. Hence why she is borderline naive and very honorable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 30, 2014, 12:16:01 AM
She isn't antisocial, she has had solitary imposed upon her. She has no reason to shoo off Podrick, who is not a knight or a shithead and is unlikely to do the 'hurr hurr you is a girl' routine.

Also, maybe she heard the rumours from littlefinger's house.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 30, 2014, 12:17:25 AM
Also, maybe she heard the rumours from littlefinger's house.

I love that they put that into the show.  I laugh every time Pod is onscreen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 30, 2014, 07:35:06 AM
I don't remember a coincidence, i remember Pod seeking out Brienne because he was pissed Tyrion bailed without him and he figured he would find him with Sansa.
Consulting the wiki, I see that's true, but it's funny how I forgot the details and just remember that it felt really farfetched. Apparently Pod hears from Sansa's former maid about Brienne's secret quest, is able to track her down as she is travelling on the roads without much of a clear itenerary, and then the famously solitary and independent Brienne takes him along.

The TV version is big improvement.

We kinda added that to her character. She isn't solitary, she just don't like douchebags and since that's every knight in westeros (even the gay ones) she tends to work alone. Granted cause she is a chic and from the least war'ring place in westeros she'd spends most of her time training anyway. She isn't exactly a seasoned warrior who goes out and slaughters folk solo. Hence why she is borderline naive and very honorable.

Also I think with pods immediate response to one of her questions with a sir will probably help the two of them as pod clearly accepts her as a knight first and while he may be a bit bumbling he is a good squire and seemed competent at that job with tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 30, 2014, 07:38:32 AM
I refuse to have any emotional attachment to any character now after the Red Wedding.

There were a couple of good scenes, but this was another episode of treading water.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 30, 2014, 07:49:24 AM
That's pretty much how books 4-5 go. A couple of good scenes with a lot of treading water.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 30, 2014, 10:40:35 AM
That's pretty much how books 4-5 go. A couple of good scenes with a lot of treading water.


Although they might just skip that entire section of Dance. Not like anything plot-advancing happened.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 30, 2014, 12:14:47 PM
Hm.. except that whole..



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 30, 2014, 12:27:00 PM
I'll happily sit through an hour of treading water each week if it is Hound/Arya quality treading water.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 30, 2014, 12:48:36 PM
Hm.. except that whole..




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 30, 2014, 02:17:25 PM
I'll happily sit through an hour of treading water each week if it is Hound/Arya quality treading water.

Srsly.

I don't care about the overarching world plot nearly as much as I do about the characters.  The bantering/sidequest stuff is only "treading water" if you're just waiting for the next big plot thing and/or fight scene to happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 30, 2014, 03:45:21 PM
Sure. But the particular treading water we're talking about is


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on April 30, 2014, 04:00:43 PM
So, it's like House ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 30, 2014, 04:31:59 PM
We could have a scene of the priestess bathing every week. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 30, 2014, 07:24:03 PM
I'm more speaking to the complaints about this season moving slowly, which I just don't get.  Even Jon's plot is fun; I love seeing him emerge as a leader.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soulflame on April 30, 2014, 07:34:49 PM
He'll just kill them all off in the end.

#Imrootingforthewhitewalkers


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 01, 2014, 06:39:30 AM
I'm rooting for the Others as well, but in all likelihood George will end up putting Sansa on the throne as a big fuck you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2014, 07:02:36 AM
Hmmmm, Sophie Turner.

Though I've seen no compelling reason why she SHOULDN'T get on the Throne once her character has developed a bit.  Couldn't be worse than any of these other psychotic motherfuckers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on May 01, 2014, 10:14:12 AM
Sansa and Littlefinger are an interesting pair. One is a former innocent fool and pawn with zero agency (and an indistinct personality now that her romantic side has been crushed) and the other is one of the biggest players of the Game in Westeros, and perhaps the best. And Littlefinger is instructing Sansa. What will she become?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 01, 2014, 10:49:21 AM
I am guessing it ends with a student becomes the master twist, where she turns the table on right when all his plans are coming to fruition, and seizes the prize. Maybe after she learns the extent of how he betrayed her father.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on May 01, 2014, 10:50:33 AM
I am guessing it ends with a student becomes the master twist, where she turns the table on right when all his plans are coming to fruition, and seizes the prize. Maybe after she learns the extent of how he betrayed her father she dies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 01, 2014, 10:51:20 AM
Well, think about the advice Littlefinger just gave her: the man seemingly without motive is the person who can surprise you the most with a sudden move.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoppala on May 01, 2014, 11:16:03 AM
The cut from the fingers is ok, but I dont really like the Bran capture ... Why are they so stupid to go near it ? And how did the fuckin mutineers get Ghost ?  :awesome_for_real: Weaker episode, but I'm excited. Good that Stannis was not in, I hate it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soulflame on May 01, 2014, 11:52:36 AM
I'm rooting for the Others as well, but in all likelihood George will end up putting Sansa on the throne as a big fuck you.

I always figured it'd be Jon Snow and dragon girl.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 01, 2014, 07:41:50 PM
Nah she's going to float over just in time to meet a lovely blue-eyed ice horde at this glacial pace.  :awesome_for_real:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 01, 2014, 10:55:29 PM
Nah she's going to float over just in time to meet a lovely blue-eyed ice horde at this glacial pace.  :awesome_for_real:




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on May 02, 2014, 06:04:52 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2014, 06:26:14 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2014, 06:29:38 AM
Spoiler Fail.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2014, 06:40:37 AM
No posting before coffee, lesson learned.  My apologies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soulflame on May 02, 2014, 12:12:32 PM
He'll get better!

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on May 02, 2014, 01:13:31 PM
Game of Thrones:  You die.  She dies.  EVERYBODY dies!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 02, 2014, 04:18:56 PM
I hope everyone but Pod dies and he shrugs his shoulders, puts the crown on, and plops down on the Iron Throne with a couple of whores.  Fin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on May 02, 2014, 09:48:12 PM
I hope everyone but Pod dies and he shrugs his shoulders, puts the crown on, and plops down on the Iron Throne with a couple of whores.  Fin.

add Hodor as the captain of the king's guard and you have the proper ending  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 04, 2014, 09:35:11 PM
Episode tonight was a bit bland, I thought. I did like the bit with Pod and the rabbit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on May 04, 2014, 10:23:57 PM
Yes - felt like a lot more hopping between storylines than normal.

And now we get to suffer those twits in the Vale. Again.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 05, 2014, 04:27:05 AM
I liked this episode - I thought it fleshed out characters significantly. You could see depth to Oberon and Cersei, Jon Snow was actually doing something interesting instead of being all dark and brooding and boring the shit out of everyone, Tywin is moving away from the books and is a hell of a lot easier to understand, Littlefinger getting out-played in the Aerie was interesting (but fuck the Aerie - I hate that place), the Cersei and Marjorie interplay was good (but as if Cersei isn't playing the "fuck Tyrion" game as she did the rounds of all 3 judges), Pod and Brienne is a great interplay to take over from Arya and Clegane when they go their own ways...

... and the Hound gets the best lines in this series I swear - I love what they have done with his character.

I didn't mind Bran/Jojen/Myra/Hodor for once - that whole scenario was well played out - except that the CGI direwolf can out-act Bran :D

I actually prefer this episode to the Joffricide episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2014, 06:03:54 AM
I love that as far as the nightswatch guys goes Locke was a cool ass bro who died a hero.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 05, 2014, 06:23:26 AM
They need to spin-off a show with Arya and The Hound. That stuff is golden. It wouldn't suprise me if it got higher ratings than the actual show.

“The greatest swordsman who ever lived and he didn’t have a sword?”



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on May 05, 2014, 06:26:44 AM
Hmmmm, Sophie Turner.

Though I've seen no compelling reason why she SHOULDN'T get on the Throne once her character has developed a bit.  Couldn't be worse than any of these other psychotic motherfuckers.


Honestly for as many monsters as she has had to deal with she honestly could not be any worse of a queen and probably a lot better because she has had to deal with the dark underbelly of westeros more than almost anybody.

Really from her perspective she has no power/no guardians/nobody to ask for help from who she can trust so the smart play for her is what she is doing. Be pretty/be meek/ be as non threatening as humanly possible because to do anything else likely winds with her head on a pike.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 05, 2014, 07:52:07 AM
The Arya and the Hound stuff is indeed spectacular. Pod and Brienne have some potential for similar fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 05, 2014, 09:37:37 AM
This show is turning into 10 different pairs of R2D2 and C3PO traveling around different shitty planets. Sometimes they have an entourage. Sometimes they don't.

Blows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2014, 09:49:54 AM
Did you seriously just complain about the best part of the show?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghambit on May 05, 2014, 09:55:43 AM
I'm in the "this blows" camp, only because it's seriously just moving too slowly for my tastes.  It panders badly and arches off into characters you'll end up having no investment in regardless; over and over and over again.  Makes no sense except budgetarily, as it's much cheaper doing R2D2/C3PO reduxes then imperial armada.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 05, 2014, 10:17:36 AM
Did you seriously just complain about the best part of the show?

The best part of the show is pairs of characters doing fuckall?

lolwut


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2014, 10:21:46 AM
Yes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 05, 2014, 10:44:48 AM
That's objectively stupid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 05, 2014, 10:55:24 AM
I remember when I was little I thought most grownup shows were boring because they were "just people talking."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 05, 2014, 10:56:14 AM
Seinfeld didn't exist until we were 10, Samwise. They were mostly boring.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2014, 11:01:28 AM
Tyrion/Bronn, Jamie/Brienne, Hound/Arya, yeah by FAR the best parts of the show.  I doubt Pod/Brienne is going to be all that great, but that is only because of the high mark the other buddy comedy pairings have set. What fucking show are you watching?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 05, 2014, 11:04:03 AM
They haven't murdered a baby in several episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 05, 2014, 11:33:44 AM
Tyrion/Bronn, Jamie/Brienne, Hound/Arya, yeah by FAR the best parts of the show.  I doubt Pod/Brienne is going to be all that great, but that is only because of the high mark the other buddy comedy pairings have set. What fucking show are you watching?

Tyrion and Bronn aren't a thing in this show. Jamie and Brienne are no longer a thing. Hound and Arya aren't fucking doing anything. Pod and Brienne is going to be terrible until Pod stops being a bitch. Trading places was funny 20 years ago. Huge female knight, tiny bitchy squire, how fantastic.

Season 1 was fantastic. Season 2 was fantastic. Season 3 was straight sleepytime until the end. Season 4 outright blows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on May 05, 2014, 11:51:15 AM
They need to spin-off a show with Arya and The Hound. That stuff is golden. It wouldn't suprise me if it got higher ratings than the actual show.

“The greatest swordsman who ever lived and he didn’t have a sword?”



With hair wetter than Joffrey's cunt

(or something like that)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2014, 12:02:57 PM
Tyrion/Bronn, Jamie/Brienne, Hound/Arya, yeah by FAR the best parts of the show.  I doubt Pod/Brienne is going to be all that great, but that is only because of the high mark the other buddy comedy pairings have set. What fucking show are you watching?

Tyrion and Bronn aren't a thing in this show. Jamie and Brienne are no longer a thing. Hound and Arya aren't fucking doing anything. Pod and Brienne is going to be terrible until Pod stops being a bitch. Trading places was funny 20 years ago. Huge female knight, tiny bitchy squire, how fantastic.

Season 1 was fantastic. Season 2 was fantastic. Season 3 was straight sleepytime until the end. Season 4 outright blows.

It's turning into LOST.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 05, 2014, 12:05:57 PM
It really isn't. Their are legitimate problems, and if you don't want to watch a lot of this style of 2 person character scenes you aren't going to like this season or next, but it is nothing like lost.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 05, 2014, 12:15:02 PM
See, I was thinking it was more like the last 30 episodes of Heroes.

Edit: I should make it clear - I have zero issue with the structure. I have a giant issue with no one fucking doing anything.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on May 05, 2014, 12:35:02 PM
Plenty happened in that last episode.  Littlefinger's revelations were pretty important, for instance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2014, 12:42:19 PM
Something significant happens pretty much every episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 05, 2014, 02:18:59 PM
I have a giant issue with no one fucking doing anything.

Well, they have to stay faithful to the source material somehow


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2014, 02:48:24 PM
My comparison to LOST is because I think they are stalling and the writers have no idea where they are heading. So instead we get fans telling us how nothing happening is just fine BECAUSE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT FAPFAPFAP. Meanwhile, I just wanted to know what was happening with the monsters.

Except in this case I'm fairly damn sure they don't know because the original author hasn't finished anything.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2014, 03:25:10 PM
And even if they do catch up to the books, which they will in a couple seasons because fat fuck ain't writing a god damn thing, they do know what is going to happen so they still wouldn't be making it up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 05, 2014, 03:25:55 PM
As for the episode. They botched the Littlefinger reveal. They passed off resolution of the two most important unknowns in current Westeros politics like it was nothing.

But I do like Littlefinger more now he has a coherent accent. Hound is always great. Pod and Brienne were better than the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 05, 2014, 03:32:42 PM
I was surprised they did the reveal for the murder this early.  That doesn't come till later books.  But I guess they needed to do more to flesh out the characters this season and show just how dangerous everybody is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2014, 05:56:52 PM
Have you read the books?  They aren't stalling or making shit up.  They're following the stories perfectly.  This is exactly what happened in the books at this time.  Hell, almost all of book 4 was people wondering around doing random shit that affected fuck all.  Though with the TV writing, I'm sure it will be much more entertaining.   :awesome_for_real:  If anything, they are pushing things ahead faster than the books because they are setting up stuff right now that happens in book 4, that didn't have any setup in book 3.

This is nothing like lost where they were very much just making shit up to keep the series running.

It's a TV show, my version of stalling is televising the book filler. There's just more book filler in the later books. Since they are stalling, they don't have to make shit up. Yet.

But Winter is coming...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 05, 2014, 06:22:48 PM

With hair wetter than Joffrey's cunt

(or something like that)

greasier, he was calling him a dago


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 06, 2014, 08:28:56 AM
But Winter is coming...

No it's not.

Viewers are now beginning to understand South Park's joke from back in December and it's amusing me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 06, 2014, 09:43:24 AM
In many ways, the murder was late.  Recall in the books, Jamie does not arrive back in King's Landing until after Joffrey passes.  However, they screw with the timing so much it is hard to really say which elements are early or late without specifying an event of reference, such as saying Jamie's return was earlier than the murder in the show, but later in the books.

Regardless, this season they've augmented the action from the books.  I think it is on par with Seasons I -> III.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on May 06, 2014, 01:24:19 PM
Edit: I should make it clear - I have zero issue with the structure. I have a giant issue with no one fucking doing anything.

It's entirely possible to make a riveting, tense, exciting 45 minute TV show with nothing but talking happening. See Hannibal.

These last few episodes of GoT have just not been very well done. Important plot development is fine, but when it's done with no... enthusiasm, it's obvious. It feels like it's missing a spark of some kind atm.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on May 06, 2014, 02:44:32 PM
Martin doesn't need more time, he needs motivation.  The show catching up to him and spoiling his books might encourage him.

Yup right now I get the impression he is having a blast being the toast of the town and going hither and yon to various shows and conventions and soaking up all the adulation and writing the last few books is coming a very distant low priority at the moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: tazelbain on May 06, 2014, 03:24:01 PM
Wise. It is an impossible task to tie it all together to please the fans.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 06, 2014, 03:31:56 PM
I don't think he gives a shit about 'pleasing the fans'.  He writes what he wants to write.  If he wanted to please the fans, Robb Stark would be sitting on the Iron Throne using Joffrey's head as a footstool.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 06, 2014, 05:24:08 PM
I'm betting they've already decided that the show will go a different direction than the novels for the end of it.  Martin's 6th book will come out in time for the show to follow it to some extent, but I'm betting they'll go a different direction for the final season - with the help of GRRM. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on May 06, 2014, 05:38:41 PM
The general gist of the ending will likely be the same, as the guys doing the show knows who ends up on the throne as Martin has told them that and other things as well that haven't yet happened in the books. Personally, I think diverging from the books could be a very good thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 07, 2014, 09:56:50 AM
Edit: I should make it clear - I have zero issue with the structure. I have a giant issue with no one fucking doing anything.

It's entirely possible to make a riveting, tense, exciting 45 minute TV show with nothing but talking happening. See Hannibal.

Yes, obviously that's possible. But I demand more out of my fucking FANTASY TELEVISION.

But then, a lot of the fuckers here like BSG and that was just a piece of sci-fi west-wing-wannabe trash.

Quote
These last few episodes of GoT have just not been very well done. Important plot development is fine, but when it's done with no... enthusiasm, it's obvious. It feels like it's missing a spark of some kind atm.

Not very well done? They've been terrible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on May 07, 2014, 10:43:54 AM
Game of Thrones was never supposed to be straight-up fantasy, though, and you know that.  At least no more than The Tudors was considered fantasy.  Most of the magic in this world happens off-screen or in extremely limited capacities, and the focus is on the political intrigue and sexy goings-on behind the scenes.  The fantasy aspects are mostly there as window dressing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 07, 2014, 10:57:47 AM
Tell that to the pale worthless bitch raising a few dragons and eunuch warriors running around across the sea never actually making it to Westeros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 07, 2014, 12:21:56 PM
If you hate this season, you will LOATHE next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 07, 2014, 12:22:15 PM
There is a reason, the reason is it would be fucking stupid to have what is supposed to be the end of the story happen now.  Seriously, we are at helms deep and you are going "why hasn't Frodo destroyed the ring yet".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 07, 2014, 12:30:15 PM
I'm glad you brought up LOTR, I was trying not to.

99% OF IT WAS FUCKING BORING.

If you hate this season, you will LOATHE next season.
This is completely untrue. They're seriously phoning this season in. One pivotal or even mildly interesting moment per hour does not good TV make.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 07, 2014, 12:37:12 PM
I'm surprised you are that optimistic about next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 08, 2014, 05:41:03 AM
The episodes since Joffery died have definitely tailed off.

I don't buy in to the idea that nothing is happening, it just seems poorly directed and edited. Significant stuff is getting lost through too many scenes that are too short and deliver plot points that aren't really given context.

The slightly aimless but purely character driven scenes (everything with Brienne, Jamie, Arya, Tywin) are fine, but the actual story scenes (liitlefinger, Margery, Jon, Dany) are being skated through and lack impact.

Still better than most other shit on my sky box.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on May 08, 2014, 03:05:25 PM
There's a bunch of stuff in Feast could make for episode centerpieces:


And they probably pull stuff in from Dance as well. Should be plenty of material.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 08, 2014, 04:31:06 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 08, 2014, 07:48:53 PM
It'll be the season ending shocker.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 08, 2014, 08:11:26 PM
I'm thinking if they want to change shit up a bit, the adventures of


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 09, 2014, 12:51:22 AM
I'd pay to see that.*














*as an Aussie who once bought each series of GoT on iTunes and now...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 09, 2014, 05:30:36 AM
It is far from impossible that you just described one of the plot of Winds.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 11, 2014, 05:58:46 AM
As long as she isn't raped or murdered, Sansa could do a lot worse than be with Littlefinger.  He's playing the game probably better than anyone and she would do well to listen to his game theory.  I've been noticing how he keeps telling her his strategies and plans, half out of pride and possibly half out of tutelage.  He might kick Lady Arryn out the moondoor and take Sansa as his new wife, which would give him the North along with the Eyrie. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on May 11, 2014, 07:00:51 PM
He might kick Lady Arryn out the moondoor and take Sansa as his new wife, which would give him the North along with the Eyrie. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 11, 2014, 07:04:26 PM
This was a better episode than the recent ones. Mycroft Holmes speaking for the Iron Bank made me chuckle a bit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 11, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
Just give Dinklage an Emmy now.  Give him all the Emmys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 11, 2014, 07:40:18 PM
And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you chew the scenery with style.  If the scene is over the top, gather your outrage and follow it all the way.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on May 11, 2014, 07:47:40 PM
That was a lot of fun. Dinklage eating scenery is awesome.

https://twitter.com/_GRRM_/status/465671700290740225/photo/1



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on May 12, 2014, 10:25:24 AM
That bitch!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on May 12, 2014, 03:01:59 PM
Sweet Jesus Dinklage rocked the shit out of that episode. 

However next to Emilia "I'm trying to look stern but not pulling it off very well" Clarke anyone would look Emmy-worthy. :D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 12, 2014, 05:41:08 PM
I thought she pulled off "i'm trying to look stern when i am obviously in the wrong" pretty well actually.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 12, 2014, 07:02:02 PM
Sweet Jesus Dinklage rocked the shit out of that episode.

I said that to my girlfriend as the credits rolled, but she was thinking he overacted. I didn't think so at all - he was delivering the lines of his life, about his life and Tyrion's.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 13, 2014, 06:08:45 AM
Tyrion will have to be special effects and makeup.  There's no fucking way you just stumble onto an actor with Tyrion's proportions that can pull off that character.

It's quite fun to go back and read the first page of this thread. :D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 13, 2014, 06:56:57 AM
There's no fucking way

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4301714/yes-way-o.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on May 13, 2014, 08:29:28 AM
Monty Python insults (http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/may/13/game-of-thrones-monty-python), translated into Low Valyrian in recent episode.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 13, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Tyrion will have to be special effects and makeup.  There's no fucking way you just stumble onto an actor with Tyrion's proportions that can pull off that character.

It's quite fun to go back and read the first page of this thread. :D

We always knew that was shite tho.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 13, 2014, 09:34:26 AM
Sweet Jesus Dinklage rocked the shit out of that episode.

I said that to my girlfriend as the credits rolled, but she was thinking he overacted. I didn't think so at all - he was delivering the lines of his life, about his life and Tyrion's.

There were some expressions that maybe some people would have considered overacting, slightly exaggerated, but I think they were on purpose to show that the character is starting to go mad. Perhaps she missed that aspect, which I am guessing we will see more of coming up in future episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 13, 2014, 11:10:55 AM
Monty Python insults (http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/may/13/game-of-thrones-monty-python), translated into Low Valyrian in recent episode.  :awesome_for_real:

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 13, 2014, 01:45:27 PM
It's a scene where Tyrion is playing to the crowd, so overacting is called for.  We've seen it in other scenes, whenever Tyrion is using the word 'imp' he's generally mocking the listener while seeming to mock himself.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2014, 03:24:45 PM
Enjoyed that a lot, not just for Dinklage, but all the other actors in the room, and all the nods and winks to future events.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 13, 2014, 03:28:25 PM
Wow, just watched it.  He pulled of the scene perfectly.  Tyrion is just fucking mentally snapping at this point, and the actor did a wonderful job of portraying that.  I'm not sure if any of you here has ever been at a point in their life where emotions have taken full control and you're just letting it out against all family/social structures after some straw finally broke the camels back.  But when that happens, you pretty much start 'eating up the scenery' and over acting irl.  I mean seriously, something like this:

(http://media.giphy.com/media/fYr85iBCAo9sk/giphy.gif)

(http://media.giphy.com/media/v0JcHl5NGih4k/giphy.gif)

That is real, not movie fake.  So yes, he did a perfect job.  Loved the whole scene.

Also:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d7d9df7104f772d08b4685b16b68ea8f/tumblr_n57pw5nouG1sv7laoo1_400.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2014, 03:33:11 PM
Otoh, I thought all the nonsense at the dreadfort was bloody awful.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 13, 2014, 03:39:29 PM
You're just a bastard from a basket!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 13, 2014, 04:24:26 PM
80% trash. 20% Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 14, 2014, 07:06:22 AM
I thought the Iron bank scene was cool. Davos stepped up his game for his King there. In dreadfort, I was hoping Reek would get shanked in the melee, but I knew better. Queen Dany stuff was Zzzzzz. My queen, Dragons ate my goats! Zzzzzzz

This whole Trial by Combat, could the book readers explain it to me a little better? So I could basically murder some guy in broad daylight, and in my trial call for a Trial by Combat! If me, or my champion wins I am free to go? Just seems....idk, kinda ridiculous.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 14, 2014, 07:09:50 AM
It's not a book thing, its a real thing. Trial by combat was basically a way for nobles never to lose a trial against common people.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2014, 07:13:22 AM
It's also a medieval tradition, not just something thought-up for fantasy novels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat

Basically, if you weren't caught in the act, or they couldn't find enough evidence to convince everyone you were guilty, you could prove it by fighting it out.  So in your example, no, there'd likely be witnesses that saw you do it.  Tyrion gets TBC because he managed to argue to that point. Everyone thinks he's guilty but can't prove it or that he actually did it; so, Combat!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2014, 07:45:09 AM
Like many medieval traditions, the idea is that if you're in the right, God Helps You Out.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2014, 08:22:23 AM
I've always felt GoT feels a little too modern for trial by combat. I'd date the show a bit later than the war of the roses in the early renaissance - say about 1550-1600.

I have no idea when trial by combat died out, but would guess earlier than that.

Also it is a transparent plot crutch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on May 14, 2014, 09:19:18 AM
I like Stannis...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 14, 2014, 09:24:19 AM
I like Davos.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 14, 2014, 10:01:44 AM
I like lamp.

No.  I love lamp.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on May 14, 2014, 10:13:38 AM
I didn't really think all that much about the Red Lady until the TV show made her hot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 14, 2014, 10:41:50 AM
I didn't really think all that much about the Red Lady until the TV show made her hot.
Really?  I thought the casting odd because the Red Lady was not as amazingly attractive as described in the books.  She is pretty, but I was expecting to see them start the casting with someone that was off the charts...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2014, 10:48:31 AM
Them knees, they are too sharp you see.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2014, 11:13:45 AM
I have no idea when trial by combat died out, but would guess earlier than that.

The wiki article I linked says the last trial under an English Monarch's authority was in 1583 under Elizabeth I.  The Parliment wasn't able to abolish it until 1819, having tried to outlaw it in the Colonies in 1774.  The last guy who tried to invoke it was in 2002 over a £25 fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 14, 2014, 12:54:39 PM
  The last guy who tried to invoke it was in 2002 over a £25 fine.

LOL

did he want to joust with the meter maid?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 14, 2014, 01:04:21 PM
I have no idea when trial by combat died out, but would guess earlier than that.

The wiki article I linked says the last trial under an English Monarch's authority was in 1583 under Elizabeth I.  The Parliment wasn't able to abolish it until 1819, having tried to outlaw it in the Colonies in 1774.  The last guy who tried to invoke it was in 2002 over a £25 fine.

The government should have hired Lennox Lewis or someone to beat the fuck out of that guy. PPV it and throw a few million quid into the general fund.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 14, 2014, 03:24:17 PM
Another boring episode redeemed by the kangaroo court trial of Tyrion.  Dany vs. the goatherd?  Seriously?  It was nice to see a dragon, but good lord.  Bravos was cool.  Here came the 'Old World' of Westeros sailing to the 'New World' of Essos and New York City (Bravos even has a Statue of Liberty) where everyone is 'equal' to ask for a loan.  Shades of Lend Lease of WW2.  I like Stannis.  Don't ask me why I normally like much flashier characters, but he is so dour he's fun.

I liked Tyrion's Rogue's Gallery gettting their licks in at the trial.  I guess Pycelle found the necklace on the corpse or did he just make a new one?  Also, Tywin tricks Jamie, which looks to be pretty easy.  Nice scene between father and son.  If only Tywin could get past his hatred of Tyrion he'd see that Tyrion would do well carrying the Lannister and maybe even Westeros banners.  But this is the 'Middle Ages' and he blames his son for his wife's death so too bad. 

Hope this made sense, I'm a bit medicated and words are blurring together. :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 14, 2014, 03:32:13 PM
Dany and the goatherd is somewhat necessary to set up a future plot point involving the dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2014, 03:33:34 PM
Braavos is venice with a colossus of Rhodes, nof sure where you got NYC from. The iron bank just wants its money back from the westeros throne and realises Tywin can't/won't deliver - as trailed by Tyrion last year.

The goatherd and the nobleman is a terrible colonialism allegory. It's kind of essential to the plot, on the upside that story moving along  will at least stop idiots who couldn't be bothered to check the plot complaining about a white lady saving black slaves.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2014, 03:40:39 PM
Braavos is venice with a colossus of Rhodes, nof sure where you got NYC from.

I'll take a lack of historic knowledge about Medieval Europe for 1000, Alex.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 14, 2014, 03:53:17 PM
I know about Venice, but I thought NYC was a more apt comparison due to Lend Lease.  Let me break it down for you while you comb your neckbeard.

Stannis is stuck on an island, needing resources to invade Westeros;  like Churchill and Britain and Europe.
Bravos is like NYC in that it has a harbor statue and lots of money and soldiers.  Venice has no statue like that.

So I felt that NYC was a more apt comparison than Venice.  Maybe my over fondness of the WW2 era colored my perception but I thought it was an interesting comparison.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on May 14, 2014, 05:42:48 PM
I spoilered myself about something and now I am pretty unhappy.  :heartbreak: :?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on May 14, 2014, 07:02:21 PM
Does someone you like die?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on May 14, 2014, 07:16:10 PM
Does someone you like die?

No shit, Sherlock   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 14, 2014, 07:32:19 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on May 14, 2014, 10:52:40 PM
This is even a discussion?

Colossus of Rhode:
(http://www.seven-wonders.de/koloss.gif)


Colossus of Braavos:
(http://blamayertv.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/game-of-thrones-4-06-the-titan.jpg?w=520&h=287)

Down to the broken sword. And yes, Venice was one of the mercantile hubs and richest cities of its time, so that comparasation is apt as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bungee on May 15, 2014, 02:23:16 AM
This is even a discussion?

Down to the broken sword. And yes, Venice was one of the mercantile hubs and richest cities of its time, so that comparasation is apt as well.

Also, city of a thousand canals with people going about the city on boats on these canals.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 15, 2014, 03:59:20 AM
And Syrio Fordel, first sword of Braavos, had a venitian accent and looked like a Venetian.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 15, 2014, 05:36:16 AM
In the 15th century Venice was just coming off the apex of its power.

Which fits nicely with the fictionalized War of the Roses schtick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 15, 2014, 05:50:54 AM
Maybe my over fondness of the WW2 era colored my perception but I thought it was an interesting comparison.

Yes, 100% so.  There was nothing about needing troops there, just an argument for why they should give Stannis gold. Not troops, not equipment, not ships, just cash.

ed: Alternate ending to Tyrion's speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvHK6blDJaQ


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fordel on May 15, 2014, 06:52:20 AM
And Syrio Fordel, first sword of Braavos, had a venitian accent and looked like a Venetian.


Sweet, I had no idea I was a character in this show!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 15, 2014, 06:54:59 AM
I'm quite sure you'll die soon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on May 15, 2014, 06:55:43 AM
Wait, do we like Fordel?  He might live if we don't.

(quick, everybody hate him!)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 15, 2014, 07:01:32 AM
It's GoT.  Everybody dies.  It's like House with a mild case of dyslexia.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 15, 2014, 07:03:00 AM
It's not lupus.

It's 4' of Valerian steel.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 18, 2014, 07:08:39 PM
Good episode, I thought, even if there was not much action.

And I think that Sophie Turner is probably taller than everyone but the guy playing The Mountain  :why_so_serious:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 18, 2014, 07:33:50 PM
You could've been my daughter is just about the worst pick up line ever uttered.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 18, 2014, 10:42:06 PM
Turner and Gwendoline Christie are going to have a tall-off.

Plus, Hot-Pie!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 19, 2014, 05:57:37 AM
Good episode. Dany is still hamstrung by the awful corner GRRM has written her into, and doesn't have anything interesting to do, but Emilia Clarke is doing her best dammit. Otherwise though, lots of Hound+Arya, lots of Brienne+Pod, and some more good scenes from Tyrion.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 19, 2014, 07:12:53 AM
You could've been my daughter is just about the worst pick up line ever uttered.
And yet he managed to lock the lips...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 19, 2014, 08:19:37 AM
I really enjoyed that last scene.  Had been waiting for it for a while.   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 19, 2014, 08:41:07 AM
He played that bitch like a fiddle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on May 19, 2014, 08:55:08 AM
I believe you can fly!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on May 20, 2014, 07:30:45 AM
HOT PIE


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 20, 2014, 08:27:14 AM
Turner and Gwendoline Christie are going to have a tall-off.

Plus, Hot-Pie!
The joke writes itseld.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2014, 08:38:55 AM
Good character episode. It certainly feels like they are accelerating some things and maybe starting to use the books to chart out the big events. I get the feeling Brienne and Pod



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 20, 2014, 11:54:27 AM
I like Dinklage a lot better this episode than the trial one.  His scene Oberyn was great acting by both actors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 20, 2014, 12:11:37 PM
All of the important things happening in this season will be able to be compressed into one AWESOME episode at the end of the season. I may take it upon myself to do that. Could probably do it with every season, really.

Maybe they should do that with the books also. Could get rid of two entire storylines (the wall and everything not happening on the mainland, whatever the fuck its called).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 20, 2014, 02:41:32 PM
Go here to bitch about the books plz. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=21086.350)  Or Yegolev will get sad.  And when Yegolev gets sad I get upset.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 20, 2014, 02:58:15 PM
We used to have a no spoilers show thread for the people who gave a shit about stuff like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 20, 2014, 04:03:27 PM
So minor quibble but Lyssa only said, "I killed for you" but didn't spell out exactly what she'd done.  Did I miss something in my flipping between this and Cosmos or are we going to have Peytr explain that blurb to Sansa later?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on May 20, 2014, 04:12:25 PM
I think it was mentioned in episode five of this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 20, 2014, 04:28:37 PM
Yeah she specifically explained the whole thing a couple episode ago.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 20, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Then she had a bit of a tumble.  :grin:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 20, 2014, 04:58:37 PM
We used to have a no spoilers show thread for the people who gave a shit about stuff like that.

I think it's more that spending multiple pages talking about the books (and going off on tangents about other books) is boring and irrelevant to people who don't read the books, independently of the spoiler issue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 20, 2014, 06:29:35 PM
So minor quibble but Lyssa only said, "I killed for you" but didn't spell out exactly what she'd done.  Did I miss something in my flipping between this and Cosmos or are we going to have Peytr explain that blurb to Sansa later?
She poisoned her husband (and told Cat Stark the Lannisters did it).  Revealed a couple of episodes ago.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 20, 2014, 07:31:05 PM
Ah gotcha.  I didn't have HBO until two weeks ago when we moved in to the new place, so I'm a fair bit behind.  Thanks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on May 21, 2014, 06:58:39 AM
We used to have a no spoilers show thread for the people who gave a shit about stuff like that.

I think it's more that spending multiple pages talking about the books (and going off on tangents about other books) is boring and irrelevant to people who don't read the books, independently of the spoiler issue.

That's it.  Spoilers are something else.  This thread went into talking about Robert Jordan and that isn't really a problem except that I believe we still have plenty of television to talk about.  Once the season is over, we can derail into complaining about Jordan, Stephen King, George Lucas, and Guy Fieri.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 21, 2014, 08:34:21 AM
I would definitely tune in for ice zombies tearing Guy Fieri's head off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 30, 2014, 11:27:14 AM
Blatantly stolen from Twitter, but this made me LOL-



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 30, 2014, 11:39:56 AM
Oh man, Poor Friendzone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on May 30, 2014, 12:11:20 PM
I know it has been said already, but new Daario is terrible.  He just isn't slick enough to pull it off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 30, 2014, 12:16:18 PM
Yeah but that whole storyline is zzzzzz.

This week is the trial by combat.  I hope it's as epic as it has been in my mind for the last few years.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 30, 2014, 01:36:28 PM
I'm pretty confident it will be more so.  This show has better fight choreographers than my imagination does.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xanthippe on May 31, 2014, 08:14:03 AM
Go here to bitch about the books plz. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=21086.350)  Or Yegolev will get sad.  And when Yegolev gets sad I get upset.

I've given up reading this thread around page 77 because I've already found out things I don't want to know, and I haven't clicked on any of the spoilers. I came to this page to post a similar complaint but Samwise beat me to it.

It's not that talk of the books are boring to me, it's that book people can't help themselves in spoiling things without meaning to. I'm planning on reading the books later, after the series is finished, and some time has passed, so that I can enjoy it without comparing the two.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 01, 2014, 07:00:07 PM
So that happened.


Hey we had two action scenes!  Looks like maybe we'll finally get some action out of this show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 01, 2014, 07:07:27 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 01, 2014, 07:13:43 PM
I'm pretty confident it will be more so.  This show has better fight choreographers than my imagination does.   :awesome_for_real:

It was enjoyable, but I'd definitely built it up too much in my mind.  It was a realistic fight as shown. My mind had some 6 minute blockbuster nonsense that would have been more appropriate in a Kung Fu film going on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 01, 2014, 07:50:00 PM
I wanted the fight scene to be a bit longer, but overall it was decently done.

I do have to say that the cadence of his chant made Christopher Guest pop up in my mind and yell "Stop saying that!"  :drill: .


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 01, 2014, 07:53:09 PM
It actually made me feel a bit ill to watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 01, 2014, 10:20:06 PM
That was exceedingly well done.   :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 01, 2014, 10:26:41 PM
I expected that fight to be this monumental action movie moment, full of adrenaline. Instead, the feeling went from trepidition, to uneasyness, to downright queezyness. Yet, I'm glad. I think they did the scene justice.

Am I wrong, or did they change the reason as to why the person who lost, lost. From the book I mean. I seem to remember
Oh, and the laugh? Possibly my favourite scene in the whole series so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 01, 2014, 10:33:52 PM
I think you're mixing it up, but I could be remembering it wrong.

And yeah, the laugh was great.  I really love how both the Stark girls are basically going crazy in order to cope with their insane circumstances.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 01, 2014, 11:19:33 PM
I think you're mixing it up, but I could be remembering it wrong.

And yeah, the laugh was great.  I really love how both the Stark girls are basically going crazy in order to cope with their insane circumstances.

Yes, you are mixing it up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 02, 2014, 12:23:00 AM
I thought the coup de grace was done a bit differently in the book, but ohh well, that was sufficiently squicky.   Still, they did a great job with a difficult scene.

edit: Read the scene.  Close enough.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 02, 2014, 03:18:01 AM
Holy fuck - GRRM needs to take writing lessons from the show writers. As someone mentioned before, the film choreographers do a better job than the books.

Sansa became awesome - in the book I disliked her - now I'm happy to put money on her winning the game and Baelish wasn't bad either.

Lord Friendzone - meh scene, TBH I was more interested in the Gray Worm mini-arc than anything to do with Daenerys.

Outside of the fight Baelish's line was the scene-stealer for me... people die anywhere


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 02, 2014, 04:46:45 AM
I thought the coup de grace was done a bit differently in the book, but ohh well, that was sufficiently squicky.   Still, they did a great job with a difficult scene.

edit: Read the scene.  Close enough.   :ye_gods:

Yeah close enough as it ends properly.  I visualized the fight itself a lot more like this comic:
http://mccomseycomix.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/the-red-viper-vs-the-mountain-that-rides-a-12-page-comic/

Oberon was agile enough in the show I'm satisfied. Tyrion's quip was decidedly missing, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 02, 2014, 07:15:40 AM
I thought the coup de grace was done a bit differently in the book, but ohh well, that was sufficiently squicky.   Still, they did a great job with a difficult scene.

edit: Read the scene.  Close enough.   :ye_gods:

Yeah close enough as it ends properly.  I visualized the fight itself a lot more like this comic:
http://mccomseycomix.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/the-red-viper-vs-the-mountain-that-rides-a-12-page-comic/

Oberon was agile enough in the show I'm satisfied. Tyrion's quip was decidedly missing, though.

Well that is an exact depiction of how it went in the book so i imagine thats how most people visualized it.  Even so it was very well done on the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 02, 2014, 07:24:28 AM
They are significantly changing the Vale Baelish/Sansa happenings. Much better IMO, love the editing/re-write the HBO team is doing (presumably in consultation with GRRM). It's pretty cool actually he gets a re-do on some of the more turgid aspects of his work. Just chopping out long boring arcs wholesale.


Not TV spoilers, just spoilers if you plan on reading the book because TV is now ahead of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 02, 2014, 07:43:07 AM
I'll miss the Viper.

Seriously HBO did you need to cut back to his head again?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 02, 2014, 08:20:53 AM
They never introduced the singer in the Aeyrie, so I was curious as to how they were going to deal with Lyssa being murdered (In the books Baelish framed him and manipulated Sansa into going along)

Quite a change here, yes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 02, 2014, 08:32:37 AM
The Martells could be a really interesting story if told right - I don't know whether they will match the awesomeness of Oberon though - I can see that if done well (by the TV team- not GRRM because he was losing the plot literally with Dorne) it will really add to the story.

I hope they get Dany out of Mereen - because I'm not convinced Martin knows how to.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 02, 2014, 08:57:50 AM
I'm really curious where they're going with Arya.  Given the state that things are in elsewhere in the world, it seems like her storyline should already be much, much farther along. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on June 02, 2014, 09:12:02 AM
Really enjoyed the episode; the laugh was the best part, however. Fight was pretty good, and Oberon's stupidity was believable/human.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 02, 2014, 09:27:28 AM
The Martells could be a really interesting story if told right - I don't know whether they will match the awesomeness of Oberon though - I can see that if done well (by the TV team- not GRRM because he was losing the plot literally with Dorne) it will really add to the story.

I hope they get Dany out of Mereen - because I'm not convinced Martin knows how to.


Dorne speculation, minor spoiler

Iron Island speculation, timeline spoiler
[/spoiler]

Arya destination


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 02, 2014, 09:30:31 AM
Really enjoyed the episode; the laugh was the best part, however. Fight was pretty good, and Oberon's stupidity was believable/human.


Tywin seized the moment and could have proclaimed the judgement inconclusive since both were down (although Clegane seems to be still alive) maybe saving his son. Instead he jumped up and proclaimed him guilty, and who is really going to argue with him? Shows his true colours to Tyrion that he really does just want him dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 02, 2014, 09:43:53 AM
Arya:

Dorne:

Iron Islands:

Tywin seized the moment and could have proclaimed the judgement inconclusive since both were down (although Clegane seems to be still alive) maybe saving his son. Instead he jumped up and proclaimed him guilty, and who is really going to argue with him? Shows his true colours to Tyrion that he really does just want him dead.

Clegane was still breathing and could obviously continue to fight since he killed Oberyn, he was just badly wounded. Oberyn can't continue to fight, so even if the Mountain died later the contest was decided.

Tyrion hasn't ever had doubts his father wanted him dead from what I can tell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 02, 2014, 12:18:28 PM
I'm just gonna start skipping to scenes with Tyrion and start watching Game of Tyrion because this show fucking sucks otherwise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2014, 12:22:13 PM
If you're tired of the Hound swearing at people or of Arya Stark murdering them, you're tired of life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 02, 2014, 12:24:31 PM
That Arya and the Hound and their glacial progression through their obvious fucking storyline is a "good" part of the show is indicative of how shitty the rest of the show is. Arya is entertaining. The Hound is aight. Neither even measures on the same scale as anything with Dinklage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 02, 2014, 01:48:54 PM
Scale.  Dinklage.  I like what you did there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 02, 2014, 02:19:51 PM
I can name a lot more arcs that I like than I don't.  Like 'em all except
1. Reek.  Jesus, why did you fuck up Theon GRRM? 
2. Dany hanging out in Mereen.  The only upside is Missandei's GLORIOUS body.
3. Ser Friendzone.  Heck anything in Essos east of Bravos.
4. The Wall. John Snow and co just don't do anything for me.  I like Sam but he sent his woman to a whorehouse so she wouldn't be raped.  Good job there Sam Tarly.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 02, 2014, 02:22:56 PM
I can name a lot more arcs that I like than I don't.  Like 'em all except
1. Reek.  Jesus, why did you fuck up Theon GRRM? 
2. Dany hanging out in Mereen.  The only upside is Missandei's GLORIOUS body.
3. Ser Friendzone.  Heck anything in Essos east of Bravos.
4. The Wall. John Snow and co just don't do anything for me.  I like Sam but he sent his woman to a whorehouse so she wouldn't be raped.  Good job there Sam Tarly.

I don't know if you've read the books, but in comparison the showmakers have managed to make these storylines gripping.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 02, 2014, 04:37:10 PM
(http://scontent-b.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xpa1/t51.2885-15/926774_250536588476968_993774861_n.jpg)

They're almost like two different species.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 02, 2014, 04:59:08 PM
Dude, do you even lift?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on June 02, 2014, 07:51:16 PM

They're almost like two different species.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 03, 2014, 01:44:27 AM
Agreed. The books swap him for a gout ridden leader of the Martell family. To hell with that shit. The Viper was a strong presence in the series, something we haven't seen in a long time.

John - tedious and brooding - zzzzz
Tyrion - awesome character but not much happening other than being a fall guy
Tywin - no longer the strong character he once was
Jamie - bereft of Brienne his character is ok, but not as good as it was earlier
Varys - who?
Littlefinger - I liked the bit where he made her fly - but zzz
Sansa - yup - just came into her own
Arya/Hound - comedy value and well developed
Cersei - zzz
Dany/Friendzone et al - zzz

This is in comparison to who they were in S1/S2 - Oberon was a breath of fresh air

I'm not blaming the writers or the actors, the wordiness of the novels is even more tedious to get through and they have done a good job of entertaining us

I miss Joffrey - at least he was going to always fuck shit up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 03, 2014, 10:48:27 AM
Sorry to see you go, Oberon.  That was a great character and a great piece of acting.  Wait a minute...tape that thing back together!  Zombie Oberon!

I will go on record to say that, despite knowing what was coming, I felt a bit ill.  I also couldn't get it out of my head, replaying it over an over.  Fantastic and disgusting, all wrapped into one.  And I loved the fight itself, too.

Arya laughing was great.

Tyrion's whole speech about the moron, while not terribly relevant, was great.

I both like and dislike the Reek storyline, but I really love the guy playing Ramsay.  If there was an Oscar for Most Creepy Motherfucker in a Hit Series, he'd win for sure.

Like what they did with Sansa.  I am wondering if Ironwood blew a vein somewhere there towards the end, with the knowing looks and the slow walk down the stairs.  He hasn't commented.  Maybe he hasn't seen it yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2014, 10:51:32 AM
Squick... indeed. Very well done translation of that scene and fuck am I going to miss that character as much as I missed him in the books. That scene made me feel ill both times I watched it.

Missandei... YUM. I like the addition of character with the interaction between her and Grey Worm.

Ser Friendzone got the ultimate cockblock and I think Dany played that scene really well. Despite her storyline being fucking boring as shit, the actress is doing well with what little she gets.

Sansa... DOUBLE YUM. Not even remotely sure where they are going with her and Baelish since that's a significant departure from the books, but if she keeps wearing dresses like that, I do not fucking care where it goes, I will watch. At least she's 18 now, so I only feel SLIGHTLY creepy and perverse for saying that. Fuck. She was born after I started designing web sites. I... AM... OLD. Fuck you, Time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 03, 2014, 10:59:56 AM
Sith Apprentice Sansa is a big improvement in her character. Darth Cleavagus for the Queen at the end of the story. Surely the meek tween from the first episode will inherit the earth.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 03, 2014, 11:20:19 AM

Sansa... DOUBLE YUM. Not even remotely sure where they are going with her and Baelish since that's a significant departure from the books, but if she keeps wearing dresses like that, I do not fucking care where it goes, I will watch. At least she's 18 now, so I only feel SLIGHTLY creepy and perverse for saying that. Fuck. She was born after I started designing web sites. I... AM... OLD. Fuck you, Time.

It is but it is a great departure. It feels like the first time Sansa isn't passive in her own destiny. Since GRRM is involved with the show I have hopes it is based on foreknowledge he has given them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2014, 11:50:45 AM
I have compiled a helpful guide to fictional characters whose name start with "Ober".

(http://i.imgur.com/NOyjDNj.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2014, 11:57:15 AM
You could always tell Sansa was destined to be come a master of court intrigue.  Martin just fucked it up with how he made things go slow and meandering in the last two books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2014, 12:00:33 PM

Sansa... DOUBLE YUM. Not even remotely sure where they are going with her and Baelish since that's a significant departure from the books, but if she keeps wearing dresses like that, I do not fucking care where it goes, I will watch. At least she's 18 now, so I only feel SLIGHTLY creepy and perverse for saying that. Fuck. She was born after I started designing web sites. I... AM... OLD. Fuck you, Time.

It is but it is a great departure. It feels like the first time Sansa isn't passive in her own destiny. Since GRRM is involved with the show I have hopes it is based on foreknowledge he has given them.

While trying to avoid too much book discussion, I'll say I've always just assumed that Sansa was going to eventually become a master manipulator (we've seen shades of it early on -- Ned wouldn't have gone to King's Landing if Sansa hadn't played him like a fiddle) and that the Vale would be where she started to come into her own.  So I was excited to see visible signs of that here.

And yeah, Evil Sansa is fucking hot.  I've always been more of a Margaery fan prior to this, but it turns out I'm just a sucker for manipulative psychos who show a lot of boob.  Explains much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on June 03, 2014, 12:35:54 PM
...but it turns out I'm just a sucker for manipulative psychos who show a lot of boob...

Aren't we all?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2014, 01:55:51 PM
Quote
If there was an Oscar for Most Creepy Motherfucker in a Hit Series, he'd win for sure.

If we ignore Mason Verger existing, I'd agree.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: murdoc on June 03, 2014, 02:39:47 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8u8tXLp.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 02:50:52 PM

 I am wondering if Ironwood blew a vein somewhere there towards the end, with the knowing looks and the slow walk down the stairs.  He hasn't commented.  Maybe he hasn't seen it yet.


No, I've seen it.  We're only about 24 hours behind you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2014, 03:18:56 PM
He's obviously still recovering.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 03, 2014, 03:25:57 PM
I have compiled a helpful guide to fictional characters whose name start with "Ober".

(http://i.imgur.com/NOyjDNj.jpg)

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 03, 2014, 03:46:34 PM
Like Tyrion said, if you've come to King's Landing for justice you've come to the wrong place. 




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2014, 05:49:33 PM
Tyrion ain't dying. There, I ruined it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 03, 2014, 05:54:40 PM
Yeah, he isn't going to die. There are enough people who would actually try to kill GRRM that one of them would succeed, and he knows it would happen. Also, Tyrion is GRRM's self insert into the story.

Tyrion is going to end up King with Mara Jade Sansa as queen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 03, 2014, 07:24:09 PM
Like Tyrion said, if you've come to King's Landing for justice you've come to the wrong place. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 03, 2014, 09:32:22 PM
Yeah, he isn't going to die. There are enough people who would actually try to kill GRRM that one of them would succeed, and he knows it would happen. Also, Tyrion is GRRM's self insert into the story.

Tyrion is going to end up King with Mara Jade Sansa as queen.

If the TV show decides not to be a shitshow, yes. If the TV show decides to continue following the books: No.

Spoiler: I read all the spoilers about the books to see how fucking glacial and poorly written they were. Turns out the series has about 4000 unnecessary pages.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2014, 02:05:30 AM
He's obviously still recovering.  :drill:

My views on Sophie Turner are a matter of public record, so you can imagine my reaction to the scene in question.

Thematically, it's wondrous that she's finally, finally, finally, finally grown up.  If you look at where she started and where she is, it's actually one of the more convincing character arcs in the show.  Oddly.  Since at first it was just one dimensional bullshit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 04, 2014, 05:23:54 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on June 04, 2014, 06:01:44 PM
We need a What If? spin-off series where Oberyn lives and Arya and The Hound roam Westeros for the foreseeable future.

Also:

(http://i.imgur.com/9qytNca.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lac on June 08, 2014, 11:53:22 AM
I've never bothered with the DVD extras but they are surprisingly good. Quite fun if you haven't seen them before.
Stannis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8reIFMFoJg)
Dothraki (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yDhN8HjME0)
Bolton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuScYpIxUwc)
Varys and Petyr (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1_CgfPQwFM)
Thoros (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXtUTNqKOjw)
The entire fucking history (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re_4-g07OPw)
the lot (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=GAME+OF+THRONES+EXTRAS)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2014, 07:12:09 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/xvhzYON.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 08, 2014, 10:21:27 PM
Well, I wasn't quite expecting an episode like that. Became obvious after the credits only named like three actors. Hopefully fulfilled everyone's action, violence, and death quotient.


At least I now know pretty for certain what the last scene of the 10th episode is going to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 09, 2014, 06:03:09 AM
I see three candidates for last scene of the season, and my best guess is a crap load more likely in my eyes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2014, 06:44:02 AM
I think a bunch of Jon's buddies who were ontop the wall survived.

And yeah I can think of 3 season ending moments too. Either way the last episode should deliver because I assume all 3 will be in there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 09, 2014, 07:09:17 AM
As I recall, Jon's "posse" from the books was:

Dolorous Edd (top of wall, survived)
Grenn (in tunnel, dead)
Pip (castle black, dead)
and of course Sam (survived)

So he lost half of the crew and his woman.

I think they did the battle on the wall much better than they did the Blackwater. I guess the criticism for the previous meant that they wanted to make sure they showed something a little more epic this time.

I am sure schild hated it because it was about the wall  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2014, 07:45:12 AM
Well there must be like 50 Black Watch left at this point anyway. I think they showed Thenn, Ygrette & the big redheaded guy (Tormund?) bring down 50 by themselves let alone what the rest of the 50-100 raiders killed in the courtyard battle. Add to that another 10 dead (5 in tunnel, 5 on wall from giant arrows + oil explosion). Are they expecting help from the other two BW forts? Or did they already get a few reinforcements already?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 09, 2014, 09:26:33 AM
50 Black Watch

Things would have gone much better for the defense if the wall was manned by the Royal Highlanders. They have machine guns, grenades, and whatnot

Sorry man, if I had to take it over getting Ohlongjohnson's name wrong, I'm giving out over referencing the 3rd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2014, 10:32:48 AM
heh whoops.

I live 2 blocks away from the Black Watch regiment of Canada's HQ, get that mixed up easily.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 09, 2014, 01:39:09 PM
Not enough care and effort was put into the show to dedicate as much time to this fight as they apparently did in the book.

NO ONE CARES, JON SNUH

this show needs less fan service for book readers

I am sure schild hated it because it was about the wall  :why_so_serious:

I would've been fine if it weren't a whole episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 09, 2014, 02:56:43 PM
That little "i got you bro" head nod the kid gave Jon when he killed Ygritte was so fucking hilarious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 09, 2014, 05:13:24 PM
he killed Ygritte

God fucking dammit.

SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE

I knew it was supposed to happen but haven't watched it yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 09, 2014, 05:15:56 PM
On the one hand I want to say "SPOILERS" and chastise Threash but on the other hand I don't know what the fuck you expect us to be talking about when you come to this thread the day after the episode airs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 09, 2014, 05:19:18 PM
This is not a show where the drama is tense enough that spoilers matter.

True Detective? Sure.
Game of Thrones? Not so much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 09, 2014, 05:25:36 PM
On the one hand I want to say "SPOILERS" and chastise Threash but on the other hand I don't know what the fuck you expect us to be talking about when you come to this thread the day after the episode airs.

It's all good, I don't really care. I just don't know if we're spoilering stuff in here. Did I miss that? It's more that stuff is either spoilered or it isn't, I thought we were spoilering. But it looks like more of a sloppy mix of both.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 09, 2014, 05:27:36 PM
I see three candidates for last scene of the season, and my best guess is a crap load more likely in my eyes.

I think your best guess is more likely to happen mid-late episode and the last scene of the episode will be the same one as the last scene of the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 10, 2014, 01:08:50 AM
On the one hand I want to say "SPOILERS" and chastise Threash but on the other hand I don't know what the fuck you expect us to be talking about when you come to this thread the day after the episode airs.

Just glad I'm late to the party.  Filthy Euros are a day behind with GoT and I avoid this thread like the plague until I've caught up.

But I really didn't think she'd kark it so soon.  I thought there was a lot more tortuous mileage in the character.

Ah well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 10, 2014, 02:38:43 AM
It's nice to have an episode focus on one storyline at once.  The fight was pretty good and though I have a couple of quibbles I was entertained.  Loved Jon and Sam's stories in this one.  Good to see some fantasy (giants, mastodons) in this fantasy show.  The scythe was a cool 'oh that makes sense' moment.

It was odd rooting for Ser Alister Thorne, turns out he can kick butt though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 10, 2014, 04:09:38 AM
He's still a prick!

It was a good episode despite my dislike of Jon's arc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tmon on June 10, 2014, 05:32:37 AM
It wasn't bad, but I did find myself grinding my teeth as the giants and mammoths approached the wall without a shot being fired at them.  I dvr the show and usually watch over lunch on Monday (my wife hates the show) and I make it a point to read this thread before I watch.  I've read the books, I know mostly what happens, what I want to know is how much fast forwarding I'm going to have to do to get past the characters that I can't be bothered to care about.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 10, 2014, 06:31:28 AM
We didn't see them shooting any arrows down at the giants, but they do mention that the giant had already taken numerous arrows as he's charging down the tunnel at them.

This might be the first episode in the show where they actually killed off more named characters than actually died in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 10, 2014, 06:41:57 AM
On the one hand I want to say "SPOILERS" and chastise Threash but on the other hand I don't know what the fuck you expect us to be talking about when you come to this thread the day after the episode airs.

It's all good, I don't really care. I just don't know if we're spoilering stuff in here. Did I miss that? It's more that stuff is either spoilered or it isn't, I thought we were spoilering. But it looks like more of a sloppy mix of both.

People spoiler book stuff, not TV that already aired. You gotta avoid this thread if you're behind on the TV show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 10, 2014, 06:44:54 AM

It was odd rooting for Ser Alister Thorne, turns out he can kick butt though.
[/quote

Thorne was always presented as a badass, vet fighter, just a complete prick too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 10, 2014, 06:52:10 AM
I think the tendency is to expect the trope of the big blowhard, dick head leader being shitty at his job. They might have said that Ser Alliser was bad ass, but I don't think we really expected it. I thought that sequence ended up one of the real highlights of the episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 10, 2014, 09:15:56 AM
Great episode, and I agree that it completely blew the doors off the Battle of the Blackwater episode. The one tracking shot where they show the whole fort from one side to the other was very well done. It did feel like the wildlings killed a whole fuckload more people than the 100 that were supposedly guarding the fort. The giant scene was awesome as was the scythe.

However, Jon Snow leaving the fort at the end... the fuck? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I can only expect that the contract for Mance Rayder said he needed X amount of screen time so they made up a scene with him and Jon Snow talking next episode. Totally unnecessary and illogical, mind you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 10, 2014, 09:54:30 AM
PSA: next weeks episode is 66 mins long, set tivos accordingly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on June 10, 2014, 09:56:36 AM
Some quibbles here too, especially about the aforementioned lack of defender interest in the approaching giants. And rocks, although I know dropping rocks makes no sense compared to cantilevering archers out 90 degrees to fire straight down. But one thing that really stood out for me in the battle was how fucking hard that Thenn hit. There was no doubt whatsoever that the sheer force behind his axe was completely overpowering. Yet it wasn't superhero or wire-fu exaggeration, however they managed it, it felt real and earned.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 10, 2014, 10:11:32 AM
But one thing that really stood out for me in the battle was how fucking hard that Thenn hit. There was no doubt whatsoever that the sheer force behind his axe was completely overpowering. Yet it wasn't superhero or wire-fu exaggeration, however they managed it, it felt real and earned.

Must be the high protein diet.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EWSpider on June 10, 2014, 11:07:22 AM
Great episode, and I agree that it completely blew the doors off the Battle of the Blackwater episode. The one tracking shot where they show the whole fort from one side to the other was very well done. It did feel like the wildlings killed a whole fuckload more people than the 100 that were supposedly guarding the fort. The giant scene was awesome as was the scythe.

However, Jon Snow leaving the fort at the end... the fuck? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I can only expect that the contract for Mance Rayder said he needed X amount of screen time so they made up a scene with him and Jon Snow talking next episode. Totally unnecessary and illogical, mind you.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 10, 2014, 12:36:05 PM
They've already changed some stuff at the wall from the books, and I presume they're going to change a lot more



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 10, 2014, 01:49:46 PM

Really? Shit, I don't remember that at ALL. Not that my memory is the greatest.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 10, 2014, 01:53:43 PM
I see three candidates for last scene of the season, and my best guess is a crap load more likely in my eyes.

I think your best guess is more likely to happen mid-late episode and the last scene of the episode will be the same one as the last scene of the book.
Yeah, you're probably right.  You didn't have to be so stone cold about correcting me, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 10, 2014, 03:12:36 PM

Really? Shit, I don't remember that at ALL. Not that my memory is the greatest.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 11, 2014, 06:16:38 AM
I see three candidates for last scene of the season, and my best guess is a crap load more likely in my eyes.

I think your best guess is more likely to happen mid-late episode and the last scene of the episode will be the same one as the last scene of the book.

There has to be a fairly good chance they won't do this.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 11, 2014, 06:41:33 AM
Otoh I imagine they would have leaked that they weren't doing it by now, just to manage expectations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 11, 2014, 06:48:00 AM
I think some of the things you mentioned are going to be in the first couple of episodes of next season and not in the first episode of this one. I can see in my mind 2 possibilities of what the final image is going to be, and both of them are part of the same "smelly" scenario.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 11, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
Otoh I imagine they would have leaked that they weren't doing it by now, just to manage expectations.

FWIW HBO has submitted Episode 10 for an Emmy for:


I kind of take that as an indicator.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 11, 2014, 12:49:39 PM
Otoh I imagine they would have leaked that they weren't doing it by now, just to manage expectations.

FWIW HBO has submitted Episode 10 for an Emmy for:


I kind of take that as an indicator.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 11, 2014, 12:52:37 PM
 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 11, 2014, 01:02:58 PM
Syfy/Blastr gets a lot wrong, but I do like this....

(http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/georgerrmartincomic.jpg?itok=XStk9n7I)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 11, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
It's pretty retarded really, he's not randomly killing people for the hell of it.  People die exactly where they should.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on June 11, 2014, 03:55:11 PM
It's pretty retarded really, he's not randomly killing people for the hell of it.  People die exactly where they should.
I'll hold you to that, hopefully all this death is going somewhere (that's not a disappointing ending).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fordel on June 11, 2014, 05:39:45 PM
It's pretty retarded really, he's not randomly killing people for the hell of it.  People die exactly where they should.


I would agree with that except for Oberyn vs The Mountain. That was just the classic hur hur I lost the fight but wait my last gasp will let me win anyways.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 11, 2014, 05:53:32 PM
It's pretty retarded really, he's not randomly killing people for the hell of it.  People die exactly where they should.

I would agree with that except for Oberyn vs The Mountain. That was just the classic hur hur I lost the fight but wait my last gasp will let me win anyways.

Oberyn was obsessed with revenge, and that made him sloppy.  He knew (and we the audience knew, thanks to foreshadowing) that his only way to beat the Mountain was to stay out of reach and wear him down, and that if he ever got in arm's reach he was fucked.  He got in arm's reach to try to extract his precious confession.  Oops.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 11, 2014, 07:03:28 PM
It's pretty retarded really, he's not randomly killing people for the hell of it.  People die exactly where they should.


I would agree with that except for Oberyn vs The Mountain. That was just the classic hur hur I lost the fight but wait my last gasp will let me win anyways.

I disagree, Oberyn was just another flawed character who paid the price when he let his flaws get the best of him at a crucial moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fordel on June 11, 2014, 07:43:14 PM
Nah, even a dude that big and strong isn't doing that after the stabbing he got, plus the poison, plus the general exhaustion of the fight.

Like, if he killed him during the fight, if Oberyn's obsession caused him to miss a dodge or get too close or whatever, fine. He gets cleaved in two and the fights over.

Reverse the situation, say the Mountain had got a hold of Oberyn and was starting to crush him but at the last moment Oberyn pulls out a hidden dagger from his sleeve and stabs the Mountain and wins the day. It would be horse shit that served the plot or whatever you want to call it.


Feels the same to me here, doesn't feel like what would happen, but what the author wanted to happen for whatever reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 11, 2014, 11:55:47 PM
People fuck up and die IRL
Oberyn fucked up and died - it happens. I always feel that GRRM doesn't kill characters to make a point other than to show that all men can die.

Sets the scene for the sand snakes, revenge and Dorne because King's Landing is pretty much played out leaving us with for the North/wall and beyond and Dany sitting on her arse doing sweet FA.

I'm hoping they really break with Dany's story and get things moving towards Bravos and Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2014, 05:49:29 AM
Oberyn's poison is very slow-acting. It takes the Mountain months to die, hinting it would have taken weeks for a normal sized man.  Oberyn wanted the mountain to suffer, not just die.  So it was only 3 stabbings, including one in the chest that wasn't meant to kill just incapacitate.  Oberyn was showing-off and thought he'd won because the Mountain was hamstrung.

He got knocked to the ground when off-guard. Totally plausible.  Mountain rolled on him and kept him pin, 100% plausible as the guy was 300# or better. The only thing that was fucked about the scene was the head-crushing, which was done for pure visual gore to play to the TV audience.  Read portions of the book again last night while trying to decide what's happening in the last episode and came across the scene.  In the book the Mountain punches him to death which is much more plausible than "ooho, head smush."

So, yeah, even there it was a deserved death done well. It came across as a hamfisted GRR 'kill the good guy' trope because of the TV presentation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 12, 2014, 06:21:31 AM
It's pretty retarded really, he's not randomly killing people for the hell of it.  People die exactly where they should.

And so did the beetles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 12, 2014, 06:22:23 AM
It's pretty retarded really, he's not randomly killing people for the hell of it.  People die exactly where they should.

I would agree with that except for Oberyn vs The Mountain. That was just the classic hur hur I lost the fight but wait my last gasp will let me win anyways.

Oberyn was obsessed with revenge, and that made him sloppy.  He knew (and we the audience knew, thanks to foreshadowing) that his only way to beat the Mountain was to stay out of reach and wear him down, and that if he ever got in arm's reach he was fucked.  He got in arm's reach to try to extract his precious confession.  Oops.

Also he is the red viper of dorn he knew that the mountain was already dead no matter what the outcome of the fight after he managed to cut him once.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 12, 2014, 07:11:54 AM
Also the big stab was through the gut, not the chest.  Oberyn couldn't stab the mountain on the chest without a step ladder.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 12, 2014, 09:51:05 AM
I disagree, Oberyn was just another flawed character who paid the price when he let his flaws get the best of him at a crucial moment.
Oberyn wanted to die.  He just wanted to take the Mountain with him.  Ellia meant everything to him, and with his revenge satisfied he didn't care anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
I'm not really sure that's the case.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 12, 2014, 10:18:04 AM
I disagree, Oberyn was just another flawed character who paid the price when he let his flaws get the best of him at a crucial moment.
Oberyn wanted to die.  He just wanted to take the Mountain with him.  Ellia meant everything to him, and with his revenge satisfied he didn't care anymore.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/82533/dikembe.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 12, 2014, 10:22:27 AM
I don't believe that.

Killing the Mountain didn't satisfy his revenge.  He also wanted Tywin to pay for giving the order, whether he actually did or not.  Not to mention the fact that he doesn't act like a man who wants to die in the book or the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 12, 2014, 10:47:41 AM
I disagree, Oberyn was just another flawed character who paid the price when he let his flaws get the best of him at a crucial moment.
Oberyn wanted to die.  He just wanted to take the Mountain with him.  Ellia meant everything to him, and with his revenge satisfied he didn't care anymore.

No way, he wasn't satisfied AT ALL by killing the mountain.  He wanted Tywin a lot more than he wanted Gregor, that's why he ended up losing the fight.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on June 12, 2014, 10:56:21 AM
Unfortunately, Oberyn's death scene was it for me. I can no longer stand to watch this show due to a syndrome I call "Quit fucking killing characters I like you fucks!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 12, 2014, 10:58:14 AM
Unfortunately, Oberyn's death scene was it for me. I can no longer stand to watch this show due to a syndrome I call "Quit fucking killing characters I like you fucks!"

Then you will miss the parts where people you DON'T like die!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 12, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
Martin is on record saying that Martel wanted Tywin and saw the Mountain as the key to the real prize.  He was not ready to die.  Oberyn Martel screwed up and died for it, and Tywin Lanister's greatest foe was off the board...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pennilenko on June 12, 2014, 11:47:38 AM
Martin is on record saying that Martel wanted Tywin and saw the Mountain as the key to the real prize.  He was not ready to die.  Oberyn Martel screwed up and died for it, and Tywin Lanister's greatest foe was off the board...
Well shit, looks like I have to continue watching.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
I'm not really sure that's the case.

Considering Oberyn says something along the lines of, "Starting with you..." yeah, it's not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 12, 2014, 02:32:19 PM
Well shit, looks like I have to continue watching.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on June 12, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
I disagree, Oberyn was just another flawed character who paid the price when he let his flaws get the best of him at a crucial moment.

Yes.  If Obie only wanted Mtn to die, he would have actually finished the job, perhaps with several more stabs to the neck via spear, instead of trying to force a confession.  Hubris!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 12, 2014, 03:51:48 PM
Most of the deaths on this show (at least for the "good guy" characters) come down to hubris.  Somebody gets cocky and thinks they can do stupid shit because they're untouchable.  Then they do stupid shit and die in a predictable way.  Ned made a stupid move tipping his hand to Cersei, because he thought he was protected by Robert and the law.  Robb made a stupid move breaking his oath to Frey and then making himself vulnerable in Frey's home, because he thought he was too well-loved in the North to be betrayed there.  Etc etc etc.  Once someone starts thinking and acting like they're the hero of the story, they get stupid, and then they get killed.

Except for Arya and Dany.  Their stupid decisions tend to work out okay in the end, at least for them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 12, 2014, 05:05:08 PM
Going to have to disagree on the specifics there, but yeah, I agree Oberyn had no intention of dying.  But that doesn't change the fact Martin wrote him into doing something fuck stupid so he could kill him, much like the rest of his good characters.  While most of the one dimensional sado-masochistic characters live through everything out of their shear cruelty, superiority, and general badassness.   :oh_i_see:

Most of the deaths on this show (at least for the "good guy" characters) come down to hubris.  Somebody gets cocky and thinks they can do stupid shit because they're untouchable.  Then they do stupid shit and die in a predictable way.  Ned made a stupid move tipping his hand to Cersei, because he thought he was protected by Robert and the law.  
Ned died because he was compasionate towards Cersei and wanted to give her a chance to flee with her children so they could escape the horrors of prosecution.  If he had simply killed her son and spent an entire season raping her, he'd still be alive and well.
Quote
Robb made a stupid move breaking his oath to Frey and then making himself vulnerable in Frey's home, because he thought he was too well-loved in the North to be betrayed there.  Etc etc etc.  Once someone starts thinking and acting like they're the hero of the story, they get stupid, and then they get killed.
Robb died only because the Frey's gave them protection under the old oaths of bread and salt.  They suspected the shit out of the Freys walking into that, but were put on ease by them doing things and making oaths that no sane lord would possibly break.  Feeling he was loved or protected was never implied anywhere in the books or movies.  If he had moved his men in, killed the Frey leadership right after they did the bread and salt ceremony, then spent an entire season raping all his daughters, he'd still be alive.
Quote
Except for Arya and Dany.  Their stupid decisions tend to work out okay in the end, at least for them.
Thats mainly because they go about murdering people left and right, if not torturing or raping (which leads to a longer life span in the books).

In short, if you are in any way compassionate and/or not sado-masochistic rapist, you will almost certainly die.

I love the books and the series, but he really does go a bit overboard in one direction.  If he wants to be internally consistent (for his oath foreshadowing at least), the entire Frey clan should be violently killed before the series ends.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2014, 05:10:04 PM
Sociopaths succeed in cultures with loose rules and grey areas over those who attempt to live in a civil and structured society?

My god, let's hope they never figure that out!

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 12, 2014, 11:21:55 PM
Let's be clear -- there's a difference between showing compassion and exposing your tender throat-meat to a psychopath.

Taking Ned as the first and best example -- he warns Cersei off because he thinks she's going to do something COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER, which is admit defeat, turn tail, and run.  And this is after he already suspects that she had Jon Arryn killed to stop him from doing THE EXACT THING HE IS ABOUT TO DO.  Which he is now TELLING HER HE IS ABOUT TO DO.

Do we see how utterly :uhrr: this is, in retrospect?

I mean, it all seems quite reasonable if you look at it from the angle of "this is what a HERO does, he shows mercy to his enemies," which is the angle that Ned was looking at it from.  But that angle doesn't make any sense unless you assume that the heroes have plot armor or that their enemies will be dumb and/or admit defeat at the first setback and/or not use the nuclear option when backed into a corner.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 12, 2014, 11:32:12 PM
Ned was as much hubris as anyone else. He considered the game and Cersei beneath him, and didn't even think of Joffery as a player.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on June 12, 2014, 11:39:44 PM
Sociopaths succeed in cultures with loose rules and grey areas over those who attempt to live in a civil and structured society?

My god, let's hope they never figure that out!

 :oh_i_see:
He's obviously never played Crusader Kings 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 13, 2014, 02:38:34 AM
He was even warned by Renly.  When Ned refused, Renly bravely ran away.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2014, 08:21:07 AM
I mean, it all seems quite reasonable if you look at it from the angle of "this is what a HERO does, he shows mercy to his enemies," which is the angle that Ned was looking at it from. 

It wasn't the "HERO" angle, it was the "HONOR" angle. As in, this is what an honorable person does, someone who has the capacity for shame and is not utterly ruthless in getting what they want despite the immorality of their actions. He just didn't realize he was dealing with someone with no fucking scruples whatsoever. Which was fuckstupid, but hey, that's what he was about. It's very often in Martin stories that those who try to apply rules and the trappings of civilization get fucked when they go up against those who for whom those rules hold no power.

Oberyn thought his cause was just and so he tried to extract a confession out of the Mountain - a confession that he hoped would implicate Tywin. Oberyn figured the Mountain was already dead anyway thanks to the poison and was also defeated thanks to being flat on his back with a spear hole in his gut. He underestimated his opponent's savageness and toughness.

Most of Game of Thrones is about the true face of power - about how civilization only holds power over those who believe in the illusion of its rules. Dragons, ice zombies - both of these things will be unfettered by any sort of reverence to the Iron Throne, or the laws of the Kingdoms of Westeros or any sort of religious morality, or territorial borders established by laws or treaties. Varys's speech to Tyrion about true power is very instructive for the whole series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2014, 09:25:46 AM
I've always thought blaming honor gives Ned too much credit. He didn't threaten Cersei primarily to save her or her kids (he had already executed a man for less), it came across as him trying to save Robert embarrassment and because he believed Cersei was not strong enough to cross him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2014, 09:35:37 AM
He didn't threaten Cersei primarily to save her or her kids (he had already executed a man for less)

Who did Ned execute for less? The Nightwatch deserter? Because to him, that's kind of the same thing - dishonorable conduct. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't worried about Robert's embarrassment as much as having an incest-created bastard on the throne who had no legal right to rule. It's the same reason he didn't back Renly's play for the throne - he didn't believe Renly had a valid claim to the throne with Stannis still alive, thus it was dishonorable to try to put Renly on the throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 13, 2014, 09:42:03 AM
I've always thought blaming honor gives Ned too much credit. He didn't threaten Cersei primarily to save her or her kids (he had already executed a man for less), it came across as him trying to save Robert embarrassment and because he believed Cersei was not strong enough to cross him.


Deserting the nightswatch is not "less", specially not to Ned Stark.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM
he believed Cersei was not strong enough to cross him.

That's the key IMO.  The "heroes" in this series have a habit of underestimating (or failing to acknowledge) their enemies and getting killed by them.

Same is true of the bad guys.  Joffrey was in "all this security is silly because everyone loves/fears me" la-la land right up until his airway closed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2014, 12:57:22 PM
I've always thought blaming honor gives Ned too much credit. He didn't threaten Cersei primarily to save her or her kids (he had already executed a man for less), it came across as him trying to save Robert embarrassment and because he believed Cersei was not strong enough to cross him.


Deserting the nightswatch is not "less", specially not to Ned Stark.

It's less than treason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 13, 2014, 01:17:26 PM
I always got the feeling you could get away with murder before you get away with Oathbreaking in this world. They really take that seriously.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 13, 2014, 01:55:38 PM
I always got the feeling you could get away with murder before you get away with Oathbreaking in this world. They really take that seriously.

Yeah, pretty much this.  Not just oathbreaking, but oathbreaking on what was supposed to be your final chance.  Most of those guys end up at the wall to avoid execution in the first place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on June 13, 2014, 11:41:27 PM
The discussion for the last page or two here is what GRRM intends to happen, from experiencing the story. It's no accident, and he's not capricious. Unlike a lot of genre fiction he's not supplying pat answers about why his characters meet the fates they do, and the fates are varied and often extreme.
"Why do bad things happen to good people?" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy)
Will evil always triumph because good is dumb? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7XVcqZodAM)

Why did that happen to Ned Stark? To Robb Stark? To Oberyn Martell (http://time.com/2838546/game-of-thrones-why-you-cant-stop-thinking-about-oberyn-martell/)?

Exactly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 14, 2014, 10:24:46 AM
GRRM doesn't intend shit. He doesn't know how to complete a story or fully flesh out a character. If he had to write a book about a single character, it would be absolutely awful. And 15,700 pages. The character would meet an untimely death around page 2,000 and the rest of the book would be people looking around for the right casket for the funeral.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 14, 2014, 12:23:28 PM
But it would be a really lovely coffin.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Severian on June 14, 2014, 05:48:52 PM
Martin has written a number of other novels, but I haven't read them (although I vividly remember the short story Sandkings  which I read as a kid) and I don't know whether they are about a single character or not. Or how good  they are. He is certainly capable of creating an interesting character, though, Tyrion could obviously anchor a book on his own. But regardless, that's not what this is. Sure, Martin doesn't do everything well. That's not the same as having nothing of interest on offer.

Now Jordan, he sucks. I had a long run at his work and had to give up on his weak shit, it wasn't worth it. That is not what is happening here.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 14, 2014, 09:34:12 PM
I don't know, I know plenty of people who quit before A Dance with Dragons because 50 good pages doesn't make 1054 shitty pages worth reading. Which is basically exactly what you just described.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 14, 2014, 10:56:26 PM
But that doesn't change the fact Martin wrote him into doing something fuck stupid so he could kill him, much like the rest of his good characters. 

Author writes book, news at 11? You make it sound like Oberyn wasn't Martin's character in the first place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetor on June 14, 2014, 11:06:34 PM
I liked some of GRRM's work in other genres (Tuf Voyaging: comical and sorta-preachy space opera, Fevre Dream: vampire novel) well enough and think they're at least above average, but didn't think they were the best things evar, either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 15, 2014, 01:00:33 AM
Fevre Dream was my first introduction to his writing.

TBH, I think it shits all over his writing in GoT


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 15, 2014, 06:28:24 AM
Ned lost and got put in a bad position for underestimating Cersei, but he died for underestimating Joffrey. Cersei was going to let him take the black, which would have essentially made the Wall get their shit together.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 15, 2014, 06:55:13 AM
PSA: tonight's episode is 66 minutes long.

Predictions: most people are going to miss the ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 15, 2014, 07:17:46 PM
Yes they did.  The rage will be amusing

On the same note.  Aww they didn't do it. Liked the changes that eliminated whole swaths of useless storylines and chapters of characters next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Evil Elvis on June 15, 2014, 07:20:17 PM
Yeah, I'm let down they didn't do it.  I could have also done without the show going all Sinbad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 15, 2014, 07:29:25 PM
I never thought the scene you guys were expecting would be in this season. I always felt the final episode was going to end almost where it did. If they had ended it at right around 60 minutes it would have pretty much ended where I thought it would. I really think they should have edited the scenes together differently and put the scene before the credits earlier and ended it with the image of a certain someone sitting on the throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 15, 2014, 07:32:17 PM
Happy Fathers Day from GoT.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 15, 2014, 07:36:44 PM
Was that so fucking hard GoT?  Finally a perfect episode from start to finish.  



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 16, 2014, 12:18:14 AM

Yah, a certain scene would have been pretty awesome if it were to end the season, but what we got was well done (even given the spoilered nonsense).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 16, 2014, 03:18:39 AM

Yah, a certain scene would have been pretty awesome if it were to end the season, but what we got was well done (even given the spoilered nonsense).

They could have dumped the Bran story - it shits me on the screen as much as it did when I read it.

I would have love the final 10 seconds of the credits to drop the scene many were hoping for. Instead we got the other ending which was ok. Dinklage steals it again.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2014, 04:42:39 AM
The Gregor thing isn't a change from the book.

I haven't seen this yet, but disappointed to hear they changed how Jamie and Tyrion finish up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 16, 2014, 06:49:27 AM
I haven't seen this yet, but disappointed to hear they changed how Jamie and Tyrion finish up.


I liked the series and this episode overall. Spoilery thoughts:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2014, 07:03:48 AM
They have done Tysha's story in the show, admittedly not for a while.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 16, 2014, 08:08:19 AM
I haven't seen this yet, but disappointed to hear they changed how Jamie and Tyrion finish up.


I liked the series and this episode overall. Spoilery thoughts:



The biggest err, what moment for me was, however, Varys. Him taking off on the boat with Tyrion was totally unexpected.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 16, 2014, 09:04:00 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2014, 09:50:53 AM
I would guess they aren't bringing Roger Allam back (which is a shame) and will use Varys in the role.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 16, 2014, 09:59:24 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 16, 2014, 10:19:28 AM
That fight was f'ing awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 16, 2014, 02:27:03 PM
Fucking giant meh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 16, 2014, 02:46:34 PM
Fucking giant meh.

Nobody could have predicted this reaction.

Was that bit with the wights in the book?  If so I definitely don't remember it being so, um, Raimi.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 16, 2014, 02:51:28 PM
Yea, the stop motion animation or whatever the fuck they were channeling there was horrific.

I don't think this show would be such a pile of shit if the characters were equally awesome. It's a giant ensemble cast and so many of the stories are incredibly weak and should've been completely different books, much like The Silver Spike was separated from the primary storyline of The Black Company. Arya's bullshit should've been a series called The House of Black and White and the shit up north should've been The Wall and as far as I can tell it could've been totally divorced from the core book series.

Frankly, this is nothing more than an incredibly poorly structured Dragonlance for people who want slightly better writing. Except instead of 350 pages at a time it's 1200 pages with terrible pacing that transfers perfectly to TV resulting in a terribly paced TV show.

Basically, Tasslehoff is great and the rest fucking blows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 16, 2014, 03:10:49 PM
Was that bit with the wights in the book?  If so I definitely don't remember it being so, um, Raimi.

I'm pretty sure that the last stretch before the Weirwood tree involved a dash away from pursuing wights, although I think Coldhands had more to do with driving them off than the Children of the Forest and their magical grenades


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 16, 2014, 03:55:19 PM
Can someone tell me what Clegane said about Waterdancing and 'Big Bitch' saving her.  There's a gump or something in my audio.  Just can't get it.

SC:  Big Bitch saved you.
AS:  I don't need saving.
SC:  ...**bargle Waterdancing**..** your sword.

Thought the wights were fine, best scene of the night.  Always good to see some fantasy in this fantasy series.  Never been a big fan of Bran's storyline before though.

Jamie and Tyrion was fine.  I hope the book readers are rending and tearing their garments over the omission.  Can't wait for the show to pass the books so the readers won't have anything left to spoil/be smug over.

Overall a fairly mediocre season that was over-hyped.  They put all the good stuff in the last two or three episodes.  Even Joffrey was not as satisfying as hoped.  I was glad of almost all of the outcomes of the storylines, even ones that the 'good' guys lost.  Hated 'Peoples Court with Kelly C' though it seems the showrunners hands were tied there.

What they did manage to do was get me interested in seeing next season.  Which was a real problem last season.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2014, 04:28:55 PM

They've pretty much stated they are not going that far in season 5. I'd assume they'll take it all the way through feast and dance up to the point where dance starts including feast characters. They only need to keep her busy for about 5 scenes across ten episodes really.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 16, 2014, 04:37:44 PM
I loved everything they changed from the books in this episode!  Just as I felt the change in Sansa's story was better than the books, they continue on the right path.

As to the scene I think you were all expecting and hoping for:
As to the changes to Tyrions departure:
All the changes are for the best, imo.  

Though not sure about the hatred for Brans story.  Thought them finding the tree and the child was pretty neat.  I always look forward to those chapters in the books because I really want to know more about the First Men/Children/Others.  I'm sure I'll be disappointed when he finally reveals all the secrets, but its one of the more intriguing aspects of the world for me that hasn't had all its mysteries revealed.  Though I also guess this somewhat spoils that Jojon doesn't have anything major left to do in the book series.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 16, 2014, 04:55:01 PM
For a minute I thought that
Schild - why are you actually watching this?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on June 16, 2014, 05:00:05 PM
Schild - why are you actually watching this?

He loves the show and everything about it, haven't you been reading?  He watches reruns of it all week while playing arena in Hearthstone.  Season ended exactly where I expected, but was certainly a fan of the changes I could notice.  Although I was hoping maybe Bran would just die so that entire awful story line could just go away.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 16, 2014, 05:46:34 PM
As to the scene I think you were all expecting and hoping for:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 16, 2014, 05:48:18 PM
Schild - why are you actually watching this?

http://www.danbarham.com/dinklage/

Edit: The real question is, why are any of you fuckers still reading the books or putting up with this nonsense? I assume the answer is the same.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 16, 2014, 06:48:46 PM
Because even the shitty parts are better than 99% of what's out there.  Same goes with the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 16, 2014, 07:24:27 PM
I liked most of it.

But... what the fuck was that scene with Bran? And have I just totally missed Coldhands? I just started Read ADWD and that scene confused the fuck out of me. Also, LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 16, 2014, 07:39:14 PM
Can someone tell me what Clegane said about Waterdancing and 'Big Bitch' saving her.  There's a gump or something in my audio.  Just can't get it.

SC:  Big Bitch saved you.
AS:  I don't need saving.
SC:  ...**bargle Waterdancing**..** your sword.

SC: Not you... you're a real killer, with your waterdancing and your needle.

*edited: Just rewatched the scene and corrected it to an exact quote.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetor on June 16, 2014, 09:53:36 PM
I liked most of it.

But... what the fuck was that scene with Bran? And have I just totally missed Coldhands? I just started Read ADWD and that scene confused the fuck out of me. Also, LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT!
The fireballs reminded me of Tim the Enchanter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6rzjns)  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 16, 2014, 10:13:40 PM
I liked most of it.

But... what the fuck was that scene with Bran? And have I just totally missed Coldhands? I just started Read ADWD and that scene confused the fuck out of me. Also, LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT!
The fireballs reminded me of Tim the Enchanter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6rzjns)  :awesome_for_real:

From the very first fireball.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 17, 2014, 12:02:59 AM
The skeletons made me think of Army of Darkness. Needed more Three Stooges action though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 17, 2014, 12:34:25 AM
I think it was just an homage to Ray Harryhausen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 17, 2014, 02:06:37 AM
I liked most of it.

But... what the fuck was that scene with Bran? And have I just totally missed Coldhands? I just started Read ADWD and that scene confused the fuck out of me. Also, LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT!
The fireballs reminded me of Tim the Enchanter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6rzjns)  :awesome_for_real:

From the very first fireball.

I thought the skeletons were old reanimated corpses, perhaps dead reanimated by White Walkers, used by the Children as a trap.

And I thought the Child was throwing explody objects, which seems possible in a world where wildfire exists. She (?) seemed to run out of them at the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 17, 2014, 05:40:12 AM

They've pretty much stated they are not going that far in season 5. I'd assume they'll take it all the way through feast and dance up to the point where dance starts including feast characters. They only need to keep her busy for about 5 scenes across ten episodes really.

Where have they stated this? Because as I'm seeing it they're pretty much beyond the books with over half their characters. Next season has to be pure invention/informed by GRRM's notes in many cases. I'd just as soon have them tell Martin's story from here on out since they're on the whole better custodians of it than Martin is.

Let's look at the list:

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 17, 2014, 05:54:53 AM
You forgot all of Dorne, which is at least a third of Feast. If they shift the focus to Dorne and the Ironborn, they'll have enough content to fill a season; of course that will mean only cameos from most of the characters on your list.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 17, 2014, 06:35:52 AM
I've seen interviews say more than once that the problem they had designing season 5 is the lack of a battle to show in episode 9, and the implication they are doing something either smaller scale or off-book.

You can plan it out, they usually do 5-6 things in a show, 1 or 2 is normally just character waffling.

If you think through events in Dorne, KL, the iron islands, the wall, braavos, the riverlands, the north, the far north, that journey on a river, plus bonus set pieces on dragonstone, with the manderlies, they are not short of plot.

Dany next season could happily get by with a scene more or less every other episode, toward the end Essos events outside the city would fill the gaps...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 17, 2014, 07:13:49 AM
I've been assuming that they're not going to go completely ADHD like Martin does and focus on a bunch of completely new characters. Yeah, I know, Sand Snakes are cast, so there will be *some* Dorne, but a season of "oh hai, here's some pirates, and oh hai here's some Spanish/Muslim people" while the expensive contract actors playing the characters that most of the audience cares about just show up in cameos? Fuck that noise, not only would it be shit, it isn't what the showrunners have done so far. The books gave them every reason to send Theon away for two whole seasons and they chose not to, I'm sure in part because that's not how actors' contracts work in movies and TV but also because it's not good storytelling for a 10-episode TV season. (or for a book, but leave that for another thread)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2014, 08:37:46 AM
The thing is the "regular" cast has been getting regular trims every season, there is plenty of room to add more characters at the rate the old ones die off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 17, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
I honestly can't see them skipping much Dorne.

There isn't as much of it as people seem to think anyway.

The plot at Riverun is more complicated than the one at Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 17, 2014, 10:51:30 AM
I don't really understand why doing a bunch of Ironborn stuff would be "boring". Those are some of the more interesting sections in the later books, to me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: proudft on June 17, 2014, 10:58:47 AM
Yeah, Victarion is the shit.  He's like a refugee from some other fantasy series.  




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 17, 2014, 11:36:54 AM
I think Victarion is sort of an interesting character in the books, but he's also about as plot-functional a character as exists in the series--he's kind of the narrative equivalent of a Fed Ex quest. In the series, Dany doesn't have the problem of not having a fleet--she's got one already.

I think if a Greyjoy is going to go to fetch someone, it's going to be Yara (aka Asha).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 17, 2014, 11:54:13 AM
I think Victarion is sort of an interesting character in the books, but he's also about as plot-functional a character as exists in the series--he's kind of the narrative equivalent of a Fed Ex quest. In the series, Dany doesn't have the problem of not having a fleet--she's got one already.

I think if a Greyjoy is going to go to fetch someone, it's going to be Yara (aka Asha).
Yeah, Victarion is the shit.  He's like a refugee from some other fantasy series.  




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 17, 2014, 12:10:51 PM
I don't really understand why doing a bunch of Ironborn stuff would be "boring". Those are some of the more interesting sections in the later books, to me.

I agree but wouldn't be surprised if they cut it. There are any number of ways they can handle MacGuffin delivery, then everything else ironborn is self contained, if Victaron becomes important later he'd be easy to add nearer the time. He could just show up out of the blue where he is at the end of dance and you'd need maybe 3 lines of dialog to explain it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 17, 2014, 06:25:51 PM
You people saying that the skeletons bore any resemblance to Ray Harryhausen stop motion stuff are fucking insane. I grew up with that crap being state of the art until Star Wars came along. Those skeletons in GoT were light years beyond anything that he did, on every level. He was the best with the technology of his time, but if you believe there was any resemblance between the two other than "skeletons" you literally have no fucking idea what you are talking about. None, at all. If you think you do please go watch the skeleton scene in Jason and then the skeletons in GoT, and then swallow your tongue in shame.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 17, 2014, 09:12:57 PM
Eh. Those skeletons were pretty clearly inspired by Harryhausen stuff. Yea, obviously it was fucking light years ahead of the older shit. Moore's Law guarantees that. But it was certainly some of the most obviously stop-motion inspired bullshit since well, stop-motion crap.

Edit: They could've made them move like the ones in The Mummy. But they didn't, they very purposefully made them look like Harryhausen trash. If you can't see that, you're the crazy one. Btw, here, so no one has to go searching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF_Fi7x93PY


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 17, 2014, 11:49:22 PM
The show creators have specifically said in an interview they were meant to be an homage to Harryhausen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 18, 2014, 12:10:09 AM
You people saying that the skeletons bore any resemblance to Ray Harryhausen stop motion stuff are fucking insane. I grew up with that crap being state of the art until Star Wars came along. Those skeletons in GoT were light years beyond anything that he did, on every level. He was the best with the technology of his time, but if you believe there was any resemblance between the two other than "skeletons" you literally have no fucking idea what you are talking about. None, at all. If you think you do please go watch the skeleton scene in Jason and then the skeletons in GoT, and then swallow your tongue in shame.

Edit: You know what, he's too ignorant to bother with. Bob, you're an idiot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 18, 2014, 02:35:04 AM
Seen this now, liked almost everything.

I get why the jamie/tyrion thing went how it did, but tyrion murdering everyone felt a bit odd without either that, or Varys manipulating him. I don't understand why book readers felt Varys getting in the boat is a big deal though. I read that as a simple way to signal him realising this is the moment to leave KL, exactly like the book plot.

Seemed like they flipped Shae closer to book Shae, I'm not sure that was especially well handled.

The crossbow scene I loved. Tywin's desperation and bullshit was perfect.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2014, 02:58:51 AM
The thing I preferred about book Shae was that, despite the fact that she royally betrayed him, there was actually some doubt as to whether or not she had feelings for him.  My interpretation was that she actually did care for him, but was very scorned at being sent off like she was and turned away in favor of Sansa, and then sorta reverted back to her old whore-like self.  The TV version seemed to make it more clear that she did not have those feelings and was always nothing more than a whore.  Why else go for the knife so quickly?  Unless I mistook something in that scene, which is possible.  Anyway, it may well be that GRRM meant it to be like this, but I prefer the ambiguity.  In fact, I prefer virtually everything about the book version of Shae.  Either way, poor fucking Tyrion. 

Also, both the book version and TV version handling of Arya's departure from the Hound - I am still not sure what Arya's thought process there really is.  Did she hate him so much that she let him suffer?  That doesn't feel right.  Did she come to forgive him enough that, despite the fact he was suffering, he was no longer on her "list" and therefore she couldn't bring herself to kill him?  On the surface, she appears to take his coin purse (which was symbolically awesome) and just traipse off, but I don't fully buy it.  She sits there staring at him, conflicted.  Is she just so totally cold now that there was nothing at all to it, just take the money and go?  The whole scene was great, and, I thought, sad.  I also sorta prefer the way the Hound got ended, rather than the book version of that infection getting the best of him.  I actually thought they were deliberately foreshadowing this in the TV show ("you shoulda let me burn it"), and then pulled a major switcheroo.  I did not expect that fight to happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 18, 2014, 03:46:13 AM
Regarding Shae, having not read the books, the impression that I got from the TV was that, as you say Cyrrex, her love for Tyrion was clouded with bitterness having been turned away by him, but I also thought that she may have been further manipulated off-screen before the trial.

I thought she was a character that deserved a lot more screen time and development tbh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 18, 2014, 03:56:35 AM
Book Shae seemed uncertain and largely inscrutable as
seen from Tyrion's pov.

TV Shae seemed to be making a definitive statement when turning down Varys' offer, but then didn't get enough screen time to convincingly change view.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2014, 04:24:50 AM
All that said, I am actually fine they didn't give her more screen time.  She is probably the one actor from the series that I didn't feel was pulling her weight.  More to the point, she bugged the shit out of me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 18, 2014, 06:46:49 AM
The show creators have specifically said in an interview they were meant to be an homage to Harryhausen.

No they didn't. Unless you've got a different interview to provide a link too they said it was a "footnote" and another said it was a "touchstone". Those are both miles away from "homage". Considering that the minute hipster sperglords saw a skeleton come out of the ground they would deride it as a rip-off, they had to mention Harryhausen just to get them to shut up about it. Unless you're going to post a link to something that says what you said it says, it's safe to assume you're just making shit up to suit your needs like you did in The Thread That Must Not Be Named.

They're fucking skeletons, there's not a lot of personal flair you can add to them without entering the ridiculous. I'm not really sure what you mean by "more like The Mummy's" skeletons. The GoT skeletons already had way more in common with them than they did the Harryhausen skeletons. Unless you're talking about what they're wearing, which would be pretty silly.

Edit: You know what, he's too ignorant to bother with. Bob, you're an idiot.

Read as "I can't deny anything he said so I'll just be a little namecaller". Don't be so hostile towards me, I'm probably your real father.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 18, 2014, 07:09:04 AM
As we never were able to get into book Dhae's head, we never knew whether she was acting or truly cared for Tyrion. The show Shae was not ambiguous. That changed everything. Show Shae was a ping pong ball and Tyrion murdering her washim killing both his love and his betrayer. Book Shae was proven yo be the opportunist betrayer at the end, making it seem like her feelings for him were never totally true. That changes Tyrion's acts dramatically.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 18, 2014, 07:09:32 AM
Would you be less upset if the phrasing were "heavily influenced by Harryhausen" instead of "homage"?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 18, 2014, 07:26:31 AM
Really looking forward to a Politics-forum level debate about stop-motion animation and the history of special effects in movies and TV shows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 07:31:39 AM
The show creators have specifically said in an interview they were meant to be an homage to Harryhausen.

Its pretty damn obvious without them saying it. There's no other reason for those skeletons to have such janky movement.

Bob is just incapable of reversing a already stated opinion so he's in too deep.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 07:34:01 AM
The show creators have specifically said in an interview they were meant to be an homage to Harryhausen.

No they didn't. Unless you've got a different interview to provide a link too they said it was a "footnote" and another said it was a "touchstone". Those are both miles away from "homage". Considering that the minute hipster sperglords saw a skeleton come out of the ground they would deride it as a rip-off, they had to mention Harryhausen just to get them to shut up about it. Unless you're going to post a link to something that says what you said it says, it's safe to assume you're just making shit up to suit your needs like you did in The Thread That Must Not Be Named.

They're fucking skeletons, there's not a lot of personal flair you can add to them without entering the ridiculous. I'm not really sure what you mean by "more like The Mummy's" skeletons. The GoT skeletons already had way more in common with them than they did the Harryhausen skeletons. Unless you're talking about what they're wearing, which would be pretty silly.

Edit: You know what, he's too ignorant to bother with. Bob, you're an idiot.

Read as "I can't deny anything he said so I'll just be a little namecaller". Don't be so hostile towards me, I'm probably your real father.

This took zero effort, you lazy incendiary inbred douchebag: http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/game-of-thrones-fighting-skeletons

Regardless, they shouldnt have to come out and say it because IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 18, 2014, 07:34:22 AM
Also, both the book version and TV version handling of Arya's departure from the Hound - I am still not sure what Arya's thought process there really is.  Did she hate him so much that she let him suffer?  That doesn't feel right. 

Doesn't feel right, but I don't see how you interpret it any other way.  He was a dead man who was unworthy of mercy in her eyes.  She felt that she owed him nothing.

Quote
skeleton bullshit
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/82533/who-gives-a-shit-harrison-ford.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 18, 2014, 07:37:41 AM
Barrie Gower, prosthetics director for Game of Thrones, on the skeleton scene in "The Children": "It’s got such a lovely fancy element, it almost goes back to the Sinbad movies and Ray Harryhausen—they were definitely footnotes. The creators were quite interested in having these skeletal figures that—using the effects tools and modern-day techniques—could be an advanced version of the stop-motion procedure that Ray Harryhausen used to do years ago."

Joe Bauer, visual effects supervisor for Game of Thrones, on the skeleton scene in "The Children": "Ray Harryhausen’s skeleton fight was definitely a touchstone for the sequence—skeletons crawling out of the ground and fighting could be nothing else. Their movements, however, were choreographed by our stunt team much like any other fight on Game of Thrones—which was our goal to keep things familiar and production-friendly. Even the wights that were eventually entirely CG were rotomated off of the stunt performer’s movements and interaction with our heroes."


Bob is welcome to continue his argument with the people who actually made the show. I think the rest of us can just sit back and  :popcorn:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 07:44:20 AM
That implies he actually had an argument to begin with, which he didn't. I'm pretty sure he was just taking out his fat, personal home problem aggression out on uh, a pretty obvious segment of GoT? Who the fuck knows. It was certainly more sperglord than anything he was trying to insult though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 18, 2014, 07:57:00 AM
This took zero effort, you lazy incendiary inbred douchebag: http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/game-of-thrones-fighting-skeletons

Regardless, they shouldnt have to come out and say it because IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS.

It took zero effort and it's the same page I quoted. Nothing about saying it was a homage. Still waiting for the fucking liar to provide his link to a statement that doesn't exist. What's so FUCKING OBVIOUS about it, that they were ANIMATED SKELETONS concealed IN THE TERRAIN. Holy fuck, that literally makes every animated skeleton, anyplace, ever, a homage to Harryhausen.

Would you be less upset if the phrasing were "heavily influenced by Harryhausen" instead of "homage"?

Yes. Because animated skeletons are always considered a derivative of Harryhausen because people are fucking stupid. Seriously, what fresh take on an animated skeleton would hipster mediatards not consider derivative of Harryhausen? Before this retarded argument you people were turning up your noses at the scene and saying shit like the stop motion they were channeling was horrific, Army of Darkness, etc. Then you have Ingmar just flat out fucking lying again.

Seriously, film experts - you're in charge of doing this scene. You have to make this scene happen where animated skeletons come out of concealment and attack the party. Describe how you do that has nothing in common with the scene from Jason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 18, 2014, 08:06:26 AM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 18, 2014, 08:06:50 AM
Barrie Gower, prosthetics director for Game of Thrones, on the skeleton scene in "The Children": "It’s got such a lovely fancy element, it almost goes back to the Sinbad movies and Ray Harryhausen—they were definitely footnotes. The creators were quite interested in having these skeletal figures that—using the effects tools and modern-day techniques—could be an advanced version of the stop-motion procedure that Ray Harryhausen used to do years ago."

Joe Bauer, visual effects supervisor for Game of Thrones, on the skeleton scene in "The Children": "Ray Harryhausen’s skeleton fight was definitely a touchstone for the sequence—skeletons crawling out of the ground and fighting could be nothing else. Their movements, however, were choreographed by our stunt team much like any other fight on Game of Thrones—which was our goal to keep things familiar and production-friendly. Even the wights that were eventually entirely CG were rotomated off of the stunt performer’s movements and interaction with our heroes."


Bob is welcome to continue his argument with the people who actually made the show. I think the rest of us can just sit back and  :popcorn:

Yeah, that's all from the same fucking page I already quoted. I already know they said all that. I realize yu guys all skimmed that and want to declare checkmate and dogpile on me, but none of that means it's a homage. Using your logic every car made using an assembly line is an homage to the Model T. The first executed example of a simple concept doesn't make all subsequent examples an homage. It might be influential, but that's a different thing.

Please though. Tell me what about the GoT scene makes it an homage? Skeletons? Skeletons coming out of hiding? Skeletons coming out of hiding fighting people? Or was it the part where a White Walker cast a spell and the skeletons came up in a motionless formation until he commanded them to kill, then they bumrushed Bran en masse.

:facepalm:

Yeah, that's what I though, you fucking piece of lying garbage. Facepalm all you want, it doesn't change the fact you just constantly make shit up. Post a link if I'm wrong, otherwise improve the quality of discussion and shut your lying fucking mouth.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Numtini on June 18, 2014, 08:10:49 AM
I just watched Jason last week. Definitely an homage. You can particularly see it in how they rise from the early relatively slowly, then kind of sprint. There's just a quality of motion about them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 18, 2014, 08:11:27 AM
You people saying that the skeletons bore any resemblance to Ray Harryhausen stop motion stuff are fucking insane. I grew up with that crap being state of the art until Star Wars came along. Those skeletons in GoT were light years beyond anything that he did, on every level. He was the best with the technology of his time, but if you believe there was any resemblance between the two other than "skeletons" you literally have no fucking idea what you are talking about. None, at all. If you think you do please go watch the skeleton scene in Jason and then the skeletons in GoT, and then swallow your tongue in shame.

Some people on the internet think, and say, that the scene was reminiscent of Ray Harryhausen's work and an homage to him. You disagree and leap in with some choice words, bolded above. And then accuse others of being hostile.

Someone said you're on medication for your anger issues. Tell us, when did being a fucking douchebag become a medical condition?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 08:13:25 AM
lol

You're mental. And mildly illiterate. Gonna go ahead and quote the same thing again.

Quote
"It’s got such a lovely fancy element, it almost goes back to the Sinbad movies and Ray Harryhausen—they were definitely footnotes. The creators were quite interested in having these skeletal figures that—using the effects tools and modern-day techniques—could be an advanced version of the stop-motion procedure that Ray Harryhausen used to do years ago."

"Ray Harryhausen’s skeleton fight was definitely a touchstone for the sequence—skeletons crawling out of the ground and fighting could be nothing else. Their movements, however, were choreographed by our stunt team much like any other fight on Game of Thrones—which was our goal to keep things familiar and production-friendly. Even the wights that were eventually entirely CG were rotomated off of the stunt performer’s movements and interaction with our heroes."

There is literally no other way to say "this was an homage" without saying "this was an homage." For starters, they could've dumped the frame-skipping bit and just made it a smooth animation. Making it look like, I don't know, The Mummy Returns. Or Pirates of the Caribbean. But they didn't, they left in the stop-motion effect just enough to make it very obviously a throwback to Harryhausen shit.

Look, I think Harryhausen shit is awful crap. It's nigh unwatchable from start to finish. But fucking special effects teams and filmmakers have a hard-on for his bullshit. It's damn near inescapable. There's literally no reason to animate ANYTHING like Harryhausen ever unless you're directly paying homage to him. This is one of those cases.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you either have 240hz Smoothsoapoperamotion enabled on your TV, or you're retarded. Those are the only two options. You're either retarded or saw a different scene than everyone else. Note: It's not the crawling out of the ground or having skeletons or any of that shit that made it a throwback to Harryhausen. It was 100% the animation style. And frankly, what else could they have done? Anything. But they didn't, because it was a fucking homage, you moron.

Edit: Obviously this post is directed at ragelord dipshit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 08:14:20 AM
Also, your dad needs to start hitting you again because clearly you haven't learned your lesson.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2014, 08:15:26 AM
What I want to know is, what was up with those janky skeletons?  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 08:16:38 AM
What I want to know is, what was up with those janky skeletons? 

According to anyone that didn't have a childhood lobotomy, it was an homage to Harryhausen's awful overrated trash.

According to Bob, it was, I don't know, where he was touched as an infant.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 18, 2014, 08:29:16 AM
I thought the Children of the Forest were more alien in the books.  Not a straight up child actor w/ fire grenades and sparkly makeup.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2014, 08:38:01 AM
What I want to know is, what was up with those janky skeletons? 

According to anyone that didn't have a childhood lobotomy, it was an homage to Harryhausen's awful overrated trash.

According to Bob, it was, I don't know, where he was touched as an infant.

Joking aside, I have know idea who this Harryhausen (nerds!) is, but I remembered seeing the skeletons, and then lowering my eyebrows and wondering why they appeared so janky at first.  My very next thought was they did this on purpose, just like way back when with some movie or something I couldn't remember.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 18, 2014, 09:27:47 AM
Harryhausen rules. Now shut up about the skeletons, and let's talk about how fucking awful Sibel Kekilli was as Shae. I actually liked Shae in the books, and was devastated when she betrayed Tyrion. On the show, I have been eagerly anticipating her strangling death since her first scene. SO TERRIBLE. She was far more believable taking it in the ass in her porn days. Unless that was all CGI'ed. I bet Harryhausen didn't have a technique for THAT.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 18, 2014, 09:33:40 AM
Book Shae was just a ditzy young whore who knew the right things to say and had a quick enough wit to appeal to Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 18, 2014, 09:57:17 AM
You're all wrong.  It is clearly an homage to Army of Darkness, the only film in the genre that matters.

Regarding TV Shae, I wonder if they could have pulled off the ambiguity that is present in the books.  It is hard to do that type of thing over a prolonged period because any scene where nobody is looking at her for a moment would be a scene where her true colors should be revealed...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Typhon on June 18, 2014, 09:58:23 AM
Harryhausen rules.

Completely agree.

She was far more believable taking it in the ass in her porn days. Unless that was all CGI'ed. I bet Harryhausen didn't have a technique for THAT.

Still laughing!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 18, 2014, 10:19:39 AM
I don't understand why book readers felt Varys getting in the boat is a big deal though. I read that as a simple way to signal him realising this is the moment to leave KL, exactly like the book plot.

Because he has parts to play at the end of season 5 or 6 (depending on how they break things up) that require him to be in King's Landing. Not that he couldn't abandon Tyrion in Braavos, but that's why.


Also, both the book version and TV version handling of Arya's departure from the Hound - I am still not sure what Arya's thought process there really is.  Did she hate him so much that she let him suffer?  That doesn't feel right.  

It would have been much more understandable if she'd given the departing line from the book instead of just walking off.  "You should have saved my mother."  Yes, she really hated him that much. He denied her the thing she wanted, so she denies him the thing he wants.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 18, 2014, 10:26:28 AM
I don't remember the book version being that much different but I think the TV did a good job. She was supposed to be a shallow (& annoying) woman whore, but also with enough superficial charm/wit to captivate Tyrion, showing us how vulnerable Tyrion is to any woman with these abilities who affectionately showed attention to him, blinding him to the fact that she was annoying, and a huge liability. She started with Tyrion for the money, and seemed to developed some feelings to him, at least threw herself wholeheartedly into the relationship such as it was, for the sake of a meal ticket. She was too dumb to understand his seriousness about his responsibilities and why he would not run off with her, the problems their respective their places in society caused, and why he had to distance himself from her to avoid the problems that ultimately happened when she got caught by Cersei, as he feared.


Once Tywin got ahold of her it wasn't difficult to convince her to join his team I guess. Convince her what a loser Tyrion was and how he was gonna win. Her being shallow, down to the depth of her affections for Tyrion, her petty feelings of rejection stemming from that lack of understanding of events, and her ultimately being a whore, gave her plenty of monetary & emotional revenge reasons to go along with Tywin and sell out Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 18, 2014, 11:38:02 AM
Book version was very different, at least in Martin's eyes.  I also saw her the same way Martin explains in this interview, because she was only ever trying to get closer and more things from Tyrion.

Quote
It’s also worth mentioning Shae is one of the characters that really has changed significantly from the books to the TV show. I think that [showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss] wrote Shae very differently, and a symbol to Sibel Kekilli — the incredible girl playing her. Shae is much more sincere in her affections for Tyrion. This is almost contradictory, but with the Shae in the TV series, you can tell she actually has real feelings for Tyrion — she challenges him, she defies him. The Shae in the books is a manipulative camp-follower prostitute who doesn’t give a s–t about Tyrion any more than she would any other john, but she’s very compliant, like a little teenage sex kitten, feeding all his fantasies; she’s really just in it for the money and the status. She’s everything lord Tywin thought Tyrion’s first wife was that she actually wasn’t. So there are all layers of complexity going on here. They’re the same character, but they’re also very different characters, and I think that’s going to lead to very different resonances playing out in the TV show than in the books.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/06/16/game-of-thrones-finale-martin/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 18, 2014, 12:31:16 PM
Book Shae cared about her jewelry and fancy dresses and wanted to stay with Tyrion because she truly did not understand how much danger she was in, it was a very very different character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on June 18, 2014, 12:52:13 PM
Really looking forward to a Politics-forum level debate about stop-motion animation and the history of special effects in movies and TV shows.
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/d91bd63d19625396db4b62cec0c82868/tumblr_mveqpgeKjs1rz6x7ro1_400.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 18, 2014, 12:55:18 PM
Clearly, the scene with the Wights was actually an homage to The Neverhood.

God damn, I need to find my old copy of that game.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on June 18, 2014, 01:00:52 PM
I don't go into the Politics forum but I'm kinda thinking now I should every once in awhile for parties.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 18, 2014, 01:50:50 PM
Did you guys miss the Season 2 homage to Oregon Trail?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hutch on June 18, 2014, 02:31:57 PM
And the season 3 homage to Twin Peaks?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 02:34:04 PM
And the season 4 homage to Mean Girls?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 18, 2014, 02:38:37 PM
I'm looking forward to the Season 5 homage to Miami Vice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 02:41:58 PM
Interesting, because I expect the Season 5 homage to be to Season 3 of Heroes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 18, 2014, 02:51:25 PM
Interesting, because I expect the Season 5 homage to be to Season 3 of Heroes.
You might be thinging of the Season 1 through 7 homage to Debbie does Dallas. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 18, 2014, 03:02:05 PM
Interesting, because I expect the Season 5 homage to be to Season 3 of Heroes.
You might be thinging of the Season 1 through 7 homage to Debbie does Dallas. 
No, because that makes absolutely zero sense given my unfortunately quite serious joke.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 18, 2014, 03:21:24 PM
$40 bucks for a photo of schild's I  :heartbreak: HBO's Game of Thrones bedsheets.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 18, 2014, 04:13:11 PM
WTF happened in here!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 18, 2014, 06:07:29 PM
Ah, but is anything a touchstone in Season 4? Because as we all know, that's quite different from an homage. Quite!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 19, 2014, 06:03:18 AM
WTF happened in here!

Shows over.

So now we have a year of F13urbating.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on June 19, 2014, 06:05:18 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/QNAJc.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mortriden on June 19, 2014, 07:38:22 AM
Not that fucking duck again.  Jesus, I'd forgotten about that damn thing from when Sky was using it.

  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 19, 2014, 09:27:50 AM
Well TWOW isn't going to come any time soon, and it's still a couple of months until football season...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 19, 2014, 10:21:59 AM
Eh ?  We're smack in the middle of fuck all except football.

 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on June 20, 2014, 02:37:20 AM
Not that fucking duck again.  Jesus, I'd forgotten about that damn thing from when Sky was using it.

  :awesome_for_real:
One never truly forgets the duck

If the Hound doesn't come back I will be very upset, where's my "Arya and the Hound murder Westeros" miniseries?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 20, 2014, 04:03:50 AM
If the Hound doesn't come back I will be very upset, where's my "Arya and the Hound murder Westeros" miniseries?

Pushing up daisies.
Sorry - bad habit.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 20, 2014, 06:36:19 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 20, 2014, 08:41:35 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 20, 2014, 12:18:37 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 20, 2014, 04:20:17 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 20, 2014, 04:26:23 PM
If the entire conversation needs to be in spoiler tags it's a good hint you should just go over to the all-spoiler thread.   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 20, 2014, 04:43:16 PM
Do we have one of those? We have a book thread, a tv show with no book knowledge thread, which pretty much leaves this one for tv discussion with book knowledge?

Having a fourth thread would start to look insane.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 20, 2014, 05:07:16 PM
Book thread.

There are a number of TV watchers who don't like that every now and then entire pages of this thread go under spoiler tags to talk about the books, because this is the thread that's for talking about the TV show.  I read the books, but I sympathize with their viewpoint.  We're on to speculating about stuff that hasn't even been acknowledged in the books yet; nobody who's just watching the show has any idea what the fuck you're talking about.  You're using spoiler tags to hide your conversation from them, so you already know you're doing it wrong.  Just go to the book thread.  It's not a big deal but it's also not rocket science and and it will make other people's lives easier.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2014, 09:01:24 PM
Of course, at this point the TV show seems like it is already starting to spoil in the other direction...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xanthippe on June 22, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
Do we have one of those? We have a book thread, a tv show with no book knowledge thread, which pretty much leaves this one for tv discussion with book knowledge?

Having a fourth thread would start to look insane.

Where is the TV show with no book knowledge thread? I thought this was it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 22, 2014, 04:08:01 PM
Do we have one of those? We have a book thread, a tv show with no book knowledge thread, which pretty much leaves this one for tv discussion with book knowledge?

Having a fourth thread would start to look insane.

Where is the TV show with no book knowledge thread? I thought this was it.

Don't say I never do anything for you....

Game of Thrones, illierate edition (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=23209.0)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 22, 2014, 09:07:25 PM
I actually wish the non-book readers would pick that thread up again. I find it really interesting getting an unspoiled perspective on what people think of the show. Without having to navigate a dozen spoiler tags.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 22, 2014, 10:36:20 PM
Man, I forgot we'd even attempted that experiment.  I hereby give up on trying to make anyone happy.  As you were.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 26, 2014, 10:47:56 AM
5th Season casting revealed at Comic Con. Looks like the Iron Islands subplot is not in the cards. Lots of Sand Snakes though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 26, 2014, 04:03:31 PM
Surprised to see no Arianne.

Jonathan Pryce as the high sparrow sounds p cool.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 26, 2014, 05:57:16 PM
Yeah, that's pretty dead-on casting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JWIV on July 27, 2014, 02:37:44 PM
Definitely strange though to see the girl from Mia and Me as a Sand Snake. Going to be a bit weird.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on July 29, 2014, 06:55:49 AM
Arianne was annoying anyway, and this seems to show she was more of a narrative device than anyone significant.

I assume they don't want to introduce too many new plots in one season, so focus on Dorne season 5 (with the lead-in from Oberyn fresh) and cut the Iron Islands until S6? Hell maybe the Iron Islanders are going to be cut entirely from the show. Let's say hypothetically if Euron & Victarion never end up accomplishing anything by the end in asoif, GRRM just wanted to write a lot about westeroth vikings, but they just become dragon chow/fish fodder, why bother including them in the show at all? GGRM has thousands of pages to waste, but the show has limited airtime for non-essential characters, and limited budget for fancy ship battles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 29, 2014, 07:45:37 AM
If they don't introduce the Iron Islands then we know that entire thread is useless in the books, and the drama of their rush to the Eastern kingdoms is equally useless in the same vein as Prince Meltsalot of Dorne.  TV show spoiling the book once more but in a really significant way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2014, 07:54:57 AM
Look back--in the books so far, are there people you thought would be important who weren't? Yes. Are there plotlines that more or less just end in something awful and pointless, because Martin wants to suggest that sometimes that's what happens, except in epic fantasies where every destiny is fulfilled? Yes. Are there plots and characters that the show has paradoxically made more important or interesting because they've decided not to create Yet Another Character and just re-used one who was already there? Oh my yes.

So calm down.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 29, 2014, 08:18:57 AM
The only plot that would really bother me if it was cut would be lady stoneheart, and so far it looks like it might be out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on July 30, 2014, 01:55:12 PM
Or they are keeping quiet on it to as a shock factor for viewers


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on July 30, 2014, 02:45:25 PM
Too late for that, thanks to this thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 30, 2014, 02:56:56 PM
Too late for that, thanks to this thread.

Game of Thrones, Illiterate Edition (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=23209.0)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 30, 2014, 11:34:07 PM
If they don't introduce the Iron Islands then we know that entire thread is useless in the books, and the drama of their rush to the Eastern kingdoms is equally useless in the same vein as Prince Meltsalot of Dorne.  TV show spoiling the book once more but in a really significant way.

Not so much, they don't need the kingsmoot for obvious reasons, and if they skip that, the existing iron born characters and easily do the things that the new cast would have done. Or the new characters could show up in season 6 - since I can't think of anything that has to happen straight away.

Or Victaron could just show up where he is the books at the end of dance, and you could cover it with 40 seconds of dialog.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on August 09, 2014, 04:15:39 PM
Random aside. Sean Bean just sang, "I will survive" to me at the Ritz Carlton.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 09, 2014, 08:06:06 PM
Random aside. Sean Bean just sang, "I will survive" to me at the Ritz Carlton.

That's a terribly ironic song choice and I'm quite jealous assuming his voice isn't nails on chalkboard bad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on August 10, 2014, 10:12:19 AM
It was in reference to his new show, Legends and the hashtag the studio's been pushing, #dontkillseanbean.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 11, 2014, 03:01:11 PM
It has always seemed that the storyline is building the winning team for humanity's winter stand against the white walkers.

Anyone who is dropped for the moment can be brought back. Yara Greyjoy can turn up to someone's aid with an Iron Islands army. Lady Stoneheart can turn up at any convenient point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on August 15, 2014, 09:39:22 AM
Random aside. Sean Bean just sang, "I will survive" to me at the Ritz Carlton.
Just you, or an audience?  Pretty cool either way, but the former is jealousy territory.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2014, 10:26:00 AM
Martin has said, by the way, that at least some fans have guessed fairly accurately what his outline for the series conclusion says.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on August 15, 2014, 11:48:25 AM
Random aside. Sean Bean just sang, "I will survive" to me at the Ritz Carlton.
Just you, or an audience?  Pretty cool either way, but the former is jealousy territory.

Just me. He sat next to me at the bar. I was commenting on the hashtag and told him that he needed to make clear in his contract that if they killed him it had to be with something on par with a nuke.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on August 18, 2014, 03:49:28 AM
Martin has said, by the way, that at least some fans have guessed fairly accurately what his outline for the series conclusion says.

Sounds like the million monkeys finally bashed out a bit of Hamlet


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 18, 2014, 07:29:20 AM
I had the exact same reaction when I heard about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 21, 2014, 07:19:01 AM
Also he was talking things that aren't that hard to predict given 10 years to think about it.

Jon Snow's parentage for instance. I'm fairly sure that 90% of the monkeys have that right.

If you re-read GoT one thing that really stands out is how direct and unsubtle the prophecies are. They get a little more open to misinterpretation as the series goes on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 21, 2014, 09:34:46 AM
They are direct and unsubtle after the fact though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on August 26, 2014, 01:55:24 AM
*redacted*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DraconianOne on August 27, 2014, 01:18:22 AM
*redacted*


Too late!

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 27, 2014, 01:49:54 AM
Did Snape kill Dumbledore or something?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on September 02, 2014, 01:32:05 PM
Martin has said, by the way, that at least some fans have guessed fairly accurately what his outline for the series conclusion says.

If I had to guess:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 02, 2014, 01:39:30 PM
Ice and Fire were always obvious. The third head eluded me until I read the theory then it was, "Oh, DUH."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 02, 2014, 06:49:10 PM
I saw a really interesting thread at Reddit where the guy said, "Look, Martin has said he doesn't like one-dimensional EEEVIL races, so he's not going to make the White Walkers into motiveless zombies who just want to kill the living." Then he goes from there and offers a really ingenious reading of the Night's King story and some other stuff. The general conclusions he comes to strike me as pretty sound--and they don't lead to a simple, "Fire beats Ice with lots of dragons", and they also lead to a rather different reading of Jon Snow's future and the fate of the Starks. And not a simple defeat for the White Walkers either.


It struck me that he might be the guy Martin is thinking about when he says a few people have guessed most of the important stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on September 03, 2014, 07:18:02 AM
I saw a really interesting thread at Reddit where the guy said, "Look, Martin has said he doesn't like one-dimensional EEEVIL races, so he's not going to make the White Walkers into motiveless zombies who just want to kill the living." Then he goes from there and offers a really ingenious reading of the Night's King story and some other stuff. The general conclusions he comes to strike me as pretty sound--and they don't lead to a simple, "Fire beats Ice with lots of dragons", and they also lead to a rather different reading of Jon Snow's future and the fate of the Starks. And not a simple defeat for the White Walkers either.


It struck me that he might be the guy Martin is thinking about when he says a few people have guessed most of the important stuff.


Link?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 03, 2014, 10:23:26 AM
Think I found it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/23p48r/the_true_nature_and_purpose_of_the_others_and_the/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 03, 2014, 10:41:19 AM
That's the one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on September 03, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Think I found it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/23p48r/the_true_nature_and_purpose_of_the_others_and_the/

I enjoyed that.  Seems a bit of a stretch just because it leaves a LOT of ground to cover in books to come, but I suppose GRRM can cover ground quickly when he wants to.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on September 03, 2014, 10:50:47 AM
That was pretty interesting. (But goddamn I cannot get used to Reddit as a platform.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 03, 2014, 10:52:57 AM
I can see some ways he can get to it pretty quickly. Might also be a way to unload an absolutely savage beating on the Boltons, etc.--that the Starks have a reason for being Kings in the North that goes way beyond, "This is our castle and these guys are our bannermen".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on September 04, 2014, 12:03:36 AM
(But goddamn I cannot get used to Reddit as a platform.)

Glad I'm not the only one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on September 04, 2014, 04:43:06 AM
Season 5 of GoT will not feature Bran or Hodor (http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/09/03/bran-stark-game-of-thrones-season-5/?hootPostID=08a191d3227d9189659a0bb4ff6b946f)

Until TWoW comes out the showrunners don't seem inclined to extend the storyline (which is more or less done to the extent present in the books)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 04, 2014, 06:19:52 AM
I am not at all surprised by this. They really can't, since Bran almost certainly is going to be Mr. Infodump for the next part of his story in the books--Martin is almost certainly going to use him to let us see things that none of the viewpoint characters have seen or could see, including in the past, in order to set up the rising action of the series climax.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on September 04, 2014, 06:25:35 AM
I for one am happy that there's no Bran in the next season. I think his storyline inserts too much "magic and fantasy" in to the story without being that interwoven into the other stuff (after they go north of the wall).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on September 04, 2014, 07:58:33 AM
That's a very good move. As it is, he would have had maybe one or two more scenes from the book and then he's done. Let Martin get another book out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 05, 2014, 09:38:34 AM
It will be even more jarring when the actor gets screen time again. He is in that 'growing like a weed' face of adolescence and will probably be Hodor's size after a year off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 05, 2014, 11:51:45 AM
Well, in his case, they can explain it well enough through all the freaky magical shit that's about to happen to him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on September 06, 2014, 06:14:13 PM
Or do what they've been doing and just recast him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on September 07, 2014, 07:40:08 PM
Or do what they've been doing and just recast him.

That story line is mostly uninteresting enough that I doubt many people have been paying enough attention to notice anyways.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on September 07, 2014, 08:52:07 PM
They are direct and unsubtle after the fact though.

Umm. No. Unless after the fact is 'right after reading it'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 08, 2014, 12:37:57 AM
My first read through I can't say I got more than a couple of the prophecies.

At least in part because I wasn't really looking for them and the dream/vision sequences weren't very readable unless you can be bothered to spend the energy puzzling them out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on September 08, 2014, 01:26:53 AM
Maybe. But GRRM was far to clear with Ned in his fight with Arthur Dayne. From there joining dots wasn't such an effort.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on October 19, 2014, 05:44:07 PM
Next season is being fillmed right now. Alcázar palace in Sevilla will be the stand in for Dorne. Very pretty.


(http://i.imgur.com/JA4Ldf1.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/BgFpVmT.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/TH4v3qX.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/0Pp9f1h.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/r2JHUOw.jpg)


In hindsight good that Cortés killed all those Atzecs, or we wouldn't have such nice sets too today!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on October 19, 2014, 05:50:52 PM
In hindsight good that Cortés killed all those Atzecs, or we wouldn't have such nice sets too today!  :why_so_serious:

Sevilla is in Spain.

Though Spaniards did kill people to get Alcázar Palace.  They were Moors though, not Aztecs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on October 19, 2014, 06:01:12 PM
In hindsight good that Cortés killed all those Atzecs, or we wouldn't have such nice sets too today!  :why_so_serious:

Sevilla is in Spain.

Though Spaniards did kill people to get Alcázar Palace.  They were Moors though, not Aztecs.

And Cortes was Spanish. Or am I missing something here?

Wiki says Alcázar goes back to the Moors, but that the majority of it was built for Peter of Castile.

Edit: But ok, the time-line is wrong Peter I. "The Cruel" predates Cortes by a good 200 years. So he had nothing to do with it. Serves me right for making factious jokes.

Edit2: The El Pais article about the filming said there was previously appearing male actor present that couldn't be named because it would have been a spoiler. Probably a mystery only for non-booker readers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on October 20, 2014, 12:33:03 AM
It is a spoiler for everyone, that guy doesn't go there in the book.

But not much of a mystery for readers of this thread who have looked at your prior post.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on October 21, 2014, 03:07:24 PM
Huh, interesting.  Guess sending him down there makes more sense than what he did in the 4 book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on October 21, 2014, 03:48:41 PM
It is a spoiler for everyone, that guy doesn't go there in the book.

But not much of a mystery for readers of this thread who have looked at your prior post.
Huh, interesting.  Guess sending him down there makes more sense than what he did in the 4 book.

Ohhh....now I get it. You mean Jamie!

I was under the assumption the article referred to someone else. They hardly would write "We can't name who it is!" and then put his picture right besides, no?  :wink:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on October 24, 2014, 05:06:11 AM
I've always been a bit sceptical of theories about how and when the tv show would diverge from the books, but on top of the pictures above there are Tyrion pictures online that handle his story in a significantly different way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on October 24, 2014, 05:49:06 AM
This would be the perfect season to diverge from the books anyway. How many useless characters were introduced in book 4 & 5. People who've served no purpose at all and were actually dead or entirely out of the story by the end of 5.

Martin's lost the plot, it shows, and now's the time when the show needs to start that split. Book 6 won't be out by the time season 5 is supposed to be aired, and books 4&5 only really had enough for one season of non-wankery.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on October 24, 2014, 05:56:39 AM
This may be the only example of book-turned-film (whether TV or movie) where I thought that the live adaptation was far superior to the book.  They do almost everything better than Martin.  Therefore, by all means, let them do what they want with it.

Tyrion himself is a good example.  He is a really good character in the book.  He is fucking beyond great in the TV show.  Much about him is different, because of the liberties the show has taken.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on October 24, 2014, 06:09:47 AM
I disagree.

TV Tyrion is a Mary-sue.

TV Tyrion is still fucking great, but the book does a better job of writing an actual person, admittedly it is mostly because you can go inside his head.

I do think they made a better live adaptation than a more literal transfer would have been. Book made good decisions for a book, TV made better decisions for TV. So far at least.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on October 24, 2014, 06:15:00 AM
We can agree to disagree about Tyrion, but at least it is fair to say they are different characters.  Is one better than the other?  Well, one of them made a dwarf actor a world famous award winning superstar, and that is mind blowing.

Whatever.  The only real point I mean to make is that the TV show is tightly done, well scripted and always hitting the mark (rapey stuff aside).  You cannot say the same for the books.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on October 24, 2014, 09:22:25 AM
Book Tyrion is a Mary-Sue as well. Book 4&5 Tyrion should have been dead about 300 times over.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on October 24, 2014, 10:08:01 AM
We can agree to disagree about Tyrion, but at least it is fair to say they are different characters.  Is one better than the other?  Well, one of them made a dwarf actor a world famous award winning superstar, and that is mind blowing.

Whatever.  The only real point I mean to make is that the TV show is tightly done, well scripted and always hitting the mark (rapey stuff aside).  You cannot say the same for the books.



Totally agree, I guess I'm just adding that the books are not trying to be a tight plot led piece the way the TV show is, and I like having both.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on October 24, 2014, 11:59:59 AM
Asides from the much tighter editing job on the plot (which I also prefer over the book's meandering ways) The TV series also fixed stuff like their ages all being out of whack too. Sansa is supposed to be 12 in the book, Bran like 8. Other people like Loras Tyrell are like 15 at the start of the saga but one of the best fighters in the world? The TV series just appropriately cast people who look 5 years older than what the book lists them at and then never really mentions the number in the dialogue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on October 24, 2014, 12:12:04 PM
We can agree to disagree about Tyrion, but at least it is fair to say they are different characters.  Is one better than the other?  Well, one of them made a dwarf actor a world famous award winning superstar, and that is mind blowing.

Whatever.  The only real point I mean to make is that the TV show is tightly done, well scripted and always hitting the mark (rapey stuff aside).  You cannot say the same for the books.



Totally agree, I guess I'm just adding that the books are not trying to be a tight plot led piece the way the TV show is, and I like having both.

Well then I guess we agree about that too, because I like the way the books are written too for the most part.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on October 24, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
Asides from the much tighter editing job on the plot (which I also prefer over the book's meandering ways) The TV series also fixed stuff like their ages all being out of whack too. Sansa is supposed to be 12 in the book, Bran like 8. Other people like Loras Tyrell are like 15 at the start of the saga but one of the best fighters in the world? The TV series just appropriately cast people who look 5 years older than what the book lists them at and then never really mentions the number in the dialogue.

I just assume that on the ASOIF planet, years are about 480 earth-days long, or maybe days are 32 earth hours long (I haven't come across anything to contradict either one), and it all more or less works out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on October 24, 2014, 04:56:29 PM
Asides from the much tighter editing job on the plot (which I also prefer over the book's meandering ways) The TV series also fixed stuff like their ages all being out of whack too. Sansa is supposed to be 12 in the book, Bran like 8. Other people like Loras Tyrell are like 15 at the start of the saga but one of the best fighters in the world? The TV series just appropriately cast people who look 5 years older than what the book lists them at and then never really mentions the number in the dialogue.

I just assume that on the ASOIF planet, years are about 480 earth-days long, or maybe days are 32 earth hours long (I haven't come across anything to contradict either one), and it all more or less works out.

The entire concept of a "year" kinda loses its meaning on a planet where the seasons are of variable length.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on November 27, 2014, 04:03:01 PM
There is a new trailer.

I'd link it but you are all capable of using Google.

Anyway, trailer is 11 seconds long and about some psycho teenager who is in season 5.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on November 27, 2014, 04:14:01 PM
There is a new trailer.

I'd link it but you are all capable of using Google.

Anyway, trailer is 11 seconds long and about some psycho teenager who is in season 5.

I wouldn't call something 11 seconds long a trailer.

Anyway, to save others the work (as "game of thrones trailer" turns up quite a lot of different stuff):

http://youtu.be/G6nkcf974Ys


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on December 22, 2014, 01:58:56 PM
GRRM working to make sure he does not survive to finish writing this series...

http://www.blastr.com/2014-12-22/george-rr-martin-wants-show-controversial-film-interview-his-own-theatre (http://www.blastr.com/2014-12-22/george-rr-martin-wants-show-controversial-film-interview-his-own-theatre)

History books will speak of the world uniting against North Korea after NK attacked his theater and denied us the resolution to Fire and Ice...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 30, 2015, 06:08:19 PM
Season 5 trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDb4sJVK2wU

Plus GRRM confirms: no new book for 2015. So it's kind of official: the TV series is more likely to finish the story than the original author.

Honestly, that might be for the better. At least some of the time, their instincts are better than his.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 30, 2015, 07:26:39 PM
Not if they remove Jamie's riverland adventures.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on January 31, 2015, 01:04:41 AM
Tyrion confirmed for Team Dany.   :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Nevermore on January 31, 2015, 01:09:22 AM
As far as just the quality of how well the trailers have been put together go, the Season 3 trailer is still the best.  The song for this Season 5 trailer sucked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 31, 2015, 01:10:08 AM
The song was "Heroes" originally by Bowie. I like that version of it, though I'm not sure who did it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on January 31, 2015, 02:33:29 AM
Bewbs


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on February 02, 2015, 06:10:12 PM
Trailer is up officially now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wViILXQfX7Y).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on March 24, 2015, 09:58:45 AM
Series runners confirmed that the upcoming season will not just go past where Martin is in the books, but will specifically spoil things that Martin has told them are going to be in the books to come, and that the season after that will very much spoil books that Martin can't possibly write in between now and its likely premiere date. Plan is apparently to use Martin's outlines and notes to complete the series. Makes you wonder a bit if Martin is just going to finish writing the next one and then say, "Eh, fuck it, I'm done, watch the show."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on March 24, 2015, 10:14:24 AM
Of course he is, assuming he doesn't die first.  Guy's been bored of writing GOT for 7 or 8 years now. He's only kept at it to get paid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on March 24, 2015, 12:18:43 PM
Just give it to Brandon Sanderson now and save us some trouble.  It'd be interesting to see GoT as written by a Mormon.  Maybe there would be less infanticide.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ingmar on March 24, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
Ugh, now I have to be on spoiler alert for the rest of his life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 24, 2015, 12:28:27 PM
I guess I'll start watching the show again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 24, 2015, 03:37:44 PM
Ugh, now I have to be on spoiler alert for the rest of his life.
Now all those poor chumps that got set up for the "Red Wedding" by a book-reader that was more interested in watching them react than in the episode, have a chance to get revenge.

(http://i.imgur.com/bNXCqZr.jpg)

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on March 24, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
I think there are a lot of things in the books (The rest of the Greyjoys, the Horn, etc...) that are not in the books that we'll find the books to unfold.

Plus,  I would not be surprised to have the series end and have GRRM reveal, "Yeah, that ending isn't what I have planned for the books... it was something else I planned once upon a time, but I changed those plans a long time ago.  I just lied to HBO.  Deal with it."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on March 24, 2015, 05:07:11 PM
No. Considering there's 2 more seasons after this one - at least - the most likely thing he'll have to say is..

*decomposing*

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 24, 2015, 05:31:25 PM
No. Considering there's 2 more seasons after this one - at least - the most likely thing he'll have to say is..

*decomposing*

 :awesome_for_real:

He is about 5 years into this segment of his plan AFAIK.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on March 24, 2015, 05:33:06 PM
It was obvious from the trailer that HBO ran at the apple event a couple weeks ago that this season was going to be past the books in some places.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on March 24, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
From that moment where Tyrion looks up?  I kind of feel like they may be skipping everything that took place in the last book for Tyrion (or doing the key beats in one episode).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on March 24, 2015, 06:35:54 PM
Good. That whole "Drunk Tyrion on the River" thing was pointless crap. Yay, you introduced us to a host of characters who may or may not matter. I'm going with Not.

Hopefully prince charcoal is out of the game, too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on March 24, 2015, 09:42:16 PM
They've already said flat out that they're not doing "Drunk Tyrion on the river asking where whores go". So I would also assume (heavy spoilers):



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on March 25, 2015, 12:17:12 AM
The TV series is consistently better than the books.  Maybe not on every single point, but certainly as a whole.  So let them pass GRRM and do their own thing.  And if George later says "hey! that's not what was supposed to happen haha suckers!" nobody is going to care.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on March 25, 2015, 05:00:32 AM
Completely. It's been like a great edit of the books. I trust the series runners now to finish the story well more than I trust Martin to do it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on April 07, 2015, 03:24:00 PM
Can't stop laughing   :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

https://youtu.be/BabsgCQhpu4

(Seth Myers brings Jon Snow to a dinner party)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 07, 2015, 04:43:36 PM
The only thing the tv series has done was make me dislike Dani sooner. I think their going to continue to butcher Dani's story at the cost of marginally better assassin creed stark story. Which was also painfully full of filler. I won't be sad when the tv series cuts book sales in half. He wasted the 5th book and is basically trolling us into buying book ten of this series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 07, 2015, 05:03:11 PM
You are more than medium high if you think Martin will write more than six books, let alone ten.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 07, 2015, 05:19:24 PM
I'd be willing to bet he could write a handful more Dunk and Egg books, because that's what the people want.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 07, 2015, 05:51:47 PM
You are more than medium high if you think Martin will write more than six books, let alone ten.


Well assuming he doesn't just die from being fat, out of shaped and snorting coke off the tits of strippers, at the rate of filler he clogs Song of Ice and Fire with the story won't get an ending until book 10.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 07, 2015, 06:50:13 PM
Let's see:

Martin filling up books with pointless stuff

+

Martin writing more and more slowly

+

Creative fulfillment of more energetic people finishing your story

X

Living large

=

Enjoy watching the HBO show! Hope you weren't planning to read it first!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 07, 2015, 07:13:39 PM
As I said, guy's bored and has been for years. If his contract was for 7 books as was said a decade ago, he'll write 7 and that'll be it. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 07, 2015, 08:07:36 PM
You are more than medium high if you think Martin will write more than six books, let alone ten.


Well assuming he doesn't just die from being fat, out of shaped and snorting coke off the tits of strippers, at the rate of filler he clogs Song of Ice and Fire with story won't get an ending until book 10.

He's no longer relevant.  HBO has his notes how the series winds up.  He can write, stroke out, whatever, the TV show will be fine.  I'd imagine they'll milk the cash cow for a couple more seasons than necessary anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 07, 2015, 09:56:37 PM
Can't stop laughing   :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

https://youtu.be/BabsgCQhpu4

(Seth Myers brings Jon Snow to a dinner party)

Yeah that was good :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 08, 2015, 06:16:34 AM
You are more than medium high if you think Martin will write more than six books, let alone ten.


Well assuming he doesn't just die from being fat, out of shaped and snorting coke off the tits of strippers, at the rate of filler he clogs Song of Ice and Fire with story won't get an ending until book 10.

He's no longer relevant.  HBO has his notes how the series winds up.  He can write, stroke out, whatever, the TV show will be fine.  I'd imagine they'll milk the cash cow for a couple more seasons than necessary anyway.

I don't care about the tv series. It will end, get canceled, go on hiatus, don't matter. They will end the series one way or the other. I'm a book fan and it kinda pisses me off that with no obligation to finish the series in 7 books and with the amount of filler doubling with every release we may never get a proper conclusion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 08, 2015, 10:07:50 AM
I don't care about the book series.  It will never get finished by GRRM.  He's one Big Mac away from giving St. Peter a high-five.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 08, 2015, 11:08:15 AM
All the other big writers would like you to get over your entitlement and realize GMM owes you nothing.   :awesome_for_real:

(Gaimain being the first one to come to mind.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on April 08, 2015, 01:57:49 PM
Well, he is correct.  But I can still say fuck him.  I'll watch HBO, and if I still give a fuck in 2020 when the next book drops, I might look for it in a used book store.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 11, 2015, 02:19:48 AM
The only thing the tv series has done was make me dislike Dani sooner. I think their going to continue to butcher Dani's story at the cost of marginally better assassin creed stark story. Which was also painfully full of filler. I won't be sad when the tv series cuts book sales in half. He wasted the 5th book and is basically trolling us into buying book ten of this series.

The filler has been the best stuff both on TV and in the books.

I give zero fucks if neither of them ever end because I do not for one second believe anyone if going to be able to write a satisfying ending to this.

Either the ending provides closure and is way too neat for this story, or it doesn't, and everyone hates it for that as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 11, 2015, 05:14:52 AM
I think honestly that's another factor in Martin not writing: he knows he's written himself into a corner. Either some of the expected things happen and everyone says, "oh, boo-hoo, yet another fantasy series where the good guys starve off the evil threat" or the plot bleeds out in a bunch of loose ends and side stories. I suppose he could end it with the White Walkers killing everyone but a few refugees who make it to Essos, that would be original if rather depressing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 11, 2015, 07:29:49 AM
I always assumed that the whole point of all this was the return of dragons and magic, and therefore Daenerys or some other heir takes control of Westeros and turns back the tide of white walkers.  There is also a subplot that nobody talks about...the incest angle in royal bloodlines.  Sometimes it goes horribly wrong (see Joffrey, Viserys, other Targaryen wackjobs), but then one comes along and is just oh-so-lovely and perfect and redeems them all.  Which again comes down to Daenerys.  So that is my prediction.  Daenrys over the White Walkers in six games.  Zombie Jon Snow as MVP.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 11, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
Well, given that the War of the Roses is one of the influences on the story, I think it would be perfectly fitting if it also ends with the whole of Westeros agreeing that a strong king/queen is way, way better than having each of the Houses chasing its own ambitions at any cost. But with all the hoo-hah about winter, Martin is also going to have to figure out how *anybody* is left alive if the winter lasts years and years. Everything that the people of Westeros would need to have done in order to survive that has not been done, from what we can see--they've been warring all through the harvest season.

Maybe it should end with everybody but Dany and a few others dying after killing the Walkers and starving to death and then Braavosi bankers can come in and repossess the whole kingdom when spring shows up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 11, 2015, 09:54:17 AM
After the red wedding and the end of the war, I've been very firmly in the "The white walkers are the only good guys and I hope they win camp" for about a decade and a half now.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 11, 2015, 11:16:52 AM
Well, given that the War of the Roses is one of the influences on the story, I think it would be perfectly fitting if it also ends with the whole of Westeros agreeing that a strong king/queen is way, way better than having each of the Houses chasing its own ambitions at any cost. But with all the hoo-hah about winter, Martin is also going to have to figure out how *anybody* is left alive if the winter lasts years and years. Everything that the people of Westeros would need to have done in order to survive that has not been done, from what we can see--they've been warring all through the harvest season.

Maybe it should end with everybody but Dany and a few others dying after killing the Walkers and starving to death and then Braavosi bankers can come in and repossess the whole kingdom when spring shows up.


I've always assumed it is something like Tyrion/Sansa or Dany/Jon starting a new house,  ending the nonsense of 7 kingdoms, and a new settlement between fire and ice etc. But I'd challenge anyone to make that more fun than reading about Arya in a bar fight or Sam getting high at the citadel.


Even Brienne negotiating with Stoneheart sounds more fun than Dany presumably destroying the iron throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 11, 2015, 11:21:59 AM
Well, given that the War of the Roses is one of the influences on the story, I think it would be perfectly fitting if it also ends with the whole of Westeros agreeing that a strong king/queen is way, way better than having each of the Houses chasing its own ambitions at any cost. But with all the hoo-hah about winter, Martin is also going to have to figure out how *anybody* is left alive if the winter lasts years and years. Everything that the people of Westeros would need to have done in order to survive that has not been done, from what we can see--they've been warring all through the harvest season.

Maybe it should end with everybody but Dany and a few others dying after killing the Walkers and starving to death and then Braavosi bankers can come in and repossess the whole kingdom when spring shows up.


The thing about winter, or well, the seasons in general...I understood it such that the seasons just come whenever they come and they last for an unpredictable amount of time, as if planetary movement had nothing to do with that.  Am I wrong?  Maybe they have some way of influencing how long winter actually lasts.  By having dragons roasting walkers or something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 11, 2015, 01:48:31 PM
It's been theorized that Westeros' planet has a wobbly axis, a shorter tilt cycle or some combination of the two that causes the weird winters. (Earths is like 40k years for only a 2.4 degree shift)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on April 11, 2015, 04:54:56 PM
He should leave it unfinished and just open up the universe to guest authors. Like eldaec mentioned, I'd love a full novel exploring Arya or Briennes further adventures.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on April 12, 2015, 03:20:03 AM
Apparently the first four episodes of the season of leaked online so I guess be wary of spoilers out there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 12, 2015, 05:21:45 AM
Pretty sure GRRM has already said seasons are related to magic, not astronomy.

Presumably whatever is causing dragons is also causing snow.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 12, 2015, 08:44:34 AM
Yeah, my assumption has been that the terrible winter will be magically stopped as soon as the white walkers have been dealt with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on April 12, 2015, 04:15:48 PM
I assumed it was some stupid magic since the winters aren't ever mentioned by people on the other continent. Nor are any sort of long summers that would have to correspond. That might have been addressed in the books though. At this point I just can't see the point int reading them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 12, 2015, 05:47:09 PM
I thought, based on the credits alone, that they were living on the inside surface of a Dyson sphere and the small 'sun' was sometimes far enough away that it caused winter.  Just a weird theory.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 12, 2015, 08:38:44 PM
Slow intro to the season.  We're still getting Drunk Tyrion, but at least we aren't hearing him whine even half as much.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 13, 2015, 12:31:48 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 13, 2015, 03:40:33 AM
Unmemorable episode. Next week though, ooo the Martells look pissed!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on April 13, 2015, 06:24:18 AM
They seem to be getting much beyond the books even in just the first few episodes of this season. And it seems the boobs/butts are compressed into fewer scenes with more of each in the scene. Easier for later editing them out maybe?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 13, 2015, 07:40:36 AM
Nah, just not a lot of scenes that would have allowed for it this episode. My wife laughed and said it must be a record that there were no boobs until 13 mins in.

Sansa ended beyond the books last season, so no surprise they're getting away there quickly. Everything else is early books & 4/5 as expected.



After discussing with the other guy in the office, I think Mance's story was handled badly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 13, 2015, 08:52:21 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 13, 2015, 09:22:07 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 13, 2015, 10:53:03 AM
Game of Peter Dinklage and a Bunch of People Stealing Time Away from Peter Dinklage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 13, 2015, 01:04:00 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 13, 2015, 01:10:40 PM
Or you just have those zelaots be the same group. My point was there's no need for 2 groups when they're the same flavor of crazy.  Sure, it makes sense from a medieval vassalage standpoint, but narratively it's not required. Crazies who are landed gentry w/ arms can also be crazies who are serfs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 13, 2015, 01:14:11 PM
Re Mance:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 13, 2015, 03:20:41 PM
RE: All the stuff in Pentos


Enjoyed the first episode mostly. Debating watching the next three that have been leaked. Sort of want to string it out, but also suspecting that my resolve won't hold


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 13, 2015, 04:03:48 PM
Re Mance:


Thanks for that...I knew that didn't feel right watching it and now I remember why.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 13, 2015, 04:06:01 PM
Re Mance:


Thanks for that...I knew that didn't feel right watching it and now I remember why.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 13, 2015, 04:17:03 PM
Hmm, not sure what I think about that.

They seem to be rewriting the plot basically from scratch, so impossible to know if that will work till I see it.

Maggy the Frog was great, and the kid playing Cersei did a fantastic job. I was a bit surprised that they cut the prophecy short though, possibly it would be a little too obvious on screen.

Really liked the Jamie/Cersei scene.

Didn't really buy Varys' white knight act. Also Lancel didn't quite work - was that religion or a threat, wasn't great as either.

Mance was great, but that just made the plot change more disappointing.

Usual first episode problem where they want to reintroduce everyone but don't have enough time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 13, 2015, 04:29:13 PM
Re Mance:


Thanks for that...I knew that didn't feel right watching it and now I remember why.


 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 13, 2015, 05:14:57 PM
I assume Littlefinger is going to Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 13, 2015, 05:34:36 PM
Nah, he's going West. What's west of the Vale? Harrenhal!

Basically episodes 3-10 are going to be of Littlefinger redecorating the castle while Sansa gets drunk  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 13, 2015, 06:35:53 PM
Technically everything is west of the Vale.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 13, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
This part is fun, none of us know where he's going, really.

Could be he's launching "Sansa, QUEEN Of THE NORTH". Or heading to Harrenhal. Or both! Or heading to Braavos. Or heading to the Tullys. Who knows?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 14, 2015, 01:56:42 AM
Tough to think of places beyond Cersei's reach that Littlefinger would be likely to gain influence.

Dorne certainly, but possibly too crowded if Jamie is going there,  Braavos I guess, outside chance that Sansa takes Jeyne's role at winterfell though I don't see what LF could get from that.

Could be going to team up with Rickon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on April 14, 2015, 06:40:14 AM
I'd recommend watching the leaked episodes, rather than speculating, but that's just me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 14, 2015, 08:22:58 AM
That means waiting 4 weeks for new content instead of one. No thanks..


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 14, 2015, 08:35:27 AM
Haven't been  able to speculate about this show for a long time, so it certainly won't hurt to able to do so for a bit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2015, 09:05:04 AM
That means waiting 4 weeks for new content instead of one. No thanks..

Yeah, not doing that.  Also i heard ep4 ends in a pretty big cliffhanger.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: luckton on April 15, 2015, 06:44:13 PM
I'm just glad to see Alexander Siddig back in a series of something again. Can't wait for next week  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 19, 2015, 08:09:30 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 19, 2015, 08:35:16 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 19, 2015, 09:49:22 PM
Oh good, I thought I was the only one who noticed and felt like a perv.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 19, 2015, 10:19:10 PM
Honestly, I didn't notice at the time but after thinking back on the episode during their little "behind the scenes" bit (which I am kinda annoyed about the adding to the HBOGo streams, I liked not having the "previously" and "next time" kind of things before) I realized it and felt it worth commenting about here.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 20, 2015, 08:51:11 AM
I really hope Dany is out of Mereen well before the end of the season. An entire season there is going to be agonizingly slow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on April 20, 2015, 03:11:57 PM
hopefully they spend a lot of her time down there in dragon taming montages as she goes about retaming/retraining her children cause pouty bad ruler danny for a whole season would be kinda annoying. That said she needs to learn how not to lead to teach her how to do it right and thats pretty much what the whole thing in the south is practice for the challenge of leading the 7 kingdoms.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on April 21, 2015, 09:11:58 AM
The events at the end of book 5 I assume are coming this season, but based on how fast they are moving along, I have no idea if they'll be end of season or middle. I'm not sure how I feel about Sansa's arc yet (though it does make a lot of sense). Jamie going to Dorne, though? If it brings Bronn back into the limelight, I'm down.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 21, 2015, 09:42:10 AM
Well, there's a lot of room for divergence from the books with Jaime going to Dorne, Brianne and Pod knowing about both Stark girls, and whatever is happening with Baelish and Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 21, 2015, 10:44:46 AM
I'm thinking that the whole situation of the North is going to combine fifth book and whatever Martin had planned for the sixth--that's probably the Littlefinger/Sansa plotline, in part.

It is interesting that Brienne knows that both Arya and Sansa are alive--in the books, I don't think anyone in Westeros knows about Arya, for example. Could almost make for an interesting way to introduce  at a very different moment in the story, if they choose, giving her a very different motivation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 21, 2015, 07:13:50 PM
I'm kind of surprised that we haven't seen  yet, but I'm really enjoying the fact that I can't even remember what is and isn't book consistent any more. Pretty big divergence with the character reveal at the end of this episode though.  I suspect one of the big season enders on this one will be
We'll see.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 21, 2015, 08:40:07 PM
I wish they would.  While things were implied, it'd be nice if he was skilled enough to have escaped.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 21, 2015, 08:41:24 PM
I suspect one of the big season enders on this one will be We'll see.
If that's the big reveal, it means
I'll try to contain my excitement. :oh_i_see:

I feel like it was pretty obvious he was intended to survive. Martin doesn't kill people offscreen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 21, 2015, 08:44:09 PM
If we get only one season of Mereen you should consider yourself lucky.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 22, 2015, 04:18:25 AM
I really like some of the traveling match ups.  Hope to see a bit more of Essos and bits of it's land and culture.  Excited to see Dorne, the forgotten kingdom of the Seven.  Braavos has been nicely added while Pentos is still a garden and balcony.  The Mereen storyline is dragging, but I guess the point is to train Dany to rule.

I miss Ser Friendzone.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 22, 2015, 05:21:32 AM

I miss Ser Friendzone.


Trust me you won't


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 22, 2015, 06:25:47 AM
Dorne was one thing I didn't see as divergence, there is no Arianne on TV and that was her scene with a different character.

Thought the wall was great again. Was worried the election wouldn't work without the back and forth but it covered everything it needed to, also liked the bit with Selenye, all good.

But Varys still doesn't sit right with me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2015, 03:06:18 PM
If we get only one season of Mereen you should consider yourself lucky.
She wasn't there last season? I haven't watched in a season or two; only started back up because we're passing the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 22, 2015, 03:10:32 PM
Nothing has gone past the books yet, the Wall has only just finished up Storm.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2015, 03:14:26 PM
Maybe not in Episode 2...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 22, 2015, 07:00:26 PM
Nothing has gone past the books yet, the Wall has only just finished up Storm.

Sansa and Littlefinger are past the books, unequivocally.

Jaime is...not so much past the books as doing something different than the books. Same for Varys and Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 22, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Seems like 80% of the Kings Landing crew is all off the book rails.  Only the Tyrells and Cersi's stories seem to matter there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 26, 2015, 08:04:04 PM
First really good episode of the season. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 26, 2015, 08:10:52 PM
It's not that big a divergence other than ...

I agree it was a great episode, though.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 27, 2015, 02:23:14 AM
First really good episode of the season.  




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 27, 2015, 05:33:02 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 27, 2015, 06:08:29 AM
Given the unresolved Sansa prophecy, I wonder if this is a book divergence, or a way to short cut to the same place.

Prophecy I mean...
 

Also maybe...
 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2015, 11:01:58 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 27, 2015, 11:11:16 AM
Littlefinger always has a plan several plans in motion.  It's possible that the writers have somehow forgotten that, but I'm going to give them more credit than that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 27, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
He's trying to cozy up to Boltons, that the obvious one. The less obvious one I'm hoping is exactly what Khaldun and eldaec have outlined. The 3rd I believe involves Varys' plan somehow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 27, 2015, 11:25:32 AM
Oh man, Littlefinger ending up on Team Dany (maybe trying to position himself as Warden of the North under Targaryen rule) would be amazeballs.  It would actually fit really well with the distance he's suddenly put between himself and the Lannisters.

My gut tells me he won't live long enough to see Dany on the throne... but I realize I don't have anything to back up my vague feeling that he's not as smart as he thinks he is and his hubris will be his undoing.  Have any of his devious schemes ever completely fallen through?  He might in fact be as smart as he thinks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 27, 2015, 11:26:29 AM
Not enough Arya and Tyrion in this episode to make up for the other trash.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 27, 2015, 11:55:09 AM
Ayra disappearing from the plot would be the best divergence this series could take from the book. Tyrion is literally in filler island for the entirety of Dance so I don't miss him either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 27, 2015, 12:05:41 PM
Regarding Khaldun's post


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 27, 2015, 12:21:43 PM
Oh man, Littlefinger ending up on Team Dany (maybe trying to position himself as Warden of the North under Targaryen rule) would be amazeballs.  It would actually fit really well with the distance he's suddenly put between himself and the Lannisters.

My gut tells me he won't live long enough to see Dany on the throne... but I realize I don't have anything to back up my vague feeling that he's not as smart as he thinks he is and his hubris will be his undoing.  Have any of his devious schemes ever completely fallen through?  He might in fact be as smart as he thinks.
Think it's pretty straight forward what the setup is.
My opinion obviously, but thats my best guess so far.

Of course the big question in this is what will Stannis do, but Ive had no idea what the fuck Martin has been doing with him for awhile now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 27, 2015, 12:28:49 PM
I don't see why Littlefinger would necessarily need to advertise that he's got Sansa.  He could have feigned unconditional support for the Boltons and just kept it a secret that he had Sansa tucked away in the Eyrie, then eventually married her himself and leveraged that political value in his own takeover attempt once the Boltons were ripe for a coup.  Playing a longer game seems smarter to me.

Given that the Boltons are still theoretically allied with the Lannisters, this actually puts Littlefinger in a bit of a potential spot, since the Lannisters aren't supposed to know that he stole Sansa away.  That information could easily make it way back to Cersei and might get him in some trouble.  Makes this move doubly dangerous and potentially dumb.

On the other hand, this certainly gets the plot moving.   :awesome_for_real:

(edit) Yeah, Teleku's idea seems like the most likely path to success.  Hinges on a lot of "imponderables" but if Littlefinger's been doing a lot of offscreen maneuvering then maybe he's got more control over the situation than is obvious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Stewie on April 27, 2015, 12:41:54 PM





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 27, 2015, 01:20:53 PM
I don't see why Littlefinger would necessarily need to advertise that he's got Sansa.  He could have feigned unconditional support for the Boltons and just kept it a secret that he had Sansa tucked away in the Eyrie, then eventually married her himself and leveraged that political value in his own takeover attempt once the Boltons were ripe for a coup.  Playing a longer game seems smarter to me.

Given that the Boltons are still theoretically allied with the Lannisters, this actually puts Littlefinger in a bit of a potential spot, since the Lannisters aren't supposed to know that he stole Sansa away.  That information could easily make it way back to Cersei and might get him in some trouble.  Makes this move doubly dangerous and potentially dumb.

On the other hand, this certainly gets the plot moving.   :awesome_for_real:

(edit) Yeah, Teleku's idea seems like the most likely path to success.  Hinges on a lot of "imponderables" but if Littlefinger's been doing a lot of offscreen maneuvering then maybe he's got more control over the situation than is obvious.

Aside from offscreen maneuvering, LF believes that if he shakes things up, he'll always come out on top simply because he is the better player, especially right now when the Vale is only one of the seven kingdoms entirely at peace. The obvious trope driven plot would be that he is ignoring the threat of an even better player sharing his carriage.

As for the threat of the Lannisters, Bolton no longer needs Lannister support if he has an actual Stark to pacify the North with. And LF doesn't believe Cersei is capable of holding the centre anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 27, 2015, 02:00:56 PM
You guys assuming that poor littlefinger wont get killed by cersei the moment he arrives at kinglanding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 27, 2015, 02:13:01 PM
I don't think Littlefinger has any intention of going south for a while, and that without Tywin to rein her in, Cersei will be her own undoing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on April 27, 2015, 02:54:01 PM
I'm not so sure about that. Cersei wields power like a hammer not a scalpel but  I see her angling to get the Sparrows in her pocket as a hedge against 'that smirking whore from High Garden' trying to push her out.  Cersei can 'get religion', get the support of the population and strike back to 'save' the King from smirkface. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 27, 2015, 03:19:03 PM
Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how Cersei's attempt to manipulate the Sparrows plays out.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on April 27, 2015, 03:25:10 PM
She's going to be asking for the license plate of that Lexus when this is all done and over with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 27, 2015, 03:27:35 PM
I'm willing to bet having Littlefinger standing over the ashes of Westeros at the end would be GRRM's ideal result. He's always struck me as the epitome of the person who plays the 'Game of Thrones'


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 27, 2015, 03:44:12 PM
I've always considered Littlefinger and Varys to be the two best at it; one playing for himself, and the other for "the greater good."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 27, 2015, 03:44:28 PM
Having him sit on the throne smiling over a dead kingdom as the white walkers come marching into the throne room to finish him off would be just about the perfect ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 27, 2015, 04:12:13 PM
Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how Cersei's attempt to manipulate the Sparrows plays out.

 :why_so_serious:

This is something I didn't like this week. Throughout the TV show they've made a big deal how utterly horrified Cersei is at the thought of contact with people outside the keep, now to talk to Jonathan Pryce she's willing to roll in the dirt with the Sparrows.

And while I'm at it - not sure what was going on at the wall, not sure Janos Slynt would have played out so quick or with such hideously melodramatic music in any prior season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 27, 2015, 05:08:06 PM
Cersei is running out of resources, so she went to the Sparrows to try to add more power to her resource pool.  It was a strategic move where she assumed she could find a puppet that was easy to manipulate that had a lot of loyal subjects...

As for Slynt - that was not a sudden change.  It was inevitable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2015, 06:41:40 PM
Keep in mind that if one model is the Wars of the Roses/Hundred Years War, the people who won were basically jonny-come-latelys who waited for all the assholes to exhaust themselves--it might look like the Tudors won, I suppose, but it was a pretty brief victory, all told.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on April 27, 2015, 06:46:12 PM
Oh man, Littlefinger ending up on Team Dany (maybe trying to position himself as Warden of the North under Targaryen rule) would be amazeballs.  It would actually fit really well with the distance he's suddenly put between himself and the Lannisters.

My gut tells me he won't live long enough to see Dany on the throne... but I realize I don't have anything to back up my vague feeling that he's not as smart as he thinks he is and his hubris will be his undoing.  Have any of his devious schemes ever completely fallen through?  He might in fact be as smart as he thinks.

thx bro, thats the plan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 27, 2015, 06:54:21 PM
Cersei is running out of resources, so she went to the Sparrows to try to add more power to her resource pool.  It was a strategic move where she assumed she could find a puppet that was easy to manipulate that had a lot of loyal subjects...

As for Slynt - that was not a sudden change.  It was inevitable.

Yeah, Slynt could have been presented better this season but his fate was inevitable the moment that he told the Lord Commander to fuck himself with his orders.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 27, 2015, 08:30:21 PM
Slynt had to go, i don't think he begged in the books but it made more sense this way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 27, 2015, 09:08:45 PM
Slynt was an utter dumbass for thinking Jon wouldn't leap at the fucking chance to take his head off.

I really liked Alliser's face during that scene.  "Your stock is rising, Lord Snow."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 27, 2015, 09:44:38 PM







Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 28, 2015, 12:41:43 AM
Slynt had to go, i don't think he begged in the books but it made more sense this way.

He did beg, and Jon had the same dilemma, and even the same nod to Stannis.

The difference in the books was that Slynt wasn't immediately so ham-fisted in his defiance and as such it it didn't happen so quick. Jon was able to give Slynt a chance to ride by sundown or something.

No issue with how the actors played it (especially Thorne), just the abridged script and the way it was shot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 28, 2015, 09:39:48 AM
Slynt was an utter dumbass for thinking Jon wouldn't leap at the fucking chance to take his head off.

I really liked Alliser's face during that scene.  "Your stock is rising, Lord Snow."

I liked the scene a lot, I've forgotten most of the book details aside from main events (by 4-5 it had gotten kind of tedious and I was just power reading through it), so I didn't remember what he did with Alliser, so the latrine captain thing could have gone either way for me, not sure if he was going to humiliate him or not. Good directing through each part of the scene, the looks exchanged during the latrine part,, and the relief/satisfaction on Alliser when he was made ranger captain, then on Slynt's turn, Slynt thinking he's got Alliser behind him for a coup, but Alliser, having his honour satisfied with his Snow's praise & promotion, looking at Slynt just like nahhhh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 03, 2015, 07:50:07 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 03, 2015, 08:12:52 PM
Yeah.  About your last point. You wish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 03, 2015, 08:13:41 PM
Yeah.  About your last point. You wish.

A boy can dream!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 03, 2015, 08:21:49 PM
I liked the contrasting stories of Rhaegar they fit in.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 03, 2015, 10:41:01 PM
I'd love it if they did a flashback sequence with him and/or Lyanna in it, like how we had the young Cersei flashback at the start of the season.  We hear about these characters a lot but have still never seen their faces.  Doesn't matter as much in the books but in an otherwise visual story it's weird to have such important characters remain completely expository.

Was really annoyed by the last scene of tonight's episode.  DID THEY DIED?  TUNE IN NEXT WEEK!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 04, 2015, 12:42:35 AM
I wonder if they plan something later on - Charles Dance seemed to be implying he had shot more than one dead body scene.j


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 04, 2015, 02:29:09 AM
I wonder if they plan something later on - Charles Dance seemed to be implying he had shot more than one dead body scene.j



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 04, 2015, 07:29:42 AM
No,  I mean he implied he had shot flashbacks, not multiple dead body scenes.

I don't remember if it was a quote or a hack over interpreting a thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 04, 2015, 09:56:30 AM
Ah ok. Tourney at Harrenhal would seem like a strong candidate for a flashback at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 04, 2015, 09:56:33 AM
This was the first episode where I felt they might have compressed the stories a little TOO much. This season seems to be going at breakneck speed. Perhaps it's because I know some of the plot points from the book (which admittedly took too MUCH time to get through) and these seem to be moving along really swiftly like they just want to be done with the book's events and get on to their own. Not a big fan of the possible deaths they dropped on us right at the end.

Want more Sand Snakes plzkthx.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 04, 2015, 10:52:49 AM
Did anyone else notice how Bronn has become a font of wise fatherly advice?  It's kind of awesome.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 04, 2015, 12:29:46 PM
This was the first episode where I felt they might have compressed the stories a little TOO much. This season seems to be going at breakneck speed. Perhaps it's because I know some of the plot points from the book (which admittedly took too MUCH time to get through) and these seem to be moving along really swiftly like they just want to be done with the book's events and get on to their own. Not a big fan of the possible deaths they dropped on us right at the end.

Want more Sand Snakes plzkthx.

Those characters don't serve much more purpose that we know of, so I can see 'em going away. Would be a big change, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 04, 2015, 12:32:21 PM
Wait, didn't those two maybe dead characters



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 04, 2015, 12:46:00 PM
I need to reread the last book because I don't remember any of that.  Probably because I read the entire book in one sleep-deprived night.   :ye_gods:  Last thing I remember in Mereen was Dany taking off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 04, 2015, 12:47:26 PM
It was after that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 04, 2015, 01:35:01 PM
Hamish, you're correct. However, none of the events to set it up have happened, which they should have been during all of this. So far it looks like that whole thread might just have been abandoned.

There's been no hint of


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 04, 2015, 04:10:22 PM
I didn't like much of that.

Except the wall, the wall was fine. Actually Dorne was also ok once you ignore the premise of Jamie's complete disregard for all his prior opinions and character traits.

The ending felt particularly unearned. Everyone died, or our heroes survived. Neither seems very Game of Thrones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2015, 05:00:38 PM
In regards to Mareen:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 04, 2015, 06:02:35 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on May 04, 2015, 06:50:45 PM

Dany learns (hopefully) what her house means.  Cersei leans on her house for conception of her reality. 

Conception, lol.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 05, 2015, 12:48:39 AM
 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 05, 2015, 08:18:17 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2015, 09:42:44 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 05, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
Yeah they're locked up in the city's catacombs.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 05, 2015, 10:23:19 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 05, 2015, 10:42:54 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 10, 2015, 07:32:31 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 10, 2015, 08:05:48 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 10, 2015, 08:54:16 PM
Valyria.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 11, 2015, 12:44:26 PM
Lots of little things I liked in that episode, but no satisfying conclusions to anything.  Hrmph.

Was anyone else surprised to find out that Ramsay has a girlfriend?  I'd just assumed that he was sort of asexual and got all his jollies from torturing people, the same way Joffrey beat and killed his whores because he wasn't interested in doing anything conventionally sexual with them.

Tyrion and Ser Friendzone boating through Valyria was just delightful; I wish that scene had lasted longer before being interrupted.  Between the ruins and the poetry I nearly had a Tolkiengasm.

Aemon getting the news from Mereen about Dany was great.  Stannis being all "keep up the good work, nerd" to Sam was also great.  I'm going to be sad when all that shit inevitably goes off the rails, like everything must.

More Arya plz goddammit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 11, 2015, 12:46:43 PM
Uhm....creepy bastard was schtumphing that chick in earlier episodes.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 11, 2015, 01:48:24 PM
She seemed like she was mainly a torture instrument before, though.  I vaguely remember her but didn't even keep track of her name because she didn't seem like an actual character.  The affection(ish?) between them this episode was surprising.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 11, 2015, 03:20:10 PM
She was one of two 'friends' of Ramsey before he had her kill the other friend in the woods.  She has been around since Theon was captured.   I don't think he loves her, he just enjoys bringing the cruel out of her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on May 11, 2015, 03:41:42 PM
She was one of two 'friends' of Ramsey before he had her kill the other friend in the woods. 

Did I miss an episode? When did this happen?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 11, 2015, 03:42:08 PM
Back before Theon lost little Theon.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 11, 2015, 05:15:39 PM
So Ser grandad is dead. I really think this means we lose what I said before, but I suppose we'll see. 

Quite a few things set-up for the future, but now is when we're starting to see the biggest deviations from the books. It's getting exciting to watch and learn rather than watching for memorable scenes.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 11, 2015, 05:34:29 PM
No need to spoiler this since it's pure speculation: I don't think Sansa's going to singlehandedly kill both the Boltons, even through direct manipulation.  At best she might pull a Leia and gank one of them while they're distracted by what appears to be a more significant threat.  My guess is her main contribution will be getting  word of Stannis's attack and lighting the signal in the Broken Tower to rally the loyalists at the crucial moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on May 11, 2015, 11:28:38 PM
Since in the past she was the one invoking the Stark curse on others I am fully prepared that she will light the fire at the exactly wrong time and get the loyalists killed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 12, 2015, 12:12:38 AM
So Ser grandad is dead. I really think this means we lose what I said before, but I suppose we'll see. 

Quite a few things set-up for the future, but now is when we're starting to see the biggest deviations from the books. It's getting exciting to watch and learn rather than watching for memorable scenes.


You are probably right - though friendzone and Tyrion could stand in.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 12, 2015, 05:39:16 AM
I hate say it but having Dany come up with the dumb plan doesn't make it less dumb, just turns her into a flaming idiot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 12, 2015, 06:32:57 AM
I hate say it but having Dany come up with the dumb plan doesn't make it less dumb, just turns her into a flaming idiot.

This line is a pretty good review of the first half of the season.

People are mostly doing things that make no sense because the appropriate person to do it is either not available, or because the writers want the familiar characters to be driving events.

Cersei reinventing the faith militant, Jamie choosing to leave KL, Ellaria plotting, Varys overcome with concern for the realm, littlefinger is leaving his most valuble asset with the boltons before presumably riding to KL to steal soneone else's lines.

Characters serve the plot even in the books. But at least it was well hidden before this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 12, 2015, 08:16:55 AM
Jon Snow: if we don't save the wildlings they are all going to die
Random nightwatchman: good, less for us to fight!
Stannis: *mumbled* fewer

That was fucking perfect.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on May 12, 2015, 08:21:05 AM
Cersei didn't have quite as much of a hand with the Faith in the books, but the critical one of allowing them to have a military order again was there.  They're just setting it up so her fall is entirely of her own doing.

I preferred the books subtlety in that characters are all somewhere between being responsible for where they are and being completely swept up in events beyond their control.  It's hard to get that across in a TV show though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 12, 2015, 09:37:55 AM
I hate say it but having Dany come up with the dumb plan doesn't make it less dumb, just turns her into a flaming idiot.


Cersei reinventing the faith militant, Jamie choosing to leave KL, Ellaria plotting, Varys overcome with concern for the realm, littlefinger is leaving his most valuble asset with the boltons before presumably riding to KL to steal soneone else's lines.

Characters serve the plot even in the books. But at least it was well hidden before this season.

Cersei is just as arrogant in the books re: the Sparrows as here, and gives the permission for them to arm. Varys arguably is overcome with concern for the realm in the books too--that's one interpretation of what he does in the fifth book esp. at the end. Littlefinger, well, let's see what happens--since he and Sansa are unambiguously beyond what's in the books, who knows what he would have done. And of course this implies in any event that you think False Arya is preferable for some reason and less plot-driven as well, which strikes me as debatable, because who gives a shit about False Arya, really, except for that horrible little wedding night thing, which I could do without thank you very much.

Jamie doesn't do fucking squat in the books at this point except wander into a couple of sieges. You prefer that? Brienne could have spent a season wandering aimlessly rather than getting into a fight with the Hound. Better?

I cannot even imagine why anyone would want a faithful filming of Book 4 and 5.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 12, 2015, 10:56:02 AM
I cannot even imagine why anyone would want a faithful filming of Book 4 and 5.

I'm pretty sure no one wants that. They just think that some of the characters doing the things that other characters did in the book don't make much sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 12, 2015, 11:01:38 AM
Jon Snow: if we don't save the wildlings they are all going to die
Random nightwatchman: good, less for us to fight!
Stannis: *mumbled* fewer

That was fucking perfect.

This is exactly why Stannis is the one true king.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 12, 2015, 01:34:44 PM

Jamie doesn't do fucking squat in the books at this point except wander into a couple of sieges. You prefer that? Brienne could have spent a season wandering aimlessly rather than getting into a fight with the Hound. Better?

I cannot even imagine why anyone would want a faithful filming of Book 4 and 5.

Wtf, yes? Jamie's trip through the Riverlands is some of the best stuff in any of the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 12, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
I'm gonna assume you are kidding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 12, 2015, 05:45:55 PM
Jaime maturing as a character and a leader beats some suicide mission to Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 12, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
What, him disinterestedly fucking around with a siege in Riverlands is maturing? Martin is so palapably bored with Jaime in that book that I suppose that might be a suggestion that he's "matured" into not mattering altogether--or that he's just cooling his heels in the books until he's needed again for plot purposes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 12, 2015, 07:53:09 PM
I liked Jaime in the Riverlands too; I'm not really interested in Dorne because of how awful and side-story-ish it felt in the books. Jaime and Bronn could be a good team, but I'd rather see them romping around somewhere that matters than pissing about in the southern land of heat and irrelevance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2015, 05:30:59 AM
I get why they cut it, but yeah, Jamie was fine in the Riverlands.

The problem isn't the broad plot changes, it is that Jamie's character bears no resemblance to Jamie at the end of last season. It isn't that he needed growth in the riverlands, it is that he has apparently thrown all the previous growth out of the window. Not entirely sure if in his case the writers are just trying to show characters we are supposed to relate to taking positive action, or if the writers are just thinking we want to see Jamie go through the exact same character development all over again.

I'm not entirely convinced by the new Hardhome plot at the wall, but it has the massive advantage of building on Jon's character as portrayed so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 13, 2015, 06:31:22 AM
I imagine it also lets us


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 13, 2015, 06:43:34 AM
I love how we all expect the tv writers to go there own way with the story this season and all we're really getting is a halfassed cut and paste. I'm really worried for the next few seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 17, 2015, 06:44:45 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 17, 2015, 07:16:46 PM
This week's episode was a considerable departure.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 17, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
I wish it had been more of one. I really thought we were getting some kind of character growth for Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 17, 2015, 07:28:00 PM
What exactly were you expecting of her? Any plot she might be involved in requires her to play nice until the appropriate time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 17, 2015, 07:34:12 PM
The appropriate time just flew right by.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 17, 2015, 07:52:50 PM
She's biding her time until Stannis or Littlefinger show up. What good would cutting Ramsey's throat have done? She would still be in a castle alone, with only vague hints of loyalists.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 17, 2015, 10:43:45 PM
But now she won't be able to rally the people around her virginity, or something.

Yeah, I also don't know how "character growth" would have resulted from a suicide run at the Boltons.  She had to play the hand Littlefinger dealt her.  Which, by the way, fuck him sideways.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 18, 2015, 03:16:34 AM
Remember:  Littlefinger is only on his own side. He knows Starks are trusting and he used that perfectly, just as he's using Cersi's paranoia to his own ends.

Sometimes I expect him to wind up on the throne at the end. He's a damn perfect cad and master manipulator.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 18, 2015, 05:24:16 AM
I'm really thinking about the writing. This scene only becomes inevitable if the writers decide on the sequence of events that gets us to it. I think as long as they're substituting Sansa for False Arya, the implied character development in Sansa from last season needs following through. Both because that's good writing: keep your characters evolving! and because it's a good correction for one of the most pointless parts of the books, something they've been doing otherwise. Make Sansa more cunning, more aware. If she has to be victim again, show us more clearly that she's playacting at that and has a plan, rather than being the helplessly reactive and naive girl of the early seasons. Something to hold on to! One of the basic themes of the books and the show has been that when rulers try to use either brute force or trickery to stay in power, they misunderstand what power is, and will eventually lose it. It's why Littlefinger is still bothering with the niceties like getting Cersei to legitimate his move on Winterfell; it's why Varys is interested in Danerys. So there's nothing wrong with setting the Boltons up for a very big and nasty death--the message of the show and books is not that evil wins, it's only that "good" people who misunderstand power are just as likely to suffer as "evil" ones do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on May 18, 2015, 05:29:41 AM
Hmm, for all the fuss the book series haters are making when talking about the supposedly bad latter books (personally, I still prefer the books, although yeah, I'm among those who don't like the "false Arya" plotline nor the Tyrion/Penny one), the show writers are not exactly doing an outstanding work when having to create brand new scenes/scenarios in this season, IMO.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 18, 2015, 05:57:55 AM
Yeah, I had high hopes early in the season that they were just going to outright abandon most of what didn't work in Books 4 and 5 but they're still following a lot of it. This has got to be the last season where all the characters are so spread out--the storylines have got to start converging from here on out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 18, 2015, 06:57:51 AM
That is the way GRRM describes it, everyone starts converging in late Dance.

Of course his original plan was also not to write most of Feast or Dance and dive in half way through Dance with a 'five years later' title.

My feeling right now is that both TV and book would have been better with that approach even if it meant some of the audience wondering how some people got from A to B.

That would have freed HBO to do whatever the fuck they wanted as a side story while they wait for books or just plough on into Winds and Dream.

This doing the books but not really doing the books is a bit of a mess. Keeps reminding me of Phillipa Boyens talking about how she just *had* to make Faramir a dickhead in LotR. Find I'm watching mostly for actors stealing scenes, which to be fair they are doing a decent job of.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 18, 2015, 09:19:35 AM
Highlights of this episode:

 - Sansa backsassing Miranda.
 - Arya learning the game of faces.
 - Cock merchant.
 - Cersei vs Oleanna staredown.

Lowlights:

 - Sansa continuing to not do any plot business.
 - Jaime and the Snakes arriving within minutes of each other for plot convenience.
 - Margaery getting trapped by stupid bullshit that she's too smart for.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 18, 2015, 09:50:46 AM
Yeah, the whole bit with Oleanna and Margaery getting trapped in that hearing was absolutely fucking dumb. I guess I could buy her thinking that having the King wrapped around her finger was good enough but not the Queen of Thorns walking in that room without some legwork. One thing the book had done by this point was reveal that the entire population of the city was seriously pissed off and that only Cersei didn't understand just how dangerous that was. Without that being at least referred to, it just looks like they got outplayed by the High Sparrow and the Faith Militant/Cersei, which doesn't really sit right in terms of how they've built those characters up. I assume Oleanna will be responsible for the obvious counterattack coming soon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 18, 2015, 10:20:36 AM
Yeah that was the dumbest of diversions. Cersi setting-up a bunch of guys accusing Margary of treason by sleeping with them worked and would be a trap Margaery couldn't have seen coming.

This whole plot thread thread with Loras is some pretty hamfisted modern day allegory bullshit. "Oh look, they're the evil guys because they're persecuting gay men!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 18, 2015, 10:51:24 AM
So predictably enough this may be the worst episode of the season if maybe the series. The only thing worse than this episode are the instantaneous reviews whining about how game of thrones isn't safe for woman.... Anyway those of you that think Sansa is a good character or should be becoming a good character... she isn't. She really isn't. So stop feeling pity for her, stop thinking she is some sort of guided kharma missile. She is at her best a victim at her worst another product of the westerous school for extremely sheltered girls. If her and Ayra were to have died in kings landing you literally wouldn't have missed them.

Speaking of Kings Landing. Wow did the show writers had to stretch to go back to the book plot. Oh wow, just wow. And seeing Tommen just sit there, man and I thought I hated Joffery. Whats the point of aging him up in the books? Why? I mean shit this season doesn't even have the fucking boobs from there coupling, and now you expect me to believe that the only pay off for him being older is that he is magically good in bed? Oh fuck this show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 18, 2015, 10:55:31 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 18, 2015, 11:26:50 AM
This episode started off so well, and then somehow managed to get progressively worse with each new scene. The Bland Snakes were probably the low point, although the whole issue of Loras and the Faith militant was really poorly done too as said.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 18, 2015, 11:31:09 AM
I actually didn't mind the switch from book Loras's fate to this - I imagine the whole Margery fucking some Kingsguard guys fell into the trap of "we don't want to create another useless character just to accuse her of banging" thing.  While yes, the Tyrells probably should have seen this coming a mile away, it's also giving us a reason not to like Tommen. In the books you can at least excuse his inaction because he's a kid. In the show, the kid either has to grow up or be recast and I think going with an older Tommen works just as well to prove the point about power. I actually thought this episode did a decent job of taking the threads they've put out there and circling them back around to where the characters end up in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 18, 2015, 11:33:31 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 18, 2015, 11:34:44 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 18, 2015, 11:51:49 AM
I don't know why people keep trying to convince themselves and each other that Sansa is playing some kind of deep game as a protege of Littlefinger. There's not the slightest shred of evidence that she's ever doing anything more than passively going along with whoever is currently in control of her fate.

She is the most passive character in the entire series, with absolutely no agency and never the slightest hint of backbone. Anyone trying to say otherwise is reading "subtext" that simply isn't there.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 18, 2015, 12:05:29 PM
But we're supposed to think she is developing strategy and backbone...

GRRM is really good at subverting our expectations and not having a character get a chance to learn from mistakes.  I think she continues to repeat them and then dies...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on May 18, 2015, 12:22:06 PM
Personally, I didn't mind the last episode. The Cersei/Tyrell thing made sense to me (as someone who hasn't read the books). It wasn't that Cersei out-played the Tyrells, but that she under-played them; they were not expecting her to actually be stupid enough to go through with the plan and likely figured it was her way of warning them that she wasn't going to accept being side-lined, and that the inquest would be the end of it and there'd be no trial, due to how important the Lannister/Tyrell alliance is to keeping the Lannisters in power negating any possibility of Cersei doing what she did. It was in keeping with how the Cersei character has been portrayed, as well; believing she is the smartest/most capable one in the room while being far from it.

Sansa.. meh. She's getting some backbone (she never would have talked to Miranda like that in the past), but she's still, well.. Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 18, 2015, 02:08:30 PM
Sansa.. meh. She's getting some backbone (she never would have talked to Miranda like that in the past), but she's still, well.. Sansa.

Actually Sansa talked to everyone like that...in season 1, and book sansa had moments like that throughout her marriage to tyrion. The one thing you can say about Sansa is that she has a good grasp of who she can run over.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 18, 2015, 04:58:17 PM
I thought the episode was fine, too. Had some interesting non-book moments, Tyrion being Tyrion, and Jamie+Bronn vs the Snakes was a decent fight scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 18, 2015, 06:33:51 PM
The sand snakes being utterly outclassed was oh so comical.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 18, 2015, 08:46:52 PM
Why? Their ability to fight was never proven...all their talk of being badass probably is just that, talk. Latin machismo (femismo?) style stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: disKret on May 19, 2015, 12:17:49 AM
and Jamie+Bronn vs the Snakes was a decent fight scene.

You realy call it decent? It was looking like children with wooden weapons fighting with low-class teachers in fucking slow motion. Daughters of the Snake my ass.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 19, 2015, 03:16:53 AM
Just one episode before had Jamie struggling to kill a single wounded common swordsman.  If the sand snakes had any prowess he should have died in seconds to one not fought her off until the guards showed up.   It did indeed only set the tone for them being utterly inept. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 19, 2015, 04:11:34 AM
Well that one made a perfect spear throw! HEADSHOT


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 19, 2015, 04:21:20 AM
Others have noticed this too, but my wife and I both spotted something bad during the Sand Snake fight.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 19, 2015, 04:25:29 AM
I noticed it as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on May 19, 2015, 06:18:27 AM
Yes, that detail seemed pretty well focused.
I really didn't like the Sandsnake fight at all - they should have forked out for some Cirque performers or something. That fight looked like two grown men trying hard not to accidentally hurt little girls in a fake fight.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 19, 2015, 06:57:35 AM
I liked this episode. I wasn't fond of the Dorne bits but I hated the Dorne stuff in the books so I'm not surprised. I can at least tolerate it in the show because instead of dragging on for several chapters, they're rushing through it in just a few scenes per episode.

I've seen some shock on the internet about how this episode ended and all I can think is "Really? You're shocked Ramsey did something awful to a woman? Are you serious?"

My hope is that:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 19, 2015, 07:33:14 AM
I don't get the outrage over this, someone gets tortured to death or raped in basically every episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 19, 2015, 07:51:21 AM
But it was shown onscreen happening to a main character, a pretty white girl, we like.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2015, 07:53:27 AM
I think it was mainly that it never happened in the book, so it was seen as completely unnecessary.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sickrubik on May 19, 2015, 08:17:33 AM
Most of the viewers of the show didn't read the books. The outrage is not, at least, just that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 19, 2015, 08:33:34 AM
I think it was mainly that it never happened in the book, so it was seen as completely unnecessary.

Right, what happened in the books was worse.  Ramsay forces Reek to muff-munch a 12 year old girl BEFORE he rapes her, not just watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 19, 2015, 09:07:25 AM
We're looking at an incomplete puzzle.  GRRM said they did it because they made changes to the story and had to find a way to bridge the gap and get them where they need to be... and we don't really know where they need her, Ramsey and Reek to be.  Maybe this is the straw that makes Reek rise up?  Maybe it is the thing that destroys Sansa completely?  Maybe it is the thing that leaks out and makes everyone turn on Ramsey?  Maybe it is the thing that gives Sansa hatred for Littlefinger and gtes her to put a blade in his heart?  We just don't know... Unlike in prior days, we don't know the before and after anymore for some of these characters...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2015, 09:27:30 AM
I think it was mainly that it never happened in the book, so it was seen as completely unnecessary.

Right, what happened in the books was worse.  Ramsay forces Reek to muff-munch a 12 year old girl BEFORE he rapes her, not just watch.

But not Sansa, if I remember correctly. And that's the problem for TV viewers because they like the actress. The character is garbage and I've always thought so.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 19, 2015, 09:32:11 AM
Right, thus my earlier quip about it happening to someone the viewers 'like.'  If it was random slave girl, no kerfuffle. Main actress? WTF!

Dismissing it as 'it didn't happen in the book' isn't right, because the general premise of the scene did, and it was a LOT worse.  Doesn't matter who it happened to.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 19, 2015, 10:35:05 AM
Yeah, the book rape was a fuckload worse and I don't think it could have been filmed at all. TV execs, even at HBO, kind of draw the line at raping 12-year olds on screen.

The main thing I'm curious about with Sansa and Ramsey is whether the Bard comes into this thing or not. Because that's a pretty significant part of the Winterfell action in the North and there have been no hints at it whatsoever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 19, 2015, 11:04:54 AM
Doubt it, it was already a bit ridiculous in the book, and would be even more difficult to explain on TV without the multi-chapter buildup. Looks like they are setting up Brienne/generic popular loyalists to play the part of the inside agents working against the Boltons instead of


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 19, 2015, 11:25:59 AM
I hated the whole thing in the books, and thought it was one of a number of examples of Martin losing his way in Book 4 and 5--of no longer understanding why brutality, rape and violence were serving important functions in his narrative. I thought that was an example of Martin saying, "Oh, I guess the reason this story has been working is that I keep shocking people and I keep topping myself with shocking things; also, I guess people need to feel that anything can happen. Ok, Theon has to give cunnilingus to a 12-year old, then! Am I great or what?"

So since the showrunners have often removed the pointless excesses of Martin's writing--the needless multiplication of characters, the pointless wanderings of others, the long dullness of people like Tyrion just muttering about whores for a thousand pages--I'd had hopes that they decided that they could get to wherever the Bolton/Theon/Winterfell plotline was getting to in a more efficient and less shock-for-shock's-sake way. I'd hoped that they would not only compress some narratives but also improve on the character arcs. Since Sansa's arc is wholly unknown after the Eyrie--and can't be the same at TV Sansa no matter what--then give her some forward motion. Or if she's meant to continue to be a complete idiot and victim, then don't even feint otherwise--have her continue to be simpering and naive, so she can make some other kind of point. Don't make her an indefinite or unresolved character--that's a waste of screen time and narrative energy. If she's going into Winterfell to be a victim as part of her own plan or intentions, have her understand perfectly well that means being raped and tormented by Ramsay and Roose. There is no way otherwise that the character should be that stupid. Even if she's meant to help us understand what Snidley Whiplash Littlefinger is, then fuck! Have him twirl his mustache a few more times and chew some more scenery. All of this just looks like the showrunners ended up getting lost in the trackless wastes of Book 4 and 5 after all, rather than grabbing the steering wheel from the bored drunk who has been veering all over the roadway.

Almost everything that Martin did in Books 1-3 had real narrative power and came back to the central themes of the overall story: people can't see the bigger picture or imagine the long-term unless there's a structure that compels them to do so; the powerful who forget how power works are just slitting their own throats; stop wishing you lived in early modern Europe, you idiots; when the end of the world comes, the rules change, so pay attention. Etc.  Some of what he does in 4 and 5 extends that, but usually boringly or in ways that are too on the nose. And some of it, as I said, is just him desperately trying to imitate himself, since he's clearly forgotten what made the earlier books work so well.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 19, 2015, 11:55:40 AM
I don't think it was all just for shock,  they were getting the point across to the audience that she was thrown into a hyena den by Littlefinger, now in the grasp of people even more viscious than Joffrey. Point made. Littlefinger suggested she seduce Ramsy, so we're thinking it will be like Margery maybe did with Joffry then Tommen, well, nope.

Where they go from here, I guess we'll see over the next few weeks but I think it's being setup to be resolved quickly. Stannis is coming, probably with Wildlings whom  Jon harrowingly retrieves. There will probably be some vigilante garroting inside the walls before, during or after a battle with agents like Theon/Brienne/loyalists working against Bolton.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2015, 12:11:23 PM
Right, thus my earlier quip about it happening to someone the viewers 'like.'  If it was random slave girl, no kerfuffle. Main actress? WTF!

Dismissing it as 'it didn't happen in the book' isn't right, because the general premise of the scene did, and it was a LOT worse.  Doesn't matter who it happened to.

Ehhhh, sort of. The general premise of random-background-maid getting sodomized doesn't carry the weight of one of the main characters, other than to point out that Ramsey is a fucking whackadoo. And the author for that matter.

I think it's a combination of A - People might stomach it if it were source material even if it happened to the main character, but B - Because it didn't and they like the actress, WARBLEGARBLE


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 19, 2015, 12:29:54 PM
Samsa herself had to know this was going to happen. Did she think Ramsey was going to be gentle, or just not fuck her like Tyrion? I really don't understand the outrage; they didn't even make Reek pregame her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 19, 2015, 01:52:27 PM
Sansa has always protected herself by claiming she was a 'stupid girl'.  And she was, mostly.  How many times have we heard that?  She wants everyone to think she's a pretty but stupid girl and thus not a threat.  Surrounded by enemies at Kings Landing it seemed to work.  Once she got out with Littlefinger, she started her schooling.  What does she do at the Aerie? She lies, quite convincingly, to protect Littlefinger when she could have played her 'stupid girl' card and be taken in while Littlefinger takes a walk out the Moon Door.  Because she knows Littlefinger wants her and at least with him she'll stay alive. 

She agreed to marry Ramsay, according to Littlefingers plans.  What neither of them knew, and Littlefinger mentions this, is how little they know of Ramsay. 

So how is Sansa going to respond to her new life of abuse?  Will she undermine Ramsay with the aid of Brienne or will she curl up in bed?  Hopefully she will do the former, but this is GoT so who knows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sickrubik on May 19, 2015, 01:56:22 PM
Quote
pregame her

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 19, 2015, 02:12:41 PM
I was trying to think earlier what the feminine form of "fluffing" is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 19, 2015, 02:14:51 PM
I was trying to think earlier what the feminine form of "fluffing" is.

Shopping? :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 19, 2015, 03:14:32 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 19, 2015, 04:05:02 PM
Samsa herself had to know this was going to happen. Did she think Ramsey was going to be gentle, or just not fuck her like Tyrion? I really don't understand the outrage; they didn't even make Reek pregame her.

She figured she'd get fucked, and likely not enjoy it since she hates the Boltons anyways, but Theon being there pushed it from unenjoyable experience to sadistic torture.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 19, 2015, 08:07:13 PM
People are never going to stomach what happened to Sansa because its a popular TV show and the internet has a hard on for projecting the idea that TV shows should be banned from showing violence against woman, woman as sluts, woman as sources of boobs, woman as anything but the talyor swift smart blond that's empowered and knows what she wants and does what she wants. The fanbase for Ayra and Dany is basically built on people projecting those ideas onto characters in Martins story. No problem with Theon Greyjoy getting his dick cutt off, or him finding, wrangling, and burning little boys.

But oh noes the pure white Sansa that represents all women everywhere is being raped! What will boys watching game of thrones think is the right thing to do now. Even now people are like well she gotta have a plan she gotta have a plan, and even using that assumption for a reason why that scene shouldn't have happen. You just cheered seeing a pregnant woman getting stabbed in the belly repeatedly (remarkably unnecessary because she merely has an abortion in the books and very much alive and wasn't even at the red wedding) because Lord Stark married the wrong girl, but Sansa marrying a guy who tortures people, hunts men and women like dogs and very much believes in skinning people alive, is totally a gentle kind soul who needs love.

The same people try to do the same for the books but general understand is that the same crowd that froths over such things figure that women don't read.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 19, 2015, 08:18:21 PM
What the fuck are you on about? :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2015, 09:31:34 PM
The main thing I'm curious about with Sansa and Ramsey is whether the Bard comes into this thing or not. Because that's a pretty significant part of the Winterfell action in the North and there have been no hints at it whatsoever.
Doubtful.  The Onion Knight's part of the story isn't happening either.  He's with Stannis as they headed out, along with his queen, Shireen, and Melissandra.

I really have no idea where they're going with this, other than setting up Theon to somehow help Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 19, 2015, 11:07:27 PM
Dany has a fan base?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 19, 2015, 11:15:50 PM
Hey, Andrea had one.  And here there's tits to go along with the terrible decisions.

I'm not overly shocked that there's brutal rape.  This show likes to go beyond the brutality of the books and show (visual medium and all) rather than tell.  I'm surprised they didn't go out of the way to rape Ayra while she was on the road.  You could see this sort of shift from the very start when they switched Dany's "eh, kinda rapey" wedding night scene into a full on rapey wedding night scene.  

Hey, I'm just glad they've dialed back on the baby murder. Too much more of that, and I'd be watching this show alone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on May 19, 2015, 11:17:58 PM
My random thoughts and meaningless contribution:

- Littlefinger is always playing a game, but I think we are all falling for the old triple switcheroo.  Are we so sure he has flipped once again?  I am not.  He legimately loved Catelyn Stark, and I believe he has in some ways the same kind of love for Sansa.  Which doesn't mean he wouldn't risk setting her up for a bit of marital rape (he's also an asshole), but I think he might genuinely be playing the long game of trying to set her up as some kind of Queen of the North.  The whole scene on the hill above Moat Caitlin (or wherever that was) a few episodes ago was about Littlefinger and Sansa both understanding that she was about to get at the very least emotionally raped, and that it was a sacrifice she was going to make for the sake of the Stark name.  She knew all along it would play out like this, the only difference being poor Theon off in the corner, forced to watch.  Well acted by him, btw.  I think this ends somehow with Theon flaying or castrasting Ramsey.  And what Littlefinger spilled to Cersei means nothing more than him either setting her up, or just a little insurance in case his real plan goes to shit.

- The fight between the Snakes and Bronn/Jaime...good gods what a painful display.  I have had more convincing fake duels with my son when he was five.  That whole plotline annoys me anyway, so whatever.

- I thought I had more points, but I do not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 19, 2015, 11:37:51 PM
I think the show is suffering from a couple of its better action directors moving onto features. Alan Taylor or Michelle MacLaren would not have had that lame of a fight sequence.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2015, 09:44:04 AM
Samsa herself had to know this was going to happen. Did she think Ramsey was going to be gentle, or just not fuck her like Tyrion? I really don't understand the outrage; they didn't even make Reek pregame her.

She figured she'd get fucked, and likely not enjoy it since she hates the Boltons anyways, but Theon being there pushed it from unenjoyable experience to sadistic torture.

This. Sansa knew she'd have to "perform" for her new husband, but I'm sure not even Littlefinger knew what kind of a sick fucko Ramsey really is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 20, 2015, 09:49:18 AM
I like how everyone knew golden boy Joffery was a fucked up child of creepy don't marry your daughter to that boy implications. Why and how Ramsay fell off the radar is beyond me especially since the books mentions his cruelty off hand several times before his character is even introduced.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: sickrubik on May 20, 2015, 09:51:54 AM
It didn't. It's not about Ramsay being a bad guy. In fact, him being a bad guy is part of why people feel the scene was terrible. We already know he's a bad guy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Triax on May 20, 2015, 10:48:30 AM
I like how everyone knew golden boy Joffery was a fucked up child of creepy don't marry your daughter to that boy implications. Why and how Ramsay fell off the radar is beyond me especially since the books mentions his cruelty off hand several times before his character is even introduced.

Because Joffrey was the heir-apparent of two major houses and the heir to the throne, he was relevant and important.  Ramsay was a bastard, and thereby irrelevant to the politics of any major house and most minor houses for that matter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 20, 2015, 11:05:09 AM
I doubt he was even known to anybody outside of the North. Probably Ned had some idea about it but maybe not all due to the secretive nature of Roose, who would want to keep his depredations under wraps, as it would be pretty scandalous.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2015, 11:11:28 AM
In the books, he was in Winterfell's dungeon and named Reek at the time that Theon conquered the castle. Ned Stark I'm sure knew plenty about him and no one gave a shit about Ramsey including his father because he was a bastard. Ramsey/Reek promised to help Theon against a force come to take back the castle and he did by bringing a shitton of his father's men, slaughter the besiegers then taking the castle himself by taking out Theon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 20, 2015, 11:16:58 AM
He was in the dungeons because when everyone went north for the war Ramsay and original Reek went raping and killing.  Bran sent people to capture him and threw him in the dungeon.  The fact that he passed himself of as Reek would actually lead me to believe no one actually knew him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 20, 2015, 12:24:16 PM
I like how everyone knew golden boy Joffery was a fucked up child of creepy don't marry your daughter to that boy implications. Why and how Ramsay fell off the radar is beyond me especially since the books mentions his cruelty off hand several times before his character is even introduced.

Whatever people knew about Joffery didn't appear to stop Sansa ending up betrothed to him either.

Can't think of anything TV Ramsey has done openly that would make highborns dislike him on the same scale or even notice him.

Book Ramsey had of course forced his previous wife into marriage then starved her to death to steal her land (lady Hornwood?), which might have been how he ended up in the dungeon. But don't think that happened in the show?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 20, 2015, 02:43:22 PM
With the Starks they were counting on King Robert to reign in on his boy (I don't think joffery was much older than 13-14 at the time) and eventually have a greater influence on him than his mother. Little finger practically gave away his claim to the North to a guy whose sigil is a flayed man. And he did so apparently with very little research and under no duress. He basically said "welp sansa here you go, now take it like a woman till I'm back"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 20, 2015, 05:08:23 PM
Littlefinger left Sansa to guarantee the Boltons would stay and fight for Winterfell when Stannis shows up, rather than fall back to better ground. He wants the two of them to grind each other down so when he shows up with the knights of the Aerie, he can take down whatever is left of both. Without Sansa, Winterfell would not be worth trying to hold, with her it's their claim to 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the North.

He's betting that even if Stannis rolls over Winterfell, it won't be without significant losses and one way or another, Sansa winds up a widow.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 20, 2015, 06:03:51 PM
Physical ownership of Winterfell is the only thing keeping the Boltons in charge of the North. Its the only thing preventing the northen houses from ousting the Boltons in the first place, because doing so means burning Winterfell again and starting a civil war in the north after Rob Starks death is something no one wants. In time Roose Bolton wants to move the center of northern politics and power from Winterfell to Dreadfort, but that's not going to happen anytime this decade. In the meantime with or without Sansa or fake ayra the Boltons can never abandon Winterfell because abandoning Winterfell means giving up their position in the North which in turns opens them up for attack. All Stannis has to do if he were to claim Winterfell is appoint a House the North actually likes as Wardens and rally the entire North against the Boltons and probably burn the Dreadfort to the ground.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 20, 2015, 06:18:56 PM
Unlikeable git though he is, Stannis has the advantage of being the one that Ned supported as king before his death, so that plan is pretty sound.

If Stannis does take Winterfell handily enough to where it would be difficult to repel him through force, I imagine Littlefinger's play would be to hope he had some goodwill left with Sansa and use her to get in good with Stannis.  He's playing nice with Cersei for now as a hedge, but at this point the Lannisters are all out of friends, having just added the Tyrells to their long list of enemies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 21, 2015, 08:53:43 AM
I imagine Littlefinger's only motivations on "helping" Cersei Lannister are to 1) legitimize him as the leader of the forces from the Aerie, 2) make her weaken her position further by isolating her from the other lords who might support her, and 3) keep everybody from allying together against anybody (if the Bolton's don't trust Cersei to support them against Stannis, they won't help Cersei crush a revolution from the Aerie, nor will they help her when she starts a stupid war with the Tyrells). Littlefinger is trying to play everybody against everybody else in the hopes he can stab them in the back when they are all tired from fighting each other.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 21, 2015, 09:03:48 AM
Wait, what's wrong with Stannis ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 21, 2015, 09:12:47 PM
Wait, what's wrong with Stannis ?
Besides the mistress/priestess that's really big on human sacrifice?


--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 23, 2015, 01:00:39 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/CjIobP9.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 23, 2015, 01:16:59 AM
lol.  Great gif.

Yeah, I know Red Sorceress is a bitch and Stannis is probably not going to have a good time allying with her, but, frankly, he's a likeable enough chap.  Possibly that's just me tho.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 23, 2015, 02:19:41 AM
No, I'm firmly in the Stannis camp as well.  Unless he does something really horrible here in the next few episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 23, 2015, 02:32:50 AM
Littlefinger left Sansa to guarantee the Boltons would stay and fight for Winterfell when Stannis shows up, rather than fall back to better ground. He wants the two of them to grind each other down so when he shows up with the knights of the Aerie, he can take down whatever is left of both. Without Sansa, Winterfell would not be worth trying to hold, with her it's their claim to 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the North.

He's betting that even if Stannis rolls over Winterfell, it won't be without significant losses and one way or another, Sansa winds up a widow.

--Dave

Pretty sure there is no better ground in the 7 kingdoms than winterfell under snow. They've made much play of Stannis having the stromger army, but I suspect this is to address the problem in the book where it appears suicidal for Stannis to be storming winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on May 23, 2015, 03:15:42 AM
"Fewer".

Stannis forever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 24, 2015, 07:07:46 PM

The scene between Jonathan Pryce and Diana Rigg was one of the best acted scenes in the series so far. They are both so good in those characters.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2015, 07:58:15 PM
I was giggling like mad the last 7 minutes.  I saw it coming and it was as great as I hoped. Well acted indeed.

With only three episodes left and next weeks being called "Hardhome" we know what's coming. I wonder if we're done with Arya for the year though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 24, 2015, 09:51:29 PM
I wonder if we're done with Arya for the year though.

I expect one or two scenes of "Cat" Arya before the season is done.

My question is



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 24, 2015, 09:56:56 PM
Seeing as they have basically bunged all of the storylines that lead up to that event, I am guessing it won't happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 25, 2015, 12:27:25 AM
Seeing as they have basically bunged all of the storylines that lead up to that event, I am guessing it won't happen.

My guess is that this storyline in the books will be used to  explain the asoiaf world and rather than drive the plot. TV is likely to leave that stuff unexplained.

Though of course, he could just teleport there early next season. GoT has never had much respect for distance, or for laying groundwork in advance of plot points.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 25, 2015, 02:06:37 AM
Ser Friendzone just doesn't learn does he?

On another note, I just realised that the girl from Whale Rider grew up to become Obara Sand (and also had roles in TWD and Red Dog).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 25, 2015, 09:16:39 AM
I'm just happy


Great moments from this episode:


Meh moments


Overall this was a much better episode than the past few; possibly the best this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 25, 2015, 09:25:13 AM
Seeing as they have basically bunged all of the storylines that lead up to that event, I am guessing it won't happen.

My guess is that this storyline in the books will be used to  explain the asoiaf world and rather than drive the plot. TV is likely to leave that stuff unexplained.

Though of course, he could just teleport there early next season. GoT has never had much respect for distance, or for laying groundwork in advance of plot points.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on May 25, 2015, 11:03:19 AM
So reading through a Reddit thread on the episode, where a bunch of people for some reason speculate that the big guy that chops through Tyrion's chains was Foggy Nelson from Daredevil. It goes on for a while with people talking about how amazing it was, etc.

Then this gets posted in the thread seven hours ago:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 25, 2015, 01:38:10 PM
ROOFLES. Take that geeks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 25, 2015, 04:07:40 PM
Probably the best episode of the season so far.  This is such a dreary, joyless show, when something finally happens to a bad person it's very welcome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 25, 2015, 04:22:09 PM
If Emilia Clarke refuses to get naked anymore they should quit putting in scenes were she should be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 25, 2015, 09:43:41 PM
Is that why we haven't had any more Daenerys nude scenes? I didn't know the actress objected.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on May 25, 2015, 10:17:11 PM
I'd heard she'd objected after the first time. Then she did another one, so I'm not sure where she stands anymore. Don't particularly care either as she's one of the least interesting bits of the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 26, 2015, 03:19:18 AM
My understanding is that it wasn't her, it was the actress who played Shae. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: disKret on May 26, 2015, 03:44:53 AM
My understanding is that it wasn't her, it was the actress who played Shae. 

You mean turkish porn star?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 26, 2015, 04:05:57 AM
Emillia Clarke is reported by another cast member: "She said, 'I want to be known for my acting, not for my breasts." and refused to do any more nude scenes. The show seems to support this. I find it nearly impossible to believe Sibel Kekilli would object to nudity.

In general, the show hardly has any nudity in it any more, the splendid Tyene Sand/Bronn scene being an exception.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 26, 2015, 05:08:26 AM
The lack of boobs is bringing out this shows lovely writing  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 26, 2015, 09:44:01 AM
I'm expecting more boobs before the season is out unless they do unforgivable things to Cersei's storyline.   :grin:

Loved the whole scene with her getting hoist by her own petard.  The best part was how obviously in denial she was over how badly she'd fucked herself.  She kept smirking even as they were bringing Lancel out.  Classic.

Curious to see what Tommen does, if anything.  Based on his portrayal in the show I'd expect him to go a little nuts, since he was on the verge of storming the sept before Cersei talked him down and said she'd handle it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 26, 2015, 09:58:47 AM
I have to assume that this religion is waaaaaaay more powerful and beloved in the books than it looks like in the show. Otherwise the first thing Tommen should have done was do whatever he had to do to get in there and get his wife. Yes, even if the first thing the chaos cultists did was kill her when they were attacked. Same goes for when they arrested his mom. Not even the Catholic Church at the height of it's power would have thought it could get away with arresting and punishing the Queen and Queen mother of what would be the equivalent of a unified Europe, with the Vatican sitting in the same city as the political capital and base to most of it's army. If the next episode doesn't have Tommen sitting on the Iron Throne with a astonished look saying "Wait, they did what?" followed by a scene of Kings Guard burning dead fanatics like stacks of cordwood, Tommen hasn't got what it's going to take to be king. There's being a merciful, understanding ruler, but these guys are just showing him their ass.

I now await someone to list half a dozen examples where the Catholic church did exactly that and burned all sorts of royals at the stake or something. Man, those fucking Popes...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 26, 2015, 10:16:22 AM
It is.  Basically the peasants finally got sick of getting shit on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 26, 2015, 10:16:28 AM
Tommen hasn't got what it's going to take to be king. There's being a merciful, understanding ruler, but these guys are just showing him their ass.

That's kind of the point. Tommen is a weak king and everyone who knows the kid knew he would be. Plus, he has the added problem of 1) his legitimacy is very much in question (which is why he backed down outside the sept the 1st time - the crowd were chanting slurs about his incestuous parentage) and 2) he no longer has the very huge power of his grandfather backing him up. The Lannister's are hated by EVERYONE and the only reason they hadn't been picked apart by the other houses was Tywin's strength. Cersei has been acting like she has his power but no one will recognize that and power that isn't recognized doesn't exist. The Sparrows give no shits about earthly power which is something both Cersei and the Queen of Thorns misread. Cersei thought she could control them because she expected the church to bow to temporal rule as it had done since the church was stripped of its military arm. She wasn't smart enough to realize why allowing a bunch of fanatical zealots to form militias was outlawed in the first place. The Queen of Thorns just thought the Sparrow was as corrupt as all the other High Septons she'd dealt with in the past.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 26, 2015, 10:55:21 AM
Joffrey would have burned fanatics at the stake; Tommen is spineless (and is only 8 in the books).

Also Sam we will be getting that nudity but they used a stand-in for Cersei.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 26, 2015, 11:53:06 AM
Is there any significance to the guard who cut Tyrion's chains or is that a new thing?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 26, 2015, 11:54:53 AM
Never seen him before.  Don't remember any similar character in the books.

Maybe it's a bastardized version of Strong Belwas or just someone sent by Magister Illyrio or Varys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 26, 2015, 12:46:26 PM
Could be...

To become Tyrion's new eastern version of the Bronn dynamic now in this new locale. Muscle & some laughs. Works for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 26, 2015, 01:00:40 PM
Joffrey would have burned fanatics at the stake; Tommen is spineless (and is only 8 in the books).

They've also underplayed the plight of the peasants in the series. Pryce's "we are the 99%" speech only gave us a weak hint of things. They're BAD for the low-class, very bad and only going to get worse as Winter descends and all the crops have been destroyed.

Pryce is a very popular religious leader and man of the people because he's been taking care of them while the ruling class fought their war and fucked around. Combine that popularity with the fanaticisim of struggling people and any move against the Church and there's no way Tommen lives longer than it takes the people to rip the Kingsguard apart with their bare hands.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 26, 2015, 01:19:18 PM
 King's Landing is supposed to be a huge city, hundreds of thousands of people. There isn't a regular army stationed there, just the city watch which I assume is a few thousand who are dubious fighting quality, basically just cops who are largely corrupt, then a few hundred Tyrell, Lannister and Baratheon elite househould troops in the keep as guards for the prominent Lords stationed there. Real armies are levied by feudal lords and marched over. If there was a really serious riot the local city guards would be quickly overwhelmed (along with any lords caught in the street, like Joffrey's party almost was in an earlier season). The Lords would have to hole up in the keep while outside help came and marched on the city.

The show hasn't done a great job of portraying the city as a dangerous, teeming mass of volatile humanity where criminality is rife and general order is barely maintained. They would need to do lots of CGI work and extras to get across the aesthetic properly so I guess can't for budgetary reasons.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 26, 2015, 02:03:25 PM
The show has been terrible about showing the scale implied in the books on everything with maybe the exception of the Wall.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 26, 2015, 02:07:29 PM
Martin could easily play out that scenario in The Winds of Winter if he wanted to--it's extremely in line with what actually happened or almost happened a number of times in The Hundred Years War and during the Reformation in Europe--there were a number of cases where burghers plus artisans and what Marx called the lumpen-proletariat of cities kicked out or killed aristocrats and then held a city desperately but unsuccessfully against experienced siege forces, who then massacred pretty much everybody. This is going to have a special twist in the case of Westeros due to the winter--I assume whatever supplies have been stockpiled fitfully in the end of summer and autumn as armies have fought is largely in castles and large cities--any armies that are still roaming around fighting or that are holding undersupplied castles are probably going to have to go and attack anywhere that there's food stored.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 26, 2015, 02:16:29 PM
King's Landing is supposed to be a huge city, hundreds of thousands of people. There isn't a regular army stationed there, just the city watch which I assume is a few thousand who are dubious fighting quality, basically just cops who are largely corrupt, then a few hundred Tyrell, Lannister and Baratheon elite househould troops in the keep as guards for the prominent Lords stationed there. Real armies are levied by feudal lords and marched over. If there was a really serious riot the local city guards would be quickly overwhelmed (along with any lords caught in the street, like Joffrey's party almost was in an earlier season). The Lords would have to hole up in the keep while outside help came and marched on the city.

The show hasn't done a great job of portraying the city as a dangerous, teeming mass of volatile humanity where criminality is rife and general order is barely maintained. They would need to do lots of CGI work and extras to get across the aesthetic properly so I guess can't for budgetary reasons.



I'm pretty sure Tommen mentioned calling the army into the city during his rant.  Tommen messed up when he correctly retreated from the Sept but didn't come back with large forces and massacre the lot of them.  Joffrey would have already had heads on spikes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 26, 2015, 02:28:16 PM
Tommen hasn't got what it's going to take to be king. There's being a merciful, understanding ruler, but these guys are just showing him their ass.

That's kind of the point. Tommen is a weak king and everyone who knows the kid knew he would be. Plus, he has the added problem of 1) his legitimacy is very much in question (which is why he backed down outside the sept the 1st time - the crowd were chanting slurs about his incestuous parentage) and 2) he no longer has the very huge power of his grandfather backing him up. The Lannister's are hated by EVERYONE and the only reason they hadn't been picked apart by the other houses was Tywin's strength. Cersei has been acting like she has his power but no one will recognize that and power that isn't recognized doesn't exist. The Sparrows give no shits about earthly power which is something both Cersei and the Queen of Thorns misread. Cersei thought she could control them because she expected the church to bow to temporal rule as it had done since the church was stripped of its military arm. She wasn't smart enough to realize why allowing a bunch of fanatical zealots to form militias was outlawed in the first place. The Queen of Thorns just thought the Sparrow was as corrupt as all the other High Septons she'd dealt with in the past.

As we were watching last night I heard something like "God, I hate the Lannisters and Cersei, I hope they get theirs."

I said "If it's not obvious yet, when Tyrion killed Tywin he effectively destroyed his own family. His loss combined with Cersei's hubris will come home to roost very soon."

The very next scene was Cersei getting tossed into a dungeon. Admittedly, I've read the books but even when reading them the first time I remember thinking "Tywin's dead? Things are going to fall apart for the Lannisters now..."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 26, 2015, 02:56:17 PM
I don't think the TV show really established how popular this religion is or what they've done to make themselves so popular, if they are. It feels like they come from nowhere really, and now they're throwing queens in jail. Maybe I missed something.

But what the show did establish is that Marjorie is wildly popular, so I dunno  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on May 26, 2015, 03:01:40 PM
I think people here are forgetting what a coward Joffrey really was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 26, 2015, 03:07:13 PM
Well yes, but he was a coward backed up by the nation's biggest and baddest strongman, Tywin Lannister. Tommen has no such backup and his mother has alienated most of the Lannister forces by pissing off her uncle Kevan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 26, 2015, 03:47:30 PM
Don't forget Tyrion, Varys, Jaime, the Clegane boys, and the Tyrells.  All very useful allies in terms of brains and/or brawn, all gone now (and potentially working against the Lannisters in some cases).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 26, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
Tommen made the religious army that is holding his wife and brother in law.  If he were to have the White Cloaks try to pry them out of their fortified base, it would significantly weaken his defenses... and it has already been established that his military strength is weak as is.  Remember that many of the people in this religious army are people that used to be amongst his troops...

This is not a time to swim upstream.  Go with the current. 

Go to the High Sparrow and ask for counsel.  Say you understand why your wife was imprisoned and ask for guidance on how to best help her find redemption.  Then, ask the High Sparrow for his assistance against the Lord of Light's forces.  You have Danny and her Dragons plus Stannis and his Priestess of the Lord of Light (who burns the idols of the 7).  Both pose a threat to the 7.  Tommen doesn't have the forces to withstand them (much less the coming of the Others).  Most importantly, don't just say this stuff - realize that this is the best path to getting your wife back and battling real threats to the 7 and your King's Landing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 26, 2015, 04:42:24 PM
Before doing that he should probably check on whether the Book of the Seven or whatever has anything to say about the fruit of incest.   :awesome_for_real:

If I were in Tommen's place and a lot smarter than Tommen I'd throw Cersei under the bus, go make nice with the Queen of Thorns, and just roll over that sept with the full might of the Tyrell/Lannister forces.  Whoever survives gets to take the black if they want to keep living.  Everyone else goes on a spike.  Margaery might die during the battle, but she's obviously dead anyway.  If Cersei survives, the Tyrells get to decide what to do with her stupid ass.

Then I pull a Henry VIII, declare myself new High Septon of the reformed church, and burn heretics.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 26, 2015, 05:40:24 PM
Killing the high sparrow would induce riots. The war of the 5 kings destabilized the entire region, the kings road isn't safe, villages are burned on a daily basis by lannister banner men and remnants of abandoned northern warbands. Wives and daughters are raped, priest of local churches are butchered for what little gold and bread available and nuns are passed around campfires before getting butchered. The Kings peace is dead and the only thing left are the lannisters who empowered ruthless monsters in men clothing and the Tyrells who are far too rich to understand whats going on. Oh and winter is coming. In the books the new high sparrow is a leader of several independent movements to protect what little order left for the common people and also the spiritual leader for people too traumatized by the events of the last 3 years to function. The church militant was originally an order of knights commanded by the high sparrow but was disbanded once said sparrow decided to use that power on the king. That was a 1000 years ago, in the TV show the church militant was reinstated to be a weapon against Margery. In the books while it was a result of a compromise between a political savvy high sparrow and cersei seeking to rid some of the debt owed by the crown.


Tommen being powerless is this case is more due to him being literally unable to comprehend whats happening. The show paints a blacker and whiter view of the church militant and the sparrows, but all respects they represent the common people more than the King does which is kinda the point of there existence. The Tyrells can afford to scorch earth kingslanding to save Margery and Loras but Tomen can't. Like the Boltons at winterfell, kingslanding is half seat of power half prison for the lannisters. If the lannisters burn it all to the ground there goes their claim to the seven kingdoms and with their popularity being zero, there allies zero, and their martial strength lacking Tommen can't fight the church militant and expect to stay the king. Literally. His only grace is him being a useful idiot and a puppet for Tyrells to backdoor there way into the center of politics and power but if he can't keep kingslanding its all over. And sadly he doesn't understand none of this so he is stuck in perpetual derp face.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 26, 2015, 06:35:59 PM
Yeah, even allowing for how TV Tommen is much older than book Tommen, he doesn't have a lot of plays. Most of "his" strength is actually that of bannermen sworn to either Lannister or Tyrrell, and neither set has much cause to give much of shit about him now. Tywin's ability to play his opponents against each other was half of the strength of House Lannister, the other half was the wealth from the mines. Tommen has neither, and the only people who *might* have been able to command loyalty from the bannermen through either reputation (Jaime) or manipulation (Tyrion) are off the board.

Tommen's fucked.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 26, 2015, 07:26:42 PM
I don't think the TV show really established how popular this religion is or what they've done to make themselves so popular, if they are. It feels like they come from nowhere really, and now they're throwing queens in jail. Maybe I missed something.

You didn't, it hasn't.  Think Catholic Church ca. 1400s and you've got a good idea of the church's power and popularity.  People cut down Godswoods (the white tree with blood-red leaves and faces) to put up Septs to the Seven in Westeros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on May 26, 2015, 07:38:56 PM
Yeah, even allowing for how TV Tommen is much older than book Tommen, he doesn't have a lot of plays. Most of "his" strength is actually that of bannermen sworn to either Lannister or Tyrrell, and neither set has much cause to give much of shit about him now. Tywin's ability to play his opponents against each other was half of the strength of House Lannister, the other half was the wealth from the mines. Tommen has neither, and the only people who *might* have been able to command loyalty from the bannermen through either reputation (Jaime) or manipulation (Tyrion) are off the board.

Tommen's fucked.

--Dave

LF and the Queen of Thorns will come to him and he will fall over himself to do what they say.  He and QoT both want the same thing; Margerey out of prison.  The Tyrells now have a very strong position to turn the king into their puppet, that is, if they survive the sparrows.  QoT can take her ball and go home and KL will starve until they beg her to come back. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 27, 2015, 01:04:40 AM
Worth considering that a few characters have pointed out how the Tyrells and Lannisters need each other to hold the centre.

Tyrell can't afford to bankroll the throne any more than the lannisters can. TV Olenna seems to know that and appears to be avoiding overreach.

I wonder if the season will finish with the last book scene from Dance, or if they'll skip to the chaos that is expected to follow.

I'd quite like to see the character they'd need to bring back to KL worling with Diana Rigg before the inevitable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 27, 2015, 05:53:56 AM
Its in the Tyrells interest to support the Lannisters claim to the throne simple because minus a lannister/bartheon king....well there is Stannis. Oh god. Stannis is a man that counts his wrongs and repays all of them. Highgarden refused Stannis claim to the throne twice. By supporting his younger brother AND marching against him when he nearly took kingslanding. Stannis doesn't forget nor forgive.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 27, 2015, 07:49:05 AM
I think the best solution would be Tommen sitting down with QoT and the High Sparrow to work out compromises that all three dislike but can live with. If one side won't play, cut them out. None of them are going to end up in a good spot if they start fighting, and all three end up in stronger positions cooperating. Especially if none of them want to see Stannis in charge. The problem with the religious fanatics hinges on how literal they decide they have to be regarding their holy book. Some redistribution of power and resources seem to be required for their society to continue to function, so improving the lot of the commoners is inevitable unless they're just going to enslave them.

I think Stannis would be a pretty good king. Not great or legendary, but he'd certainly get the trains running on time and have zero tolerance for corruption or incompetence. Which seems to be the ruling class's main problem with him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 27, 2015, 08:04:38 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 27, 2015, 08:27:59 AM
You guys keep assigning rational actions to irrational people to provide solutions. It's hilarious.

Sparrow is a fanatic.
QoT isn't going to deal when her legacy is on the line.
Tommen is thinking with his dick and a teenager.

The rational people who can take over and guide the king are out of the City. Cersi made sure of that after Daddy died so she could wield power.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 27, 2015, 08:38:06 AM
You guys keep assigning rational actions to irrational people to provide solutions. It's hilarious.

Sparrow is a fanatic.
QoT isn't going to deal when her legacy is on the line.
Tommen is thinking with his dick and a teenager.

The rational people who can take over and guide the king are out of the City. Cersi made sure of that after Daddy died so she could wield power.

In the books he kinda wasn't, he showed a metric ton of political savvy and knew who to piss off and how to apply pressure and whose side to take. 
Tommen isn't thinking. Mostly because he is ten when this was written, mostly because this arc doesn't require him to think, and mostly because him showing any initiative would be a really fucking big divergence from the books instead of the shallow cut and paste job we've seen so far.
QoT has no real play and there merely overusing her to pad the script.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on May 27, 2015, 08:51:37 AM
Margery is going to be released, dirty and hungry, but otherwise unhurt.  Loras might get some lashes, or might be burned alive.  It depends where they want to go with his character since in the books he was off sieging Dragonstone (and getting burned alive).  There's no point in bringing Kevan back since Varys isn't around.

So, the city is in the hands of the mad maester until Cersei takes a walk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 27, 2015, 09:12:40 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 27, 2015, 09:49:31 AM
QoT has no real play and there merely overusing her to pad the script.

I assume they are keeping her in play in KL because there is some kind of big Tyrell-Lannister bust-up coming soon that would've been much more subtly forshadowed in the books but wouldn't be easy to do on TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 28, 2015, 02:42:41 AM
Kings Landing is just badly written and badly shot in inexplicably small rooms. Heartbreaking to see Rigg and Pryce being wasted like that.

Winterfell is dreadful, but GRRM's story here was just as bad. Both the book and show would be better with fewer or no scenes. Would have preferred to watch Brienne and Pod trying to piece together what is going on than actually watch it.

Dorne has been irredeemable horseshit throughout.

Mereen I have fewer issues with than usual. Again, the season would have been better if presented from Jorah and Tyrion's PoV, hearing about events around Dany while looking for a way in. It wasn't hard to predict that Iain Glen and Peter Dinklage would be a stronger screen prescence than the pyramid scooby gang.

Wall is fine. They've done a better job than the books did in making Jon's position feel precarious. Thinking about the early season conversation about libraries and events this week, particularly Aemon telling Gilly to go south, I'm starting to think Sam might desert with Gilly and Sam jr and head for the Citadel after all. Especially if the pink letter happens.

I had been enjoying Stannis until 'burn your daughter' emerged as a plotline. Though I feel sorry for Davos given the show writers clearly have no idea how his presence should affect Stannis.

Overall the season has been missing characters capable of acting like grownups. The books had Doran, Areo, Jamie, Kevan and various Lannister relatives, Selmy, Quentyn's companions, Victaron, Davos, Jon, Asha, Roose, Mance, Manderly, Illyrio, Jojen, Littlefinger, Tyrion (towards the end) and Brienne's companions all able to discuss the problems around them and present broadly sane responses.  The show has had Jon and Olenna, and briefly Selmy and Pod, everyone else having been edited out, lobotomised, or ignored.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 28, 2015, 07:07:34 AM
The idea that Game of Thrones as a series rises or falls based on having a sufficient number of mature, responsible adults talk through their issues strikes me as one of the strangest expectations I have ever heard anybody voice about any work of fiction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 28, 2015, 07:20:22 AM
QoT has no real play and there merely overusing her to pad the script.

I assume they are keeping her in play in KL because there is some kind of big Tyrell-Lannister bust-up coming soon that would've been much more subtly forshadowed in the books but wouldn't be easy to do on TV.

Part of me thinks they're going to replace Kevan's role with Olenna but that's crazy and makes ZERO narrative sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 28, 2015, 08:37:31 AM
Nah, there was a reason for that Kevan scene during the first episode of the season, he clearly stated he would not follow Cersei but would follow Tommen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 28, 2015, 09:18:48 AM
The idea that Game of Thrones as a series rises or falls based on having a sufficient number of mature, responsible adults talk through their issues strikes me as one of the strangest expectations I have ever heard anybody voice about any work of fiction.

I'd never really thought of it that way before either. But just thinking about why this season has felt flat, it is what I came up with.

There are heros and villians in the other seasons that vary between relatable and crazy, but suddenly having no sane smart people makes it like watching the joker in a show without Batman. Or, to put it another way, like watching Gotham. Just psychos and victims all the way down.


 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 28, 2015, 09:22:16 AM
I'm fairly certain Olenna replaces Mace not Kevan. Which is fine.

I hope we get Kevan back but very aware the plot would work without him returning to KL.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on May 28, 2015, 11:14:12 AM
Not that it matters since the rating are still good, but every season has had higher ratings than the previous season until this season.  I do find it a bit less compelling, but my wife who never read the books still loves it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 28, 2015, 11:19:35 AM
Yeah, this season definitely isn't as good as previous seasons, but the baseline is so high that it's still the only show that I'm actually going out of my way to watch as it airs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 29, 2015, 02:44:21 AM
Casting calls for season 6 are out for a 'pirate' returning home after adventure etc. Sounds awfully like Euron.

Which is interesting because Melisandre's script this week specifically swerved the question of Balon Greyjoy's current status.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 29, 2015, 05:14:59 AM
Didn't someone (Sansa?) call Theon the last surviving son of Balon? I guess she might just not know better...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 29, 2015, 05:40:30 AM
Didn't someone (Sansa?) call Theon the last surviving son of Balon? I guess she might just not know better...

Euron was one Balon's brothers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 29, 2015, 05:47:36 AM
Sansa did say that.

But stood out when Melisandre only mentioned two of the three usurpers to Stannis, and nobody called her out on it. A cynic might wonder if they've made a final decision on what is happening on the Iron Islands yet, or a more generous interpretation is that events from the end of storm through to early feast have yet to happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 29, 2015, 06:22:07 AM
Didn't someone (Sansa?) call Theon the last surviving son of Balon? I guess she might just not know better...

Euron was one Balon's brothers.
Victarion too? It's been a while and I may just be remembering it wrong, but I always thought those two were Theon's siblings, not uncles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on May 29, 2015, 06:50:44 AM
Nope, he was the only surviving son, which made him such an important ward to keep the Iron Island compliant for so long after the Greyjoy Rebellion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 29, 2015, 08:13:32 AM
Ahh alright; I only remembered Aeron being his uncle, not the other two.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 29, 2015, 08:35:27 AM
Yeah, being the only son was also an important plot point in that it invalidated that whole election thing since he wasn't present.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Raph on May 29, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
I can't even remember what happened with his sister. My last memory of her on the show is her sailing away somewhere.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 29, 2015, 12:45:31 PM
The fact that they haven't even mentioned Balon's death on the series tells me either they've been shifting that whole succession thing to another season or they are removing it altogether.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 29, 2015, 12:55:07 PM
On that front:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 29, 2015, 01:09:31 PM
Could use some abbreviating, got pretty long & tedious in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 29, 2015, 01:56:35 PM
It wasn't really that long - just fucking boring, which made it seem a lot longer than it was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fordel on May 29, 2015, 02:37:29 PM
Does winter ever actually show up in the books?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on May 29, 2015, 02:42:51 PM
Does winter ever actually show up in the books?

Not yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 29, 2015, 03:29:38 PM
Yes it does. The white raven arrives in the last chapter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 29, 2015, 03:44:12 PM
From the casting....

Pirate, man in his 40s to late-50s. He's "an infamous pirate who has terrorized seas all around the world. Cunning, ruthless, with a touch of madness." He’s a dangerous-looking man. A very good part this season.

Father. Aged 50s to 60s, he’s one of the greatest soldiers in Westeros — a humorless martinet, severe and intimidating. He demands martial discipline in the field and in his home. It's described as "a very good part" for next year, which will be "centrally involved" in a protagonist’s story line.

Mother, in her 50s. She’s a sweet, plump, and adoring mother, and has a soft spot for one of her children who benefits from her decency.

Sister, in her early 20s. She’s a kind, friendly, and unpretentious woman.

Brother, in his early-to-mid-20s. Athletic, a good hunter, an excellent swordsman, manly, not particularly bright, but the favorite child of the father.

Priest, in his 40s or 50s. A gruff ex-soldier who found religion. Now a no-nonsense rural priest who ministers to the poor of the countryside. He’s a salt-of-the-earth man who has weathered many battles.

Leading Actress, in her early 40s, she’s an elegant actress with a traveling theater company. Fun, charismatic, rum-drinking actress in the troupe.

Priestess. Mid-20s to early-30s. Any ethnicity — she’s beautiful, intense, and magnetic.

Fierce Warrior, a tall man in his 30s or 40s with a powerful physique. They’re looking for someone with “mixed ethnicity” for the role.

A large boy, for an actor who is 10 to 12, but playing 7 or 8. He’s described as “a clever boy” who seems too large for his age. He’s big and tall, but not fat. “Characterful squat features” are a plus for this part. It’s specified that this is a one-time appearance.


12-year-old boy, with brown hair and blue eyes. He needs to use a Northern accent. He has scenes where he has to spar with a wooden sword. The length of the role isn’t specified.

7-year-old boy, with dark brown hair, a narrow face, and green eyes. He has a Northern accent. He also spars with the wooden sword, so it’s safe to assume it’s the same scene. This role is similarly open-ended, the description only stating that the character is being "introduced."



So Euron, a fistfull of Tarlys, the obvious guess for the last 2 is young Ned Stark and Howland Reed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 29, 2015, 07:14:33 PM
Septon maribald should be the priest.  The others would fit tyrions boat trip, but that is already past.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 30, 2015, 12:20:29 PM
I've seen a lot of people suggest Meribald, but what he gives you is a background on the Sparrows and a narrator for the Riverlands.

If you send Brienne north and Jamie south, and if the Sparrows have already broken through in King's Landing, not sure how Meribald helps. I guess I can see Sam running into him if he heads south.

The priestess I can imagine as Lemore even without the boat trip, but only if they are also doing Aegon. "The internet" appears to believe there will be no Aegon. But it wouldn't shock me if Doran Martell pulls Aegon out of his ass. After all, there has to be some point to Dorne, surely? With no Quentyn, Doran needs an alternative plan, otherwise Ellaria/Arianne is right and every minute filmed at the water gardens is a waste of everybody's time.

Personally I quite like the theory that Lemore is Ashara and Aegon is her's and Ned's bastard. There is enough in that theory to explain why GRRM is bothering with Aegon and suggest GoT won't want to drop him entirely.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 30, 2015, 12:35:24 PM
The Priest could be the Elder Brother, who is relevant if Sandor Clegane isn't quite dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 30, 2015, 01:29:25 PM
After all, there has to be some point to Dorne, surely? With no Quentyn, Doran needs an alternative plan

Trystane?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 30, 2015, 02:41:35 PM
Quentyn went to marry Dany and start a war.

As yet Trystan isn't doing shit.

They might plan to crown Myrcella as Arianne intended in the book - then marry her to Trystan. But that sounds like a pretty bad plan, unless Doran thinks he can take down the Lannisters and Tyrells in a straight conflict. Also makes no sense that TV Doran is trying to hold the Sand Snakes back unless he is waiting for something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 30, 2015, 08:14:40 PM
The idea that Game of Thrones as a series rises or falls based on having a sufficient number of mature, responsible adults talk through their issues strikes me as one of the strangest expectations I have ever heard anybody voice about any work of fiction.

Well, it worked well enough for Deep Space Nine for years. It was also a show set in a vast, established universe that had a life of it's own and yet felt that spending 30 out of 40 minutes in each show was best spent filming two people talking about stuff in conference rooms, bars, cargo bays with space crates, and space versions of U-Haul trucks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 30, 2015, 10:16:25 PM
Just gotta say that after reading a breakdown of the series finale of Outlander, GoT is fucking tame compared to that show. Fucking hell wtf is going over at Starz?!?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 31, 2015, 12:20:05 AM
Just gotta say that after reading a breakdown of the series finale of Outlander, GoT is fucking tame compared to that show. Fucking hell wtf is going over at Starz?!?

I haven't seen any of Outlander yet (maybe I need to remedy that), but Starz is the network that brought us Spartacus, so...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 31, 2015, 03:45:27 AM
I think the feminist over reaction is more interesting than the show itself...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2015, 08:05:37 AM
Is Outlander as full of porn and gore as Spartacus was?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 31, 2015, 10:55:52 AM
I think Black Sails is more of the spiritual successor to Spartacus than any other show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 31, 2015, 11:42:03 AM
Is Outlander as full of porn and gore as Spartacus was?

I wouldnt call it porn what happened in the last episode, unless you are into some really wierd shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 31, 2015, 11:53:52 AM
I haven't seen the finale of Outlander yet (I don't get Starz, so I have to wait for it to percolate into the illicit channels and didn't want to stay up that late). But everything up to that was good, historical costume drama that doesn't shy away from the icky bits.

Probably we should start a thread.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 31, 2015, 07:01:40 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 31, 2015, 07:04:25 PM
That was amazing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 31, 2015, 07:14:25 PM
For some reason, I couldn't get HBO to turn on normally tonight, it just kept cutting to World War Z.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 31, 2015, 07:55:55 PM
That escalated quickly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2015, 08:17:06 PM
As soon as Jon hit Hardhome I said to my wife, "looks like this is the entire last half hour" pretty spot-on.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 31, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
Definitely needed a steam-powered Gran Torino with helicopter blades on it.  Still awesome though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 01, 2015, 02:49:09 AM
Friendzone just can't catch a break. I swear I'd pay to watch him play Job almost as much as I would to watch the traveling experiences of Arya and the Hound


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 01, 2015, 03:21:12 AM
Just when I thought GoT was losing steam, they pull this out.  It kept going and I kept thinking "How much did this cost?"

Very well done.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 01, 2015, 03:39:08 AM
Agreed, it redeems the whole season. In fact I couldn't fault the entire episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 01, 2015, 05:04:30 AM
Agreed, it redeems the whole season. In fact I couldn't fault the entire episode.

But it had zero boobs!

 :-P


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 01, 2015, 06:33:45 AM
Gotta give it a couple of points for Sansa actually having something good happen to her for once.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 01, 2015, 06:41:31 AM
I wasn't too impressed, at least not up to the reaction it's getting... I mean it was great to see a high budget scene for TV, but I didn't like the shaky cam and quick action cuts. Maybe they had to do that to save money but it was pretty jarring.

Also some stuff didn't make sense like at one point skeletons seem to have an access way into the great hall and are pouring in against the people and giant in there but only a dozen or so do make it, chase the giant out, then they stop (conveniently leaving the place clear for Jon's fight). Also at some points the guys defending the palisade seem to be overwhelmed with skeletons pouring in over the top and various holes but then the next minute they are fine. Then finally the whole army of them jumping off the cliff didn't make sense, they woulda been smashed to pieces on the fall. We've already seen arrows, swords and axes bring down these reanimated skeletons with kinetic damage, but the impact of a 200 foot fall doesn't?

Again, good to see well done, high budget effects but I think weak writing and direction detracted from it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 01, 2015, 06:49:08 AM
I suppose you could argue that chopping limbs or heads off zombies disables them but falling keeps their bodies intact but yeah, that doesn't make much sense, given that it would pulverize their bones and muscles. Animate sacks of goo aren't very fearsome warriors. Maybe the White Walkers cast a feather fall spell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 01, 2015, 07:01:13 AM
Complaining that the unnatural don't follow natural laws naturally is kinda, well, unnatural.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 01, 2015, 07:22:25 AM
My only complaint about Hardhome is that, again, things are timed to coincide for dramatic convenience down to the second, just like the Jamie/snakes collision in the water gardens.  Unless Jon showing up was what precipitated the walker attack, but there was no indication of that -- it just seemed like really fortunate/unfortunate timing that they showed up the very instant Jon was starting the evacuation.  It's the sort of thing that happens in a dumb action movie.

There are worse things to be than a dumb action movie, I guess.  Overall a fun episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 01, 2015, 07:31:52 AM
Because its a fucking TV show and you know having him turn up 2 days before would be really boring? Sorry but that just seems like a dumb fucking thing to complain about.

The conversation between Tyrion and Daenerys was darn good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 01, 2015, 07:44:31 AM
bring down these reanimated skeletons with kinetic damage, but the impact of a 200 foot fall doesn't?

Slammed right into the past there.  Headfirst into my DM days.

"No, you can't fall that far with platemail on.  You're a puddle.  I don't care what your frigging DR is."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 01, 2015, 07:48:58 AM
The Hardhome fight was a spectacle and Tyrion keeps on being entertaining (especially the dialogue). Otherwise the story seems to be becoming stale (in my opinion) despite/due to too many storylines that just don't interest me for some reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 01, 2015, 07:51:51 AM
Based on their previous jumping prowess, you might expect them to leap at John's boat.   Yah, there were a lot of convenient action movie-isms in those scenes.  I liked the White Walker deciding to go non-lethal against Jon when the seemingly just go for the kill on everyone else.

It did the job.  Onward.  I liked most of what they did with the rest of the episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 01, 2015, 08:44:39 AM
Well, I also thought the Night's King was going to freeze the waters or something--or do the ye olde Pirates of the Caribbean march across the bottom of the sea trick.

I can see it making sense to have the Walkers head for Hardhome pronto with the immiment arrival of a Stark/Targaryen--they may well have some kind of mystic alert system about the few remaining real threats they might face, and there's plenty of indications that the Starks alone may have some special role in the keeping of the North. (Isn't the 411 on the King himself that he's a Stark?). Bran, after all, is hooked up to his magic tree by now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on June 01, 2015, 03:03:16 PM
There seems to have been much ado made about how Jon killed the White Walker with his sword, which wasn't dragon glass.  I couldn't tell if they were trying to say that his sword was special (they certainly focused on it for several shots, with the wolf head handle, right before the battle), or if it was something about Jon himself.  The King certainly spent most of the battle staring at him.

I haven't read the books, so perhaps there's some known-backstory that I'm missing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 01, 2015, 03:23:06 PM
Valyrian steel, forged in Dragon fire (like the Dragon Glass). In the books, it's supposed to appear irridescent.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 01, 2015, 03:47:06 PM
Valryian steel is basically the equivalent of mithril in terms of how rare/important it is.  I liked the line Tyrion had about how the old Valyrians were "the best at everything".  Standard fantasy "ancient civilization that made really cool irreplaceable shit" trope.

Other Valyrian steel weapons mentioned on the show besides Jon's sword Longclaw: the unnamed dagger that was used to attack Bran (the one Tyrion had won in a bet), and Ned's sword Ice (which was reforged into Joffrey's sword Widow's Wail, and Brienne's sword Oathkeeper).  I can't remember if we know what happened to Joffrey's sword after his death.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 01, 2015, 04:45:20 PM
Yeah, they set that up very very poorly in the show. You've gotten almost none of the backstory on the Valyrians and the special qualities of their steel.

Hell, the best they could do to set things for this episode was replay the single clip where it's mentioned when Jon's given Longclaw in the "previously on" intro.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 01, 2015, 04:47:15 PM
I think Samwell mentioned his father owned one also.  They are rare enough that not many people have them, but common enough that Tywin felt his family were the only major house without one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 01, 2015, 05:01:15 PM
Yeah, they set that up very very poorly in the show. You've gotten almost none of the backstory on the Valyrians and the special qualities of their steel.

Hell, the best they could do to set things for this episode was replay the single clip where it's mentioned when Jon's given Longclaw in the "previously on" intro.

In fairness, Jon looks utterly shocked when his sword doesn't shatter. I think that is intended to imply that even most people in the world don't understand how special Valyrian steel is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DraconianOne on June 01, 2015, 05:30:55 PM
Game of Thrones: Wrath of the Lich King.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 01, 2015, 05:32:54 PM
Actually the show has told us more in a funny kind of way about the Doom that took Valyria than the books really have, due to that one scene with Friendzone and Tyrion. I think once you grasp that Valyria was in the hottest part of Essos and it was destroyed by a Volcano, you begin to wonder if that isn't the Fire equivalent of the White Walkers--so many Dragons, so much Fire, so much magic, that it did as much damage to Valyria as the Walkers might do to Westeros. So Jon's sword doing that kind of damage makes sense not just because it's a really strong blade, but because it's one of the last things that the most Fire-oriented civilization made.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 01, 2015, 06:05:57 PM
In fairness, Jon looks utterly shocked when his sword doesn't shatter. I think that is intended to imply that even most people in the world don't understand how special Valyrian steel is.

Hell, the damn white walker looks utterly shocked when the sword doesn't shatter. (http://gfycat.com/EmbellishedHandyBalloonfish)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 01, 2015, 06:38:15 PM
I dunno, his reaction left me a little cold.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 01, 2015, 07:28:01 PM
That was an awesome fucking episode, better than anything all season. The Hardhome battle scene alone was better than the Battle of Blackwater Bay. After this and the siege of the Wall last season, it appears they really know how to use their budget wisely on the big battle scenes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 01, 2015, 07:35:19 PM
Amen.  They turned the White Walkers from a joke into a fucking terrifying force in twenty minutes.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 01, 2015, 08:36:27 PM
From the books, owning a Valyrian steel weapon is a huge mark of prestige.  But they're a symbol that cannot be bought, and that frustrated Tywin to no end because for all their gold, they still couldn't get a hold of one.  Claiming Ice was both a huge victory for Lanister and a giant poke in the eye for Stark.

While they're considered exceptional weapons in their own right, no one really considers them more than a status symbol.  People don't much believe in magic though, because its most obvious signs had faded from the world.  The White Walkers were just a story to frighten children into behaving.  The people have forgotten, much less that all those blades probably formed the bulwark of the defense against the last incursion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 01, 2015, 09:39:12 PM
Actually the show has told us more in a funny kind of way about the Doom that took Valyria than the books really have, due to that one scene with Friendzone and Tyrion. I think once you grasp that Valyria was in the hottest part of Essos and it was destroyed by a Volcano, you begin to wonder if that isn't the Fire equivalent of the White Walkers--so many Dragons, so much Fire, so much magic, that it did as much damage to Valyria as the Walkers might do to Westeros. So Jon's sword doing that kind of damage makes sense not just because it's a really strong blade, but because it's one of the last things that the most Fire-oriented civilization made.

Spoilered for meming with intent


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 01, 2015, 10:30:59 PM
Show went from 5/7ths being terrible to only 4/7ths. Good job db weiss. Lucky Wander Boy continues to be his best work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 02, 2015, 07:24:52 AM
There seems to have been much ado made about how Jon killed the White Walker with his sword, which wasn't dragon glass.  I couldn't tell if they were trying to say that his sword was special (they certainly focused on it for several shots, with the wolf head handle, right before the battle), or if it was something about Jon himself.  The King certainly spent most of the battle staring at him.

I haven't read the books, so perhaps there's some known-backstory that I'm missing.

His sword is valaryian steel aka dragon steel. Originally forged in old valaryia with some rumors of needing dragons to do the initial forging so like dragon glass it is effective vs white walkers. unfortunately the art of forging such weapons is lost and about the best anybody can do is reforge existing weapons into other weapons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 02, 2015, 11:15:23 AM
To be fair to the smithies, it is really hard to forge a sword with dragon breath when there hadn't been any dragons around for a while.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 02, 2015, 11:32:49 AM
To be fair to the smithies, it is really hard to forge a sword with dragon breath when there hadn't been any dragons around for a while.

Quitters.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2015, 12:30:32 PM
I imagine it is quite difficult to forge a sword with dragon breath even if the dragon is alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2015, 12:38:00 PM
Not to mention the bit about tempering it in your wife's chest. You have to expect to get some grief about that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 02, 2015, 04:55:45 PM
Remember kids, sheathe your sword properly lest things get messy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DraconianOne on June 03, 2015, 01:29:13 AM
Winter is Coming



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2015, 09:41:06 AM
That is metal as fuck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 03, 2015, 04:14:49 PM
Valryian steel is basically the equivalent of mithril in terms of how rare/important it is.  I liked the line Tyrion had about how the old Valyrians were "the best at everything".  Standard fantasy "ancient civilization that made really cool irreplaceable shit" trope.

Other Valyrian steel weapons mentioned on the show besides Jon's sword Longclaw: the unnamed dagger that was used to attack Bran (the one Tyrion had won in a bet), and Ned's sword Ice (which was reforged into Joffrey's sword Widow's Wail, and Brienne's sword Oathkeeper).  I can't remember if we know what happened to Joffrey's sword after his death.

As a side note, I'm pretty sure GRRM is on record as saying that having the dagger that the assassin used to attack Bran being Valyrian steel is one of the things that bothers him the most in hindsight. Since there is no way - given the rest of the canon about Valyrian steel - that anyone would loan such a priceless item to some common thug.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2015, 05:19:09 PM
Yeah, that'd bother me too.  It does make the weapon very unique and therefore traceable, which was the point from a plot perspective.  TBH it's the dumbest thing about Cat going after Tyrion, which I think Tyrion even points out -- why on earth would he give a thug that particular incredibly valuable knife and thereby lead Cat right to him when any old murder weapon would have done?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on June 03, 2015, 05:49:05 PM
Yeah, that'd bother me too.  It does make the weapon very unique and therefore traceable, which was the point from a plot perspective.  TBH it's the dumbest thing about Cat going after Tyrion, which I think Tyrion even points out -- why on earth would he give a thug that particular incredibly valuable knife and thereby lead Cat right to him when any old murder weapon would have done?

Because Littlefinger was involved.  It was brilliant.  Tyrion was a potential player, FL saw this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 03, 2015, 05:50:22 PM
Yeah, that'd bother me too.  It does make the weapon very unique and therefore traceable, which was the point from a plot perspective.  TBH it's the dumbest thing about Cat going after Tyrion, which I think Tyrion even points out -- why on earth would he give a thug that particular incredibly valuable knife and thereby lead Cat right to him when any old murder weapon would have done?

Because Littlefinger was involved.  It was brilliant.  Tyrion was a potential player, FL saw this.

LF also saw that Cat was a gullible enough dumbass to fall for the most hamfisted frame-up ever, apparently.  He did grow up with her, I guess he'd know.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on June 03, 2015, 06:06:25 PM
Yeah, that'd bother me too.  It does make the weapon very unique and therefore traceable, which was the point from a plot perspective.  TBH it's the dumbest thing about Cat going after Tyrion, which I think Tyrion even points out -- why on earth would he give a thug that particular incredibly valuable knife and thereby lead Cat right to him when any old murder weapon would have done?

Because Littlefinger was involved.  It was brilliant.  Tyrion was a potential player, FL saw this.

LF also saw that Cat was a gullible enough dumbass to fall for the most hamfisted frame-up ever, apparently.  He did grow up with her, I guess he'd know.   :awesome_for_real:

It was a weapon only a truly wealthy house could afford.  Oh, and coup DE grace?  If I recall?  I seem to remember LF getting it back.

Fake edit.  New tablet auto correct and keyboard killing me


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
I might be remembering it wrong, but thought Joffery gave the guy the dagger from Robert's collection. Littlefinger just made up the story when he saw the dagger.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 04, 2015, 01:35:38 AM
I might be remembering it wrong, but thought Joffery gave the guy the dagger from Robert's collection. Littlefinger just made up the story when he saw the dagger.

No, I think that was what happened. But in hindsight it still doesn't make great sense within the current canon, given how GRRM has developed Valyrian Weapons to be the rarest, most eagerly guarded weapons and preciously kept weapons in all of Westeros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 04, 2015, 03:20:08 AM
It is believable to me that Joffery either didn't know it was Valyrian, didn't know that this was a big deal, thought everyone else was too stupid to spot it, or even wanted everyone to know it was him.

What is less believable was that littlefinger lost the dagger in a bet with Robert to begin with. But I can live with that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 04, 2015, 06:05:02 AM
It still makes sense.  No macho man who thinks having a weapon is impressive is going to run around showing off his 'mighty' Valyrian steel dagger.  It might be the prized piece of a collection to a family without many resources, but it's still not going to have the respect of something like Ice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 04, 2015, 06:56:12 AM
What is less believable was that littlefinger lost the dagger in a bet with Robert to begin with. But I can live with that.

I believe it was a tournament bet, one thing Robert knew better than Littlefinger, would've been evaluating fighters.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 04, 2015, 07:02:16 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/dakphQk.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2015, 07:38:49 AM
Winterfell is Doune ?

Seriously ?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 04, 2015, 08:33:58 AM
Among others.  I don't recognize any of the castles but I count three cited as being Winterfell shooting locations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2015, 08:50:09 AM
Yes, but I didn't care about those.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DraconianOne on June 05, 2015, 01:59:32 AM
Winterfell is Doune ?

Seriously ?

Only in the pilot which was never aired.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 06, 2015, 02:37:58 AM
Finally saw last week's episode, and while I don't think anything can justify the godawful mess that the rest of the season has been, it was good.

Hardhome was a really well thought out sequence and made me wish the book had had a PoV there. For a couple of minutes it even managed to convince my fiancee that they were going to kill Jon. But Mereen was the standout, grown ups sitting down having a chat is what GoT does best. It was like it was season 2 or 3 all over again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 07, 2015, 03:36:49 PM
God damn it.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 07, 2015, 06:40:18 PM
Why the fuck did we need to see that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 07, 2015, 07:01:28 PM
Why the fuck did we need to see that.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 07, 2015, 07:01:57 PM
Welp, so much for team Stannis.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 07, 2015, 07:14:27 PM
Wow, so much foreshadowing there it was crazy.  As soon as I knew what was going on I saw all sorts of visual hints dropped, nice filming.  Wife saw a few related to Dany, too, that I might have missed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 07, 2015, 07:29:15 PM
Tannhauser has just unfriended House Baratheon.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 07, 2015, 07:38:37 PM
Biggest surprise of the entire series so far:




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 07, 2015, 07:40:38 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 07, 2015, 08:14:50 PM
Yeah, I expected him to be in on the deal.

As for Stannis, here the series is cribbing pretty directly from the Iliad (rather than the Wars of the Roses)...and ultimately it doesn't end well for Agamemnon either. Does make it a bit harder to pick a side in the upcoming battle for Winterfell.

Noticed something by the way re-watching "Hardhome". Roose Bolton says they have supplies for six months, for withstanding a siege. Why isn't that a catastrophic admission that they're utterly fucked in the slightly longer term, even if Stannis freezes outside the walls? I would assume by this point that any Northern castle that doesn't have food for two fucking years or so is fucked, given what we've been told again and again about seasons in Westeros. I would assume that siege or no siege, the ability to leave the castle doesn't matter worth shit if winter is even half of what it's advertised to be--it's not like there's a Quickie-Mart down the street. What you have at this point is what you have, period--there's no more coming and nowhere else to get it.

Though on the other hand in the show, Littlefinger rides around from the Eyrie to Winterfell to King's Landing like they're a few hours apart by horse, so who the fuck knows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 07, 2015, 08:33:08 PM
Dragon skin impenetrability ain't what it used to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 07, 2015, 09:51:09 PM
Seriously.  On the other hand it was a good excuse for them to get the fuck out of there.

I really enjoyed the ringside conversation there, especially how Tyrion was the only one who shared Dany's distaste for bloodsport.

Looking forward to seeing what Melisandre pulls out of whichever orifice is most magical.  But man, I think even if Stannis wins this battle he's lost the war.  He was never the most likeable dude to start with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 07, 2015, 10:07:26 PM
You could tell his soldiers weren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of fighting for a guy who would do that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 07, 2015, 10:31:03 PM
Did not think they would really go there, but they did.

I was off by an episode for when the ride would happen, and I admit that douchey fiancée not being behind it all was a surprise. I'll chalk the non-impenetrable hide to the fact he's still tiny (look at the info graphic above on how big he could get).

So I guess my new prediction for the finale is someone coming off of someone's nightly list, along with the consequences that follow. No idea if they are going to resolve any more of Winterfell - we really are at the point where having read the books doesn't help much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 07, 2015, 11:43:14 PM
Yeah, I expected him to be in on the deal.

As for Stannis, here the series is cribbing pretty directly from the Iliad (rather than the Wars of the Roses)...and ultimately it doesn't end well for Agamemnon either. Does make it a bit harder to pick a side in the upcoming battle for Winterfell.

Noticed something by the way re-watching "Hardhome". Roose Bolton says they have supplies for six months, for withstanding a siege. Why isn't that a catastrophic admission that they're utterly fucked in the slightly longer term, even if Stannis freezes outside the walls? I would assume by this point that any Northern castle that doesn't have food for two fucking years or so is fucked, given what we've been told again and again about seasons in Westeros. I would assume that siege or no siege, the ability to leave the castle doesn't matter worth shit if winter is even half of what it's advertised to be--it's not like there's a Quickie-Mart down the street. What you have at this point is what you have, period--there's no more coming and nowhere else to get it.


I just assumed this was lazy scripting. In the book winterfell has greenhouses or some shit and was self sustaining even in winter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 08, 2015, 04:40:57 AM
Kind of has to be that way--it's one of those things where Martin hasn't really shown us a world that actually lives up to his world-building, really. Given what's been said about seasons in the books, you'd expect that every Northern community would have to have practices of harvesting and storing food that are very different than our own world, as well as growing cycles that aren't like ours either. (There must have to be five or six growing cycles during summer in order to produce enough food to both live off of it during summer and have sufficient surplus to put it away for two years--or the last cycle of summer must produce crazy bumper crops, etc. ) I'm sure there's geeks who've worked it out but there really isn't a lot in the books to help explain how any of this is possible. The series, on the other hand, is all but ignoring the "summer lasts for years, winter lasts for years" thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 08, 2015, 05:00:30 AM
He was never the most likeable dude to start with.

Yeah, his main selling point {other than legitimacy} was his stability. He was the guy that sollowed things to the letter so you knew what the consequences of things were.

As far as food during long winters they could just fish a lot more. I doubt it could take up all the slack, but fish are easy to preserve and they're pretty nutrient dense. Also, after a certain length of time I'm sure cannibalism  taboos get chucked out window.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 08, 2015, 05:37:33 AM
Is it me or was there a whole lot more angst from viewers over Sansa's rape than BURNING A FUCKING 12 YEAR OLD GIRL ALIVE AT THE STAKE?!?!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 08, 2015, 05:47:42 AM
That was a necessity and to some ugly kid.

Sansa getting raped was both a denigration of a beautiful young woman and something that doesn't happen in the real world.

[Read as all green.  Shireen was awesome.  I guess they're setting up Stannis to be the big evil that Danny has to beat, since I cannot imagine Mr. Principles ever doing that.]


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 08, 2015, 05:59:52 AM
It seemed like a logical conclusion (for a fictional story) of Stannis' gradual fall as he has now sacrificed everything for his quest to become the king. While there might be a "redeeming self-sacrifice" in store for him at the end of his story I wouldn't put it past Martin that he just ends up broken (and dead) without achieving anything to be his legacy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 08, 2015, 06:06:33 AM
If anyone justifies there false moral outrage over Sansa rape after they clapped to sound of a 12 year girl burning at the stake....just rub your dick/vagina through sand paper and do the rest of humanity a favor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 08, 2015, 06:49:04 AM
Mellisandre and Stannis dying in dragon fire would be rather poetic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2015, 06:56:37 AM
For me problem with Sansa's rape isn't the fact of it, which did feel like a likely outcome, it is the absence of any character or story development around it to justify the screen time, and the way the impact on the audience is wasted because it has no effect on anything. A couple of weeks on it has managed to reduce the impact of Ramsey by removing any uncertainty. If Sansa has been trapped into purely a victim role, then we don't need to see it every week.

I suspect the showrunners just really like filming Ramsey and Theon. They get an absurd amount of time on screen, despite having done nothing of consequence since season 2 and despite being 1 dimensional characters utterly unaffected by events around them. We've now had so much Reek that it almost seems ridiculous to imagine the re-emergence of Theon.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2015, 07:04:06 AM
Well there was a lot of this endless Reek & Ramsey stuff in the book too... Gotta assume it's building to something or it would have been cut like a lot of other side stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 08, 2015, 07:17:44 AM
The burning bothered me just as much as the rape scene. But, having read the books, I knew that Stannis had to burn someone alive to get his "king's blood" to save his army. They totally cut out the characters and plot lines that were used for that scene in the show but did not remove the stuff about the roasting people alive. They also foreshadowed the ever living fuck out of it.

Thus, they painted themselves into a corner and, as someone mentioned, it actually served a purpose in the narrative outside of sheer shock value.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2015, 07:21:58 AM
The book had neither Ramsey nor Reek "on screen" in season 3 or 4.

But I completely agree that book winterfell was terrible throughout this season's content. At least it had secret agent Mance. People getting murdered among the Bolton crew would have given us something to pass the time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2015, 07:24:49 AM
Definitely miss the shenanagins of Lord Manderly on the show.

Surprised they skipped him, could have worked well because he could have added a dose of humour that's somewhat missing from this grim serious season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 08, 2015, 07:54:44 AM
But, having read the books, I knew that Stannis had to burn someone alive to get his "king's blood" to save his army. They totally cut out the characters and plot lines that were used for that scene in the show but did not remove the stuff about the roasting people alive. They also foreshadowed the ever living fuck out of it.
The roasting in the books wasn't who it was depicted as at the time.  No one of King's-blood roasted in the North in the books, and out on the road Stannis doesn't even have the option short of burning himself.  But then by this point Mellsandra has realized that maybe Stannis isn't Ahzore Ahai, either.  (And neither she, the Queen, Shireen, nor Davos were with Stannis.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 08, 2015, 07:58:52 AM
Didn't Stannis restrict the burnings to cannibals in his army and tell the Lord of Light's followers to try praying harder? Also, that if he died his army should keep fighting to put his daughter on the throne?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2015, 08:24:51 AM
Will be interesting to see how the great blood magic sacrifice Melisandre demanded can extract Stannis and his army from his seemingly hopeless snowbound predicament.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 08, 2015, 08:33:54 AM
So I guess my new prediction for the finale is someone coming off of someone's nightly list, along with the consequences that follow. No idea if they are going to resolve any more of Winterfell - we really are at the point where having read the books doesn't help much.

Here's what I expect we'll see next week:
* Early fallout from Dany going AWOL and the start of the siege, which will be Sons of the Harpy instead
* Wall storyline continues with the wildlings setting-up & early tensions. Jon Snow's angst about the Night's Watch staying apolitical vs Stanis' demand via Davos won't come until next season.
* Winterfell/ Sansa doing something pointlessly pointless as we won't get anything satisfactory here until next year. Maybe Brienne rescues her. Still not sure where they're going here.
* Cersi/ Margary resolution in the last 20-30 mins.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2015, 08:39:04 AM
Probably will be some Arya scene also, where she either kills that Kingsguard knight and starts some trouble or is stopped by Jaqen who clearly knows she is up to something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 08, 2015, 09:21:23 AM
The burning bothered me just as much as the rape scene. But, having read the books, I knew that Stannis had to burn someone alive to get his "king's blood" to save his army. They totally cut out the characters and plot lines that were used for that scene in the show but did not remove the stuff about the roasting people alive. They also foreshadowed the ever living fuck out of it.

Thus, they painted themselves into a corner and, as someone mentioned, it actually served a purpose in the narrative outside of sheer shock value.



Hmm no it didnt. In the books his family wasnt there, he only burned deserters and he basically marched forward with grim determination despite multiple set backs. Not once was kings blood brought up or him needing to do some other religious crazyness. Oh and you justified it grab some sandpaper.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 08, 2015, 09:29:31 AM
Probably will be some Arya scene also, where she either kills that Kingsguard knight and starts some trouble or is stopped by Jaqen who clearly knows she is up to something.

Ah, right, I knew I missed something.  I suspect she won't do the Kingsguard yet, but she's forming the plan. She'll finish her actual assignment, get her new face and then in the start of next season she'll do-in the Kingsguard.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 08, 2015, 09:32:09 AM
Episode was trash.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on June 08, 2015, 09:57:06 AM
But then by this point Mellsandra has realized that maybe Stannis isn't Ahzore Ahai, either.  (And neither she, the Queen, Shireen, nor Davos were with Stannis.)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 08, 2015, 10:29:57 AM
I couldn't watch the burning. Fuck that noise.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 08, 2015, 10:43:54 AM
Yah, this kills the show for my wife.  She was starting to lose interest anyhow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 08, 2015, 10:47:39 AM
I couldn't watch the burning. Fuck that noise.
You didn't have to. They showed precisely nothing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 08, 2015, 11:04:17 AM
But, having read the books, I knew that Stannis had to burn someone alive to get his "king's blood" to save his army. They totally cut out the characters and plot lines that were used for that scene in the show but did not remove the stuff about the roasting people alive. They also foreshadowed the ever living fuck out of it.
The roasting in the books wasn't who it was depicted as at the time.  No one of King's-blood roasted in the North in the books, and out on the road Stannis doesn't even have the option short of burning himself.  But then by this point Mellsandra has realized that maybe Stannis isn't Ahzore Ahai, either.  (And neither she, the Queen, Shireen, nor Davos were with Stannis.)

In the books, Mance's baby was the "king's blood" sacrifice. Though I guess that was for the sword instead of breaking the camp out of ice?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 08, 2015, 12:06:22 PM
Stannis has always kind of sucked.  He basically killed his younger brother with a shadow demon because Renly was more popular than he was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 08, 2015, 12:24:14 PM
But, having read the books, I knew that Stannis had to burn someone alive to get his "king's blood" to save his army. They totally cut out the characters and plot lines that were used for that scene in the show but did not remove the stuff about the roasting people alive. They also foreshadowed the ever living fuck out of it.
The roasting in the books wasn't who it was depicted as at the time.  No one of King's-blood roasted in the North in the books, and out on the road Stannis doesn't even have the option short of burning himself.  But then by this point Mellsandra has realized that maybe Stannis isn't Ahzore Ahai, either.  (And neither she, the Queen, Shireen, nor Davos were with Stannis.)

In the books, Mance's baby was the "king's blood" sacrifice. Though I guess that was for the sword instead of breaking the camp out of ice?

That was for the sword.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 08, 2015, 01:24:41 PM
And Mance's son was sent south with Gilly and Sam precisely so Stannis couldn't use him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 08, 2015, 01:39:18 PM
And Mance's son was sent south with Gilly and Sam precisely so Stannis couldn't use him.

Yeah, that is the storyline they totally cut out I mentioned.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tmon on June 08, 2015, 01:46:49 PM
Stannis has always kind of sucked.  He basically killed his younger brother with a shadow demon because Renly was more popular than he was.

Yeah, in many ways Stannis was among the least appealing contenders for the throne for me, although I found the TV version slightly more palatable up to this episode. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 08, 2015, 03:24:08 PM
Haven't read the books this far, but man will the Onion Knight be pissed in the TV version...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 08, 2015, 03:37:11 PM
The burning wasn't really surprising; it was heavily foreshadowed and the logical conclusion of Stannis's desperation. She even volunteered to help! I'm pretty curious to see what magical nonsense they conjured up with it.

Hopefully Dany just leaves Mereen without looking back; her 6 loyal followers can sneak out and meet her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 08, 2015, 03:41:28 PM
The look on Stannis' face tells me it wasn't good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 08, 2015, 04:07:03 PM
Haven't read the books this far, but man will the Onion Knight be pissed in the TV version...
Of course, if TV Onion Knight hadn't helped Robert's blacksmith bastard run away, they would have had another source for "king's blood" sacrifice. It's not a stretch to say that act of mercy led to Shireen getting toasted.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 08, 2015, 04:11:33 PM
Ramsay Bolton is a basically modern character, with a basically modern narrative and psychological background. Rape and sexual assault sometimes figure in classical and early modern European stories and myths but in a very different way than they play out in GoT.

Stannis is a 100% ripped from Greek and Shakespearean tragedy template, right down to the storybeats. Which is why I'm fairly sure he's in for a serious demythologizing at some point in the siege of Winterfell--his story is imminently going to end ingloriously, I strongly suspect. I do not think either Martin or the showrunners are going to accommodate him with a grandly tragic Act V.

In any event, these are really different kinds of mini-narratives composed from very different sources and influences.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 08, 2015, 05:05:30 PM
I'm guilty and I'm sure others are, of cheering Stannis on for four years now.  But Stannis is the same man he was in Season Two; a religious fanatic.  We watched him burn his friends at the stake and nail Mel and create a demon baby to kill his baby brother, but we went 'Naw he good. Look, he's a grammar nazi, he's funny!  Look, he shares a tender moment with his daughter, he's sympathetic!' He's not.  I thought he was putting up with the Lord of Light nonsense to further his aims but he really believes, he just doesn't run around like his wife yammering on about it.

He wouldn't have sacrificed his daughter if he wasn't.  He's a contender for the throne who uses blood magic and human sacrifice to get his way.

Fuck Stannis. 






Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 08, 2015, 05:25:55 PM
I'm still on Team Stannis, at least in the conflict with the Boltons. I never expected him to win in the end, although it would be a nice twist if Dany died and we were left with Stannis as the One True King.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 08, 2015, 05:42:18 PM
Stanislaus believes because of what he's seen. He doesn't have his heart in it. He thinks his destiny and duty is to sit the throne and he'll make deals with any devil to get there. I think he might end up aligned with the forces on the other side of the wall (one way or another).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2015, 06:25:46 PM
So Davos clearly knew what was going on, but Gendry is worth saving while Shireen isn't?

Also Stannis is stuck in the snow but Davos is not apparently?

I get what they were trying to do  but firstly didn't sell the peril Stannis was in, secondly didn't sell why Stannis would believe this might work. So the whole thing came across as just trying to shock viewers for the hell of it, only it wasn't shocking  because of the hamfisted foreshadowing.

Mereen was cool. Wall was cool. Braavos was ok. Dorne was fucking dreadful.

I guess next week we get the Mercy chapter from Winds of Winter, plus the pink letter or equivalent, and Cersei's walk, hopefully Dorne will be put out of its misery. Seems too soon to do the epilogue from Dance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on June 08, 2015, 06:26:33 PM
Stanislaus believes because of what he's seen. He doesn't have his heart in it. He thinks his destiny and duty is to sit the throne and he'll make deals with any devil to get there. I think he might end up aligned with the forces on the other side of the wall (one way or another).

He is dead meat.  Pretty sure the fire priestess is on ice team.  Intentionally or not, probably intentional.  Shadow babies, enjoys the cold, firesword with no heat (book)?  Doesn't like onion knight?  

Next book will be thousands dying in the north, hence fat boys trip to south.  Big army for Dany to fight.  Kicker is the fire priest Valarian encounters.  He is all about the heat.  Free ships  plus free priest!

The undead army will charge south building momentum.  Fat boy will return to Kings Landing, Little Finger will be King, Jaime will redeem himself.

Well maybe not Little Finger.  Not sure he is ready for Winter.  Love that guy.

Edit.  Long story short, north getting overran and Vale probably shutting it's gates.  Fuck the south.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2015, 07:30:48 PM
I'm guilty and I'm sure others are, of cheering Stannis on for four years now.  But Stannis is the same man he was in Season Two; a religious fanatic.  We watched him burn his friends at the stake and nail Mel and create a demon baby to kill his baby brother, but we went 'Naw he good. Look, he's a grammar nazi, he's funny!  Look, he shares a tender moment with his daughter, he's sympathetic!' He's not.  I thought he was putting up with the Lord of Light nonsense to further his aims but he really believes, he just doesn't run around like his wife yammering on about it.

He wouldn't have sacrificed his daughter if he wasn't.  He's a contender for the throne who uses blood magic and human sacrifice to get his way.

Fuck Stannis. 






He believes it because it's true, not because he's a religious fanatic.  If god came down from heaven and smote your enemies and told you "btw i really do hate gays" you'd be marching with the westboro baptists the next day.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on June 08, 2015, 08:01:15 PM
Episode was trash.

Didn't need much discussion beyond this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 08, 2015, 10:32:23 PM
So does Ser Friendzone getting hand-holdy with Danys mean she's gonna get the dragon skin lurgy?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 08, 2015, 10:46:59 PM
I'm guilty and I'm sure others are, of cheering Stannis on for four years now.  But Stannis is the same man he was in Season Two; a religious fanatic.  We watched him burn his friends at the stake and nail Mel and create a demon baby to kill his baby brother, but we went 'Naw he good. Look, he's a grammar nazi, he's funny!  Look, he shares a tender moment with his daughter, he's sympathetic!' He's not.  I thought he was putting up with the Lord of Light nonsense to further his aims but he really believes, he just doesn't run around like his wife yammering on about it.

He wouldn't have sacrificed his daughter if he wasn't.  He's a contender for the throne who uses blood magic and human sacrifice to get his way.

Fuck Stannis. 


He believes it because it's true, not because he's a religious fanatic.  If god came down from heaven and smote your enemies and told you "btw i really do hate gays" you'd be marching with the westboro baptists the next day.

Hilariously put.  And I agree.  Stannis isn't a fanatic, he has seen all the "proof" (note to self: they might just be tricks) around him of the reality of the God of Fire, and has resigned himself to his fate, at all costs.  He hates it, and he hates himself.  The one thing Melisandre's supposed God has over all the others in this world is that he is demonstrably real.  Or at least, the magic behind the illusion is real.  

Still, I expected Stannis to intervene at the last second.  This was the next tipping point for his quest, and I thought he would get cold feet and spell his own doom.  I guess it happens later, though I cannot imagine what will cause him to balk when burning his own daughter at the stake did not.  Maybe the simple fact that his men might turn against him for this will be enough.

Also, for all of you doing the hand wringing and lamenting the show over the fact that a 12 year-old girl was burned at the stake and somehow that just ruined everything for you, get the fuck over yourselves.  The fake outrage is nauseating.  It made narrative sense for one thing.  And I'll go out on a limb and say that no actual 12 year-olds were harmed during the filming of the show.  I hope Ramsay rapes a pile of dead babies offscreen next episode using Theon's lopped off cock.  IT IS ALL PRETEND PEOPLE.  Fucking christ.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 08, 2015, 10:54:33 PM
I don't think Ser Davros knew, I think Stannis sent him to the wall partly to get him out of the way for the Sacrifice. Nothing in his characterisation makes me believe he would be remotely ok with what happened. That will be the thing that drives them apart forever, and if Stannis survives this siege he will be short a Hand one way or the other.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2015, 11:36:26 PM
I don't think Ser Davros knew, I think Stannis sent him to the wall partly to get him out of the way for the Sacrifice. Nothing in his characterisation makes me believe he would be remotely ok with what happened. That will be the thing that drives them apart forever, and if Stannis survives this siege he will be short a Hand one way or the other.

This would be even worse, it would mean Davos is suddenly an idiot, and his long goodbye that confused Shireen made no sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 08, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
He's been worried about her from day one of her being dragged along for the war, so had a general sense of unease. He wanted to be around to make sure she was okay.  That's different than knowing specifically what was about to happen to her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2015, 11:55:38 PM
Stanislaus believes because of what he's seen. He doesn't have his heart in it. He thinks his destiny and duty is to sit the throne and he'll make deals with any devil to get there. I think he might end up aligned with the forces on the other side of the wall (one way or another).

He is dead meat.  Pretty sure the fire priestess is on ice team.  Intentionally or not, probably intentional.  Shadow babies, enjoys the cold, firesword with no heat (book)?  Doesn't like onion knight?  

My broad assumption is that fire and ice are the same team.

Even if only in the sense that both would kill everything and both are caused by the same thing.

The real other team we know little about is team citadel.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 09, 2015, 12:04:56 AM
The camp was set on fire the night before and Ser Davros had to make a perilious journey to the wall while Shireen was practically defenseless in a camp with unreliant sellswords, a mother that hated her, a at best disinterested father and a pyronymphomaniac religious fanatic.

Of course he was worried. Only an insane person wouldn't be worried in those circumstances.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 09, 2015, 12:08:51 AM
The upcoming battle for Winterfell is now definitely of the Douche v. Turd Sandwich variety.  Maybe deus ex Brienne will swoop in to have some good effect.  At some point there has to be SOME cathartic resolution to some of this shit, otherwise the whole enterprise is just an exercise of artistic sadomasochism.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 09, 2015, 01:05:16 AM
I assume the viewer is supposed to root for Sansa and Brienne in the battle of Winterfell, much like the reader cheers for Mance and Theon, or everyone roots for Tyrion and Davos when 2 douchebags go to war on the blackwater.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 09, 2015, 06:55:51 AM
Am I the only one that enjoyed the stuff in Dorne this week?  I like Oberyn a lot and I thought him putting his foot down was nicely done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 09, 2015, 06:58:16 AM
Am I the only one that enjoyed the stuff in Dorne this week?  I like Oberyn a lot and I thought him putting his foot down was nicely done.

Doran.  Yes.  He's the best at being a reasonable adult out of anyone in Westeros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 09, 2015, 06:59:35 AM
Whoops, got them backwards.  Thanks!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 09, 2015, 07:00:48 AM
Which means he won't be long for this world, one should never invest himself in rooting for reasonable adults in Westeros.

Also, Doran is countered by everything else in Dorne being tedious to watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 09, 2015, 07:20:49 AM
Am I the only one that enjoyed the stuff in Dorne this week?  I like Oberyn a lot and I thought him putting his foot down was nicely done.

Yes you are.

Under the circumstances Doran,  Ellaria, Jamie, and Bronn's acting has been solid throughout.

The problem is the story makes no sense and serves no purpose.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2015, 07:21:14 AM
The question is what is the point of Dorne getting so much screentime (and POV booktime)? Besides having a cunning and forward looking leader they don't seem to have anything game changing: No heroes, army is significant but not portrayed as particularly powerful, nor are they said to be greatly wealthy, and they don't have a large fleet sitting around. If I had to guess, the one thing they could pull off would be invading and wrecking their neighbours the soft as butter Tyrells whom they apparently dislike, which I guess would be a somewhat significant event.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 09, 2015, 07:23:52 AM
No heroes?  You're forgetting The Most Beautiful Woman in the World, and her Hypno-Boobs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 09, 2015, 07:29:52 AM
Unless Doran has either a fake or real Aegon stuffed up his fundament.

In which case Dorne is suddenly relevant even if it appears to have been scripted by a 14 year old.

The reason he is there in the book if to give Aegon an ally. At a minimum I guess next week Doran will reveal how he secretly hearts Dany.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 09, 2015, 07:35:25 AM
No heroes?  You're forgetting The Most Beautiful Woman in the World, and her Hypno-Boobs.

I'm not convinced her boobs were all that heroic.  I think I will go back and watch scene forty times to be sure.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 09, 2015, 07:41:27 AM
I think they're trying to show Dorne playing a long game.  Didn't Doran say he believed in 'third chances' as a hint to Ellaria?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: disKret on June 09, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
I think they're trying to show Dorne playing a long game.  Didn't Doran say he believed in 'third chances' as a hint to Ellaria?

I belive he said he don't belive in third Chance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 09, 2015, 07:50:32 AM
Dorne doesn't make any sense in the books, either. I think it's Martin just trying to hide the real plot under a shell, sending out narrative chaff, so that he can still pull a surprise! here and there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 09, 2015, 08:05:49 AM
Dorne doesn't make any sense in the books, either. I think it's Martin just trying to hide the real plot under a shell, sending out narrative chaff, so that he can still pull a surprise! here and there.


Or he has no fucking clue where he is going with the story and just throws shit out there because he can.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2015, 08:15:08 AM
Yeah but the showrunners have cleaned up a lot of his dead-end meanderings. There must be something to Dorne if it's made the cut.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 09, 2015, 08:43:53 AM
I expect Dorne will be a big player once Dany crosses. Also, Myrcella isn't destined to die offscreen so I think they wanted to introduce her relationship more before killing her, probably shortly after she gets back to KL. (Remember what the witch told Cersi.)

I think they're trying to show Dorne playing a long game.  Didn't Doran say he believed in 'third chances' as a hint to Ellaria?

I belive he said he don't belive in third Chance.

Yes, that's what he said.  That whole segment was probably important for reasons we don't know yet. In the book there was some mention of holding Myrcella up as a candidate for the throne under Dornish law but here? No clue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 09, 2015, 08:47:28 AM
Myrcella has to rule before she can die. Gold their crowns, gold their shrouds, remember?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 09, 2015, 08:59:17 AM
I expect Dorne will be a big player once Dany crosses. Also, Myrcella isn't destined to die offscreen so I think they wanted to introduce her relationship more before killing her, probably shortly after she gets back to KL. (Remember what the witch told Cersi.)

I think they're trying to show Dorne playing a long game.  Didn't Doran say he believed in 'third chances' as a hint to Ellaria?

I belive he said he don't belive in third Chance.

Yes, that's what he said.  That whole segment was probably important for reasons we don't know yet. In the book there was some mention of holding Myrcella up as a candidate for the throne under Dornish law but here? No clue.


At this point I expect the only reason the dorne stuff has stayed in is they are going to be one of danny's westeros allies. As tyrion said she will need at least some friends in westeros to do what she needs to do and dorne is likely where that starts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 09, 2015, 09:19:06 AM
It seemed like a logical conclusion (for a fictional story) of Stannis' gradual fall as he has now sacrificed everything for his quest to become the king. While there might be a "redeeming self-sacrifice" in store for him at the end of his story I wouldn't put it past Martin that he just ends up broken (and dead) without achieving anything to be his legacy.

Let us not forget that Stannis killed his own fucking brother with magic rather than fight a protracted siege. Dude and his daughter wer doomed from the get-go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 09, 2015, 09:22:56 AM
It seemed like a logical conclusion (for a fictional story) of Stannis' gradual fall as he has now sacrificed everything for his quest to become the king. While there might be a "redeeming self-sacrifice" in store for him at the end of his story I wouldn't put it past Martin that he just ends up broken (and dead) without achieving anything to be his legacy.

Let us not forget that Stannis killed his own fucking brother with magic rather than fight a protracted siege. Dude and his daughter wer doomed from the get-go.

And wasn't he burning his father in law on his very first appearance? He did kill Renly with magic because Renly had an army about ten times bigger than his though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 09, 2015, 09:33:04 AM
I'm not sure who all he was burning the first time we saw Stannis, but he clearly was never meant to be a sympathetic character.

As for the Dorne stuff, the TV version has made a fuckload less sense than the book version but I can see why they compressed it. They'd have had to introduce at least 3 or 4 other "major" characters who end up being redshirts anyway. At least in the books, we see that Doran has sent a Dornish prince to marry Dany and cement an alliance between Dorne and the new Targareyn dynasty - without that, I'm still not entirely sure why Dorne is there at all.

I do appreciate HynoBoobs though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 09, 2015, 10:20:01 AM
Myrcella has to rule before she can die. Gold their crowns, gold their shrouds, remember?

I took that to be she'd be a princess, not necessarily Queen, but good point I'd forgotten the crowns part.

I do appreciate HynoBoobs though.

Rosabell Laurenti Sellers, she's 19.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 09, 2015, 12:44:22 PM
Why is Dorne important? Jesus, "winter is coming" and Dorne is the furthest south in Westeros. It's going to be warmest, and when the army of cold and death breaks out and comes down from the North to kill everybody, the remnants are going to wind up there whether they want to or not.

Whatever the final crisis of the story is, it's going to start in Dorne.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 09, 2015, 01:06:01 PM
Myrcella has to rule before she can die. Gold their crowns, gold their shrouds, remember?

I took that to be she'd be a princess, not necessarily Queen, but good point I'd forgotten the crowns part.

Myrcella could become queen simply by Tommen dying before her, or she could marry Trystane and pick up a Dornish crown, or Tyrion could carry out his threat to crown her in a mirror of the Dance of Dragons.

The way she is situated she'd have to work pretty hard to avoid being crowned by someone.

Why is Dorne important? Jesus, "winter is coming" and Dorne is the furthest south in Westeros. It's going to be warmest, and when the army of cold and death breaks out and comes down from the North to kill everybody, the remnants are going to wind up there whether they want to or not.

Whatever the final crisis of the story is, it's going to start in Dorne.

--Dave

Doesn't have to be.

And if it is, that doesn't avoid the requirement to have an actual plot in the meantime.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: disKret on June 12, 2015, 03:20:47 AM
Last episode leaked?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 12, 2015, 05:39:19 AM
Last episode leaked?

Just screenshots from what I can find. Someone on /TV is getting review copies about a week before broadcast and spends half a week posting screencaps without spoilers to taunt people and be a dick.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 14, 2015, 06:35:47 PM
They're dropping like flies!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 14, 2015, 07:09:31 PM
How you gonna cut away from Stannis like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 14, 2015, 07:17:22 PM
Wife is soooo pissed. I laughed for knowing what was coming. Nice misdirect about Benjen in the pre show recap.

I was surprised about Stannis though. Didn't expect it to resolve like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 14, 2015, 07:26:32 PM
This was a good season-ender, even if I didn't like the outcomes of a couple of storylines.
 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 14, 2015, 07:45:01 PM
Not a bad ending for the season overall. Now we get to wait a year to see how things go in new territory (unless fat-ass finishes the book before then).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 14, 2015, 07:57:36 PM
Well, couple of surprises there. Did not expect that many deaths in one episode.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 14, 2015, 08:02:58 PM
That looked like a whole lot of CGI to me, the face did not match the body.  And from behind it was obviously a body double.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 14, 2015, 08:11:58 PM
Yeah the whole thing was a body double that's been known since October when the scene was filmed.

Not a bad ending for the season overall. Now we get to wait a year to see how things go in new territory (unless fat-ass finishes the book before then).

There's been several reports that he's "writing as fast as he can" to get it done because he wants to beat season 6. I don't see it happening, since the final-edit-to-release cycle is about 9 months from what we've seen with other highly-anticipated books.  Only way he's beating the next season is if he's going digital.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on June 14, 2015, 09:10:34 PM
Yeah the whole thing was a body double that's been known since October when the scene was filmed.

Not a bad ending for the season overall. Now we get to wait a year to see how things go in new territory (unless fat-ass finishes the book before then).

There's been several reports that he's "writing as fast as he can" to get it done because he wants to beat season 6. I don't see it happening, since the final-edit-to-release cycle is about 9 months from what we've seen with other highly-anticipated books.  Only way he's beating the next season is if he's going digital.

Why would going digital matter?  The 9 month cycle is for editing and marketing.  The publisher is going to market the shit out of it for months (including getting ARCs out and getting the hype going) to maximize sales.  Even if GRRM doesn't beat the TV series, they are going to hype up how different it is or whatever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 14, 2015, 10:54:27 PM
Frakenmountain!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 15, 2015, 03:55:11 AM
I would kill to see a Frankenmountain vs The Gravedigger fight.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 15, 2015, 04:29:58 AM
Nope, I personally disliked how they handled a couple storylines this season and how others were adapted for TV (while I really enjoyed how they handled the whole show in the previous years). Books are still much better (minus some long-winded and sparse details), so this is it for me regarding the TV show. See ya in the late 2020-something: maybe by that time the last book will be published so that I can catch up with the show  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 15, 2015, 06:42:04 AM
Yeah the whole thing was a body double that's been known since October when the scene was filmed.

Not a bad ending for the season overall. Now we get to wait a year to see how things go in new territory (unless fat-ass finishes the book before then).

There's been several reports that he's "writing as fast as he can" to get it done because he wants to beat season 6. I don't see it happening, since the final-edit-to-release cycle is about 9 months from what we've seen with other highly-anticipated books.  Only way he's beating the next season is if he's going digital.

Why would going digital matter?  The 9 month cycle is for editing and marketing.  The publisher is going to market the shit out of it for months (including getting ARCs out and getting the hype going) to maximize sales.  Even if GRRM doesn't beat the TV series, they are going to hype up how different it is or whatever.


Not all of that delay is due to marketing. Martin's books have had problems with printing and binding due to the size and the very limited number of printers that can handle it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 15, 2015, 07:23:18 AM
If Martin finishes the book by November is it'll be on the stands by the next episode. The publishers would likely be very incentivized to get books out before the show spoils them to a larger extent. However, at the rate GRRM writes and with his view on spoilers, I don't really expect to see it happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 15, 2015, 08:04:26 AM
If he doesn't get the book finished by next spring, season 6 will be the most interesting in GoT history because absolutely no one will know where the fuck it's going. That will be very interesting.

Also:  This is pretty good  (https://twitter.com/ChetLemond/status/610298262554345472)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 15, 2015, 10:19:08 AM
So many underwhelming things in this episode; they tried to cram far too much in and half-arsed everything, apart from Cersei's walk, which seemd to go on forever.

Grumbly thoughts below the spoiler:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 15, 2015, 10:39:34 AM
Stannis put all his eggs in the Red Woman's basket.  When she abandoned him, he was left with nothing, not even his faith in himself.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 15, 2015, 10:52:01 AM
So many underwhelming things in this episode; they tried to cram far too much in and half-arsed everything, apart from Cersei's walk, which seemd to go on forever.

Grumbly thoughts below the spoiler:




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 15, 2015, 10:52:42 AM

Also, I just realized that was Indira Varma. Man does she look different than the last time I saw her. It's almost as big a difference as Sibel Kekilli.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 15, 2015, 11:06:00 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 15, 2015, 11:41:31 AM
For some reason I'm actually looking forward to this episode rather than simply unable to look away from the unfolding disaster.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on June 15, 2015, 12:27:13 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 15, 2015, 12:32:42 PM
We see so little of that Direwolf I actually forgot it existed until the Sam scene.

PS why are we spoiling stuff?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 15, 2015, 12:41:50 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 15, 2015, 01:23:32 PM
Surprised the boat wasn't named Live 4 Ever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 15, 2015, 02:29:02 PM
I think the people that died off camera are dead.  Hound died off camera and it would be kind of a cheap stunt to have them spring up or just barely hang on.

That ship had better turn around.  Jamie knows Dr. Bashir would dispense frontier justice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 15, 2015, 03:05:15 PM
That was my thought as well, but it was pointed out to me that if the ship turns around and lands in Dorne again, there's no guarantee they'll get to leave with Tristane.  The strategically sound choice might be to get Tristane safely installed in King's Landing as a hostage and send a message to Dorne requesting Ellaria's head in a box.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 15, 2015, 03:42:11 PM
Jamie, a father, should turn that ship around unless his daughter stops breathing - unless there is antidote on board.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 15, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
Just finished watching, immeadiate reaction : meh.

Stannis : ok actually, I'm espeicially glad that his kinslaying meant he paid the price for his prior kinslaying.

Mereen : are we supposed to be excited by a rerun of CoK Tyrion? I'm guessing we won't actually get that, but seriously, that is the promise you want to make to viewers? I mean, I have season 2 on DVD, I can watch that already.

Arya : End of this was pretty great, I assumed they were skipping the whole bit they introduced.

Dorne : Jesus fucking christ, is that it? What was the fucking point?

Kings Landing : Shot well, acted well, but totally absent of impact because they haven't sold me on the state of KL. I think the walk was exactly the right length, the problem as a book reader is that you watched precious minutes bleeding away, which left us with....

Jon : Really? Going to have that happen just "because"? Was the exchange with Davos and the shot of Jon reading letters just to hint that you know it would be possible to write a better script but give zero fucks at this point?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 15, 2015, 04:20:39 PM
Loads of cliffhangers and it did the job of making me certain to watch the next season when it comes, but it kind if felt like the season was only half finished. Obviously the earlier ones ended of cliffhangers too, but they felt more satisfying somehow. (It's still a great show, it just has high expectations to meet)

It was a bit disappointing that the blood magic seemed to simply not work in this case. Obviously Stannis had to come to a sticky end because of what he did but there was no twist to the tale like there was when magic didn't work out for Dany. It simply ... didn't do anything.

I enjoyed the ending. I don't know if anyone else saw it coming but it was a shock to me and also made sense based on what had happened previously, so that's great.

I hope Arya makes it to the very end as I need at least one person I can cheer for (not such a Dany fan).

Regarding food in Winterfell - I always figured their talk about how terrible winters are was some sort of folk memory of zombies heading south, even though none of them seemed to believe in zombies. I guess it probably gets very cold too though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 15, 2015, 04:24:28 PM
I think the people that died off camera are dead.  Hound died off camera and it would be kind of a cheap stunt to have them spring up or just barely hang on.
Uh...

um....

You're going to be so disappointed.

It was a bit disappointing that the blood magic seemed to simply not work in this case. Obviously Stannis had to come to a sticky end because of what he did but there was no twist to the tale like there was when magic didn't work out for Dany. It simply ... didn't do anything.
Melisandre said she saw banners burning.  She didn't say she saw Stannis doing the burning.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 15, 2015, 04:49:05 PM
It was a devils bargain, the magic did exactly what it was asked: the snows stopped and the army was able to march.  Of course he still got fucked in the end though, that's how the whole devil's bargain plot works.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 15, 2015, 05:02:30 PM
Kinslaying and oathbreaking are the two ways you are guaranteed to end up dead in ASOIAF.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on June 15, 2015, 05:25:16 PM
What an awful and disjointed episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 15, 2015, 05:25:43 PM
Surprised the boat wasn't named Live 4 Ever.

Not related, but you really need to photoshop a 3/4 side shot of Nick Offerman overtop the part of your avatar's face that's not behind a mask. You've had Nick Offerman since before my son was born and you shan't be changing it now sir.

What an awful and disjointed episode.
It will suck to no end if a show that was great in part due to violence and nudity has decided to cut away from the violence and the actors that have already been nude a bunch decide they're too serious for nudity. It's de be like the Spartacus show deciding no more gladiator stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2015, 12:30:20 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think Jon's death is the worst thing about this season. (Dorne can at least be put in a box and forgotten about)

Significant deaths in ASOIAF don't just happen randomly. They happen as a consequence of a character's actions.

Jon's book death flows from oathbreaking, on TV after he is presumably resurrected this will just seem like a pointless cliffhanger and transparent plot device to free him from his Night's Watch vows.

That it reverses Owen Teale's character development and was based around a cheap Benjen stunt just serves to remind us how shitty the writing has been all season. On the other hand, every actor on the wall deserves credit for being watchable in this dreck. Seems half the scenes in GoT I find myself thinking how well the cast delivered such a mediocre script.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2015, 12:40:54 AM
Unless Kit Harington's protestations that he isn't coming back despite a contract extension after season 5 finished filming are true.

In which case it is not just a cheap plot device, it becomes a cheap and arbitrary plot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 16, 2015, 03:34:55 AM
As a non-reader of the books, the long walk of shame was actually a very good demonstration of the hatred felt by the bulk of the population towards people like the Lannisters.

It did help explain somewhat the apparent power of the Sparrows. It's seemed really strange all of this season that they can imprison who they want, apparently with impunity. When you start to understand that they have huge popular support it makes more sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 16, 2015, 03:56:08 AM
It's the Reformation, really--when the cities of Europe began to really assert their economic and political muscle over rural fiefdoms (nobles and peasants alike) plus when popular and very violent religious movements suddenly gained serious power, especially in the cities. Reading about religious movements and leaders in 16th and early 17th Century Europe can be almost hilarious in a way--the typical biography has "and then he was forced to flee [a city] because violent crowds were attacking and killing his followers" about every three or four years. Followed by "And then he was invited by the burghers of [another city] to come and cleanse their city of heretics."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 16, 2015, 09:32:09 AM
Unless Kit Harington's protestations that he isn't coming back despite a contract extension after season 5 finished filming are true.

In which case it is not just a cheap plot device, it becomes a cheap and arbitrary plot.

I don't know if i should spoiler this, so I did anyway


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2015, 10:21:20 AM
Unless Kit Harington's protestations that he isn't coming back despite a contract extension after season 5 finished filming are true.

In which case it is not just a cheap plot device, it becomes a cheap and arbitrary plot.

I don't know if i should spoiler this, so I did anyway

If a non reading viewer simply views GoT as an hour of plot driven adventure TV this is fair. If my expectations of GoT were the same as my expectations of 24, I expect I'd just roll my eyes and laugh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on June 16, 2015, 07:28:12 PM
This thread is ridiculous. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 17, 2015, 10:52:22 AM

It was a bit disappointing that the blood magic seemed to simply not work in this case. Obviously Stannis had to come to a sticky end because of what he did but there was no twist to the tale like there was when magic didn't work out for Dany. It simply ... didn't do anything.


On this:

It makes sense to me. The blood magic requires King's blood and it only partly worked because Stannis isn't the rightful king. When you watch the scene where Stannis is told people deserted him and his wife killed herself a look comes across Melisandre's face. I interpreted it as a light (harhar) dawning on her that Stannis wasn't the right person for her needs and probably never was. It's very, very telling that she immediately rode to Castle Black as I believe, like has been said in lots of places, that she thinks Jon IS that person. My hope is he'll be a grave disappointment to her if/when she does what we all expect and says "by the way, I don't burn people at the stake or murder my kin simply to win a battle."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 17, 2015, 12:26:16 PM
The snow did melt.

Whether that was a result of the burning, who knows.

 I'd add that Selyse dying, the desertions, and Brienne finding Stannis were also clearly a result of the burning,  and that fits the general theme of ASOIAF that you face all the consequences of all your actions, the good doesn't wash out the bad, nor vice versa.

The overall story of the stannis arc was fine, even if the execution let it down in that they didn't really do a good enough job in Stannis' decision. I don't think it was supposed to be 'crazy zealot stannis' so much as 'uttlerly desperate and see no other option to save the realm stannis'. Obviously his problem is that he conflates saving the realm with saving his claim.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slyfeind on June 17, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
I'm curious. How did the book describe Stannis's encounter with Brienne? Did he explicitly die?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 17, 2015, 12:55:57 PM
No such encounter happened. In the books Stannis is still snowbound and Reek/Theon shows up with Aya/Jeynne. The last chapter we see Stannis in his camp is being attacked by Boltons' men.  Brienne is nowhere near the North for the books.

A Dance with Dragons Book Summary for Stannis


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 17, 2015, 01:28:19 PM
Though in the books Brienne was just as explicit in promising vengeance when she entered Catelyn's service.

So the plan when CoK was written was almost certainly for her to meet him one day.

In the books Stannis was responsible for Renly's death by omission rather than action - so I've always wondered if her eventual encounter woth stannis would be the time they both learned that unbending 'iron' vows are generally unhealthy. But given events in the riverlands,  the books may be doing that a different way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2015, 03:23:28 AM
The offscreen nature of Stannis death, though, is a deliberate troll from the producers to leave us with doubt about his actual death.  Just like with Melisandre, she with the power to resurrect people, showing up in Castle Black is supposed to leave us wondering about Jon Snow.  It is not like they have shown any reluctance in displaying the brutal killings of characters way more likeable than Stannis.  I am not sure of the point of leaving Stannis alive at this point, however, which makes me wonder just wtf they are up to.  He finally bet the house, and he lost.

Also, Zombie Clegane is a clear message that we shouldn't assume that dead people stay dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on June 18, 2015, 05:06:02 AM
Due to the Benjen thing, no, the producers cannot be trusted in any way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 18, 2015, 05:12:25 AM
Stannis is dead, why in the world would she keep him alive?  She got Renly's vengeance, said a big speech and everything.  The jump cut wasn't to spare Stannis, it was to shock us into thinking Ramsey struck her from behind.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 18, 2015, 06:25:30 AM
The manner of Stannis' execution isn't just a troll and the bad type of cliffhanger (failing to resolve this episode's question rather than setting up the question to be asked next week), it also robs Brienne's story of any impact.

Great blog about writing satisfactory cliffhangers that describes why this was all felt so unsatisfactory much better than I can..

http://johnfinnemore.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/yverdon-les-bains.html?m=1

Particular passage:
Quote

You can't use a cliff-hanger instead of an ending. Some shows do, but I think it's cheating. Any episode that ends with a cliffhanger must also have a satisfying conclusion in itself. Ideally, the main question of the episode should be answered - but the answer should then throw up an unexpected larger question, which provides the cliff-hanger.

The cliffhanger has to be an emotional one, or at least a direct dilemma for a central character or characters, not a physical or external one. The question left unanswered must always be 'What will he or she do now?' not 'What will happen to him or her now?' To take an example completely at random, a bad cliff-hanger would be 'The hero's been forced to jump off a roof! Will he survive?', but a good cliff-hanger is 'He DID survive! But how? And why's he hiding from his friend?'

A cliff-hanger is a promise to the audience. It's implicitly saying 'I'm withholding the gratification of giving you the answer now, but trust me, when you get it, you'll think it was worth the wait.' And if you're going to make a promise like that, you'd better be able to back it up, or at least think you can.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 18, 2015, 06:27:42 AM
Stannis is dead, why in the world would she keep him alive?  She got Renly's vengeance, said a big speech and everything.  The jump cut wasn't to spare Stannis, it was to shock us into thinking Ramsey struck her from behind.
Because of what he said. "Do your duty" means protecting the Stark kids, not personal revenge. The look on her face and the deliberate cut away has to mean something. Keep in mind Sansa is out there and knows Bran and Rickon are alive, if Stannis is alive it keeps the "find the Stark heir and the north will support you" plot in play. I'm guessing book Stannis is going to lose the battle but live, which puts the book and show at basically the same spot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2015, 08:22:12 AM
Stannis is dead, why in the world would she keep him alive?  She got Renly's vengeance, said a big speech and everything.  The jump cut wasn't to spare Stannis, it was to shock us into thinking Ramsey struck her from behind.
Because of what he said. "Do your duty" means protecting the Stark kids, not personal revenge. The look on her face and the deliberate cut away has to mean something. Keep in mind Sansa is out there and knows Bran and Rickon are alive, if Stannis is alive it keeps the "find the Stark heir and the north will support you" plot in play. I'm guessing book Stannis is going to lose the battle but live, which puts the book and show at basically the same spot.

More or less my exact thinking as well.  When he said "Do your duty" my immediate next thought was "to the Stark girls".  And I fully expected her not to kill Stannis, and the cutaway more or less convinced me.  If they wanted Stannis dead, they would have done a slo-mo shot of Brienne's blade cleaving his skull in the goriest fashion possible.  Main characters tend to get killed rather gruesomely on screen in this series.  The main exception I can think of is the Hound...but part of me has always been thinking that Thoros of Myr could easily be close by, and we already know he can resurrect people (and haha, it would be the lord of fire bringing him back and wouldn't that just be irony).  And I realize this one is a bit out there, but Jaqen told Arya "you lie" when she said she let him die and she hated him.  Maybe it was two lies in one statement.  I actually don't really believe this one, because even though the Hound "died" offscreen, it was still very dramatic.  Or maybe there will be a Zombie Clegane Brothers Showdown Spectaculario, which I would also support. 

I will also not be surprised if Stannis actually is dead and that the writers are just pulling the old triple reverse fake on us.  Same for Jon Snow, although Jon Snow in a wolf's body might also be on the cards.

I'll stop rambling now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 18, 2015, 08:31:33 AM
Zombie Clegane Brothers Showdown Spectaculario

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40386/Smileys/awesome-johnk.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 18, 2015, 09:07:57 AM
The main exception I can think of is the Hound...but part of me has always been thinking that Thoros of Myr could easily be close by, and we already know he can resurrect people (and haha, it would be the lord of fire bringing him back and wouldn't that just be irony).  And I realize this one is a bit out there, but Jaqen told Arya "you lie" when she said she let him die and she hated him.  Maybe it was two lies in one statement.  I actually don't really believe this one, because even though the Hound "died" offscreen, it was still very dramatic.  Or maybe there will be a Zombie Clegane Brothers Showdown Spectaculario, which I would also support.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 18, 2015, 11:01:59 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on June 18, 2015, 11:52:19 AM
Also Trunks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 18, 2015, 12:48:46 PM
And Krillen.

Goddamnit, Krillen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 18, 2015, 04:49:52 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 18, 2015, 04:55:57 PM

How is that a spoiler?  Someone has to have read the book to know what you're talking about, and if they've read the book then they've already had Zombie Catelyn spoiled for them (if she ever shows up in the show, which I don't think she will at this point).

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on June 18, 2015, 05:39:11 PM
What if the fire and ice God is one and the same? 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Yegolev on June 18, 2015, 06:17:55 PM
My wife says that is horseshit.  I sort of agree.  However, I made it to the end of Battlestar Galactica and I can make it to the end of this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 18, 2015, 07:51:01 PM
Oh God. Please don't let them fuck this up like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 19, 2015, 04:16:54 AM
What if the fire and ice God is one and the same? 

I've always assumed this is the case. Or that there are no actual gods in ASOIAF, just a single tide of magic/power that people/creatures seek to control/use/grow/suppress.

And I interpreted the house of Black and White, house of undying, Varys's origin speech, Existence of a wall made of ice to stop the forces of ice, the seven, Davos's hand and quaithe as fairly clearly hinting at this, then the citadel chapters pretty well confirm it.

The series is riddled with concepts of duality, for there to be an ice god and fire god staring each other down across the heavens makes no thematic sense. Or I am dumb. Which is certainly possible.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 19, 2015, 04:53:29 AM
My assumption is that all the gods in game of thrones exist as psychic constructs that may or may not manifest into the physical world. At some point of prehistory the world was very magical, than shit and stuff happened and the world became less magical which in turn made people not believe in magic/gods, which in turn made the world less magical.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bungee on June 19, 2015, 05:54:37 AM
My assumption is that all the gods in game of thrones exist as psychic constructs that may or may not manifest into the physical world. At some point of prehistory the world was very magical, than shit and stuff happened and the world became less magical which in turn made people not believe in magic/gods, which in turn made the world less magical.


Hence why the pyromancers had such and easy time producing wildfire from when the dragons hatched onwards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tannhauser on June 19, 2015, 06:02:29 AM
My assumption is that all the gods in game of thrones exist as psychic constructs that may or may not manifest into the physical world. At some point of prehistory the world was very magical, than shit and stuff happened and the world became less magical which in turn made people not believe in magic/gods, which in turn made the world less magical.


At first I shook my head sadly at your post, then I nodded in agreement.  I like this idea.

What if magic stirs when the red comet appears and dwindles down when the comet moves away?  It puts out magical 'radiation' some have learned how to utilize it in different forms.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 19, 2015, 06:15:09 AM
Dragons back? Red star? I've heard this story before...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 19, 2015, 06:24:01 AM

 Same for Jon Snow, although Jon Snow in a wolf's body might also be on the cards.


Regardless of it possibly happening in the books I don't think it'll happen in the TV show for two reasons:

1) The TV show hasn't shown any Warg powers for Jon at all

2) Budget. I've heard rumblings they rarely show the Direwolves because it is expensive. If they put Jon into Ghost's body they'll need to show Ghost more often.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM
I still doubt there is any grand plan. I think Martin thought up just enough of a backstory on the world to frame his cast of houses for his rebelling of the War of the Roses and then just ran with it.

But I am a cynic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 19, 2015, 06:51:20 AM

 Same for Jon Snow, although Jon Snow in a wolf's body might also be on the cards.


Regardless of it possibly happening in the books I don't think it'll happen in the TV show for two reasons:

1) The TV show hasn't shown any Warg powers for Jon at all

2) Budget. I've heard rumblings they rarely show the Direwolves because it is expensive. If they put Jon into Ghost's body they'll need to show Ghost more often.

And 3 because it would mean recasting the actor, which is really the main reason it won't happen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 19, 2015, 07:07:40 AM
I still doubt there is any grand plan. I think Martin thought up just enough of a backstory on the world to frame his cast of houses for his rebelling of the War of the Roses and then just ran with it.

But I am a cynic.

I don't think you're not totally wrong. There's a story somewhere around that another author read an early draft of Game and said something like, "George, you're writing fantasy. At some point you've got to include magic."

Martin himself has said he wasn't sure he wanted to include it, and tries to keep it minimal. Initially thinking of leaving out dragons entierly.
http://teamcoco.com/video/george-r-r-martin-wasn-t-sure-he-wanted-dragons-in-game-of-thrones

These do not sound like grand world plans where this is integral. It sounds more like "This might be cool/ useful to my political plot, so let's throw it in."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 19, 2015, 09:11:07 AM
Do 15 seconds of internet research and you'll find the original outline for GoT as a novel series (his early 90s plans when he'd written the first 13 chapters of GoT), including who was supposed to live, who was supposed to die, and almost everything about the original plan. 

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/game-of-thrones-outline (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/game-of-thrones-outline)

The core is still beating true, but there are some big changes.  He isn't winging it - although he continues to refine the plan as he writes and realizes certain things he planned are just not working on the page the way he envisioned.  If you gave a 30 second summary of the entire story as planned and the story we'll see in the tv / books, I think they'd be about the same.  If you expanded it to a minute and had a chance to talk about some of the 2nd tier characters as opposed to the core characters, you'd start to hear different summaries.

The TV folks were provided with a summary of the major plot points, including the ending Martin had planned in the novels for each main character, back in 2013.  They're making changes, but they are keeping the heart true.

Book 1 was intended to cover what took place in roughly books 1 to 3.  Most of the action in books 4 and 5 were intended to take place between books 1 and 2.  Basically, books 6 and 7 are intended to be what we'd have seen in books 2 and 3. 




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 19, 2015, 09:15:37 AM
Would be pretty weird to write all those dream sequences and prophecies in the first two books without deciding what they mean.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 19, 2015, 09:47:20 AM
Stannis is dead. I can't see why anyone would think otherwise. Whether he returns as Zombie Stannis next season is up for debate. He told Brienne "Do your duty" because the only duty he knew that she had was to protect/avenge her king, the brother he killed. She did not spare him his just punishment.

This season was a letdown because the books it's based on were HUGE letdowns. Books 4 and 5 had a shitton of new characters introduced that weren't included in the show at all (and thus current characters had to take their place), and they both had a shitton of story threads, and despite the two books being over 2000 pages combined, I'm not sure you could say there was one good or complete story resolution in ANY of those threads. Most of them just ended and not even on a cliffhanger - it felt like they ended in mid-fucking-sentence. Which is pretty much the way the show felt all season long. The Dorne plot felt pointless because we don't have any idea what the point of it was, even in the books, because it didn't resolve. The same goes for Cersei's dalliance with religious zealotry, or the conflict in Mereen, or Jon's efforts at the wall. The Stannis quest for the the throne was really the only good resolution we had. Everything else was just left dangling.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 19, 2015, 10:09:20 AM
Much more true for the show than the books.

In the books Doran did manage to unite the Dornish contingent. Sam's journey has an adequate ending, KL is a much more complete view of the city falling to chaos (and a logical end point).

Plus there are a number of smaller stories like the kingsmoot, siege of Riverrun, aegon's journey, victaron's journey, Quentyn, Davos quest, Manderly's revenge, secret agent Mance. Basically everything that got dropped for more Hypnoboobs and more Ramsey.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 19, 2015, 01:22:51 PM
Stannis is dead. I can't see why anyone would think otherwise. Whether he returns as Zombie Stannis next season is up for debate. He told Brienne "Do your duty" because the only duty he knew that she had was to protect/avenge her king, the brother he killed. She did not spare him his just punishment.
That's what Stannis said because he won't fault someone for doing their duty (and he's a broken man now).  Whether Brianne did or not is left for us to ponder.  Enlisting him to save Sansa would not be out of character no matter how much she hates him.

I don't expect they'll all make an appearance, but I would not be surprised by not-killed Stannis, zombie-Jon, zombie-Caitlyn, not-dead Sandor, or several others showing up next season.  The question is, do we have one or two more seasons left in the show?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 19, 2015, 01:33:31 PM
Much more true for the show than the books.

In the books Doran did manage to unite the Dornish contingent. Sam's journey has an adequate ending, KL is a much more complete view of the city falling to chaos (and a logical end point).

Plus there are a number of smaller stories like the kingsmoot, siege of Riverrun, aegon's journey, victaron's journey, Quentyn, Davos quest, Manderly's revenge, secret agent Mance. Basically everything that got dropped for more Hypnoboobs and more Ramsey.

To be honest, most of that shit? I'm glad they dropped it (though some may show up next season.) I lay most of the sucky parts of this season at the feet of Martin as books 4 and 5 were a slog I barely got through and the show had to adapt them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 19, 2015, 01:36:51 PM
Stannis is dead. I can't see why anyone would think otherwise. Whether he returns as Zombie Stannis next season is up for debate. He told Brienne "Do your duty" because the only duty he knew that she had was to protect/avenge her king, the brother he killed. She did not spare him his just punishment.
That's what Stannis said because he won't fault someone for doing their duty (and he's a broken man now).  Whether Brianne did or not is left for us to ponder.  Enlisting him to save Sansa would not be out of character no matter how much she hates him.

It would be pretty stupid for Brienne to lose Sansa in pursuit of Stannis, only to recruit Stannis to help her find Sansa again, before she even knows that Sansa's slipped away.

So yeah, not out of character.   :awesome_for_real:  I like Brienne, she's good at killing people, but she's never come across as a master strategist.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 19, 2015, 01:45:38 PM
For Brienne NOT to kill Stannis, she would have to forsake her vow to avenge the death not only of her king, but of the man she fell in love with. For her to let him live would be so totally out of character for her as to make her entire arc laughably stupid. If there's one thing she has been consistent with the entire arc is that she keeps her vows to a fault, even if it means her death.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 19, 2015, 02:03:48 PM
I don't expect they'll all make an appearance, but I would not be surprised by not-killed Stannis, zombie-Jon, zombie-Caitlyn, not-dead Sandor, or several others showing up next season.  The question is, do we have one or two more seasons left in the show?

I said the same thing to my wife and sister.  I expect next season to be full of zombies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 19, 2015, 02:13:26 PM
For Brienne NOT to kill Stannis, she would have to forsake her vow to avenge the death not only of her king, but of the man she fell in love with. For her to let him live would be so totally out of character for her as to make her entire arc laughably stupid. If there's one thing she has been consistent with the entire arc is that she keeps her vows to a fault, even if it means her death.

She already put her Sansa vow on the back burner to go find Stannis.  That's why I can see an argument for it to be in character for her to put her Stannis vow on the back burner until she finds Sansa again.  SQUIRREL!

It would be a really stupid and clumsy way to keep that character in the plot, and I can't see Martin writing it that way, but this season has done a lot of stuff that seems clumsy according to previous seasons' standards, now that they're off the books.  Next season will assuredly have more of the same.  So who knows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 19, 2015, 02:58:30 PM
Much more true for the show than the books.

In the books Doran did manage to unite the Dornish contingent. Sam's journey has an adequate ending, KL is a much more complete view of the city falling to chaos (and a logical end point).

Plus there are a number of smaller stories like the kingsmoot, siege of Riverrun, aegon's journey, victaron's journey, Quentyn, Davos quest, Manderly's revenge, secret agent Mance. Basically everything that got dropped for more Hypnoboobs and more Ramsey.

To be honest, most of that shit? I'm glad they dropped it (though some may show up next season.) I lay most of the sucky parts of this season at the feet of Martin as books 4 and 5 were a slog I barely got through and the show had to adapt them.

Winterfell I lay at Martin's door, and Hardhome was better than anything he wrote at the wall.

But I have a hard time with the argument that the Kingsmoot was less interesting than Littlefinger's ridiculous plan to be warden of the North, or that the Blackfish vs Jamie was worth dropping for Sand-Snakes-Play-Pat-a-Cake.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 20, 2015, 10:40:41 AM
Much more true for the show than the books.

In the books Doran did manage to unite the Dornish contingent. Sam's journey has an adequate ending, KL is a much more complete view of the city falling to chaos (and a logical end point).

Plus there are a number of smaller stories like the kingsmoot, siege of Riverrun, aegon's journey, victaron's journey, Quentyn, Davos quest, Manderly's revenge, secret agent Mance. Basically everything that got dropped for more Hypnoboobs and more Ramsey.

To be honest, most of that shit? I'm glad they dropped it (though some may show up next season.) I lay most of the sucky parts of this season at the feet of Martin as books 4 and 5 were a slog I barely got through and the show had to adapt them.

Winterfell I lay at Martin's door, and Hardhome was better than anything he wrote at the wall.

But I have a hard time with the argument that the Kingsmoot was less interesting than Littlefinger's ridiculous plan to be warden of the North, or that the Blackfish vs Jamie was worth dropping for Sand-Snakes-Play-Pat-a-Cake.

I hated every moment of the Kingsmoot as much as I hated Dorne. They both felt like extra padding that only served to get me away from characters I gave a shit about to introduce new characters late in the story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 20, 2015, 10:57:23 AM
that the Blackfish vs Jamie was worth dropping for HypnoBoobs.
FIFY.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 20, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
I hope there is a point to the whole Dorne shit that we haven't seen yet.  Without Arienne or Doran's long term plan for revenge there seems to be very little point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 20, 2015, 12:19:02 PM
Well we'll get to see how batshit insane Cersei gets when she finds out Myrcella is dead. That should be fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 21, 2015, 08:34:01 PM

 Same for Jon Snow, although Jon Snow in a wolf's body might also be on the cards.


Regardless of it possibly happening in the books I don't think it'll happen in the TV show for two reasons:

1) The TV show hasn't shown any Warg powers for Jon at all

2) Budget. I've heard rumblings they rarely show the Direwolves because it is expensive. If they put Jon into Ghost's body they'll need to show Ghost more often.

And 3 because it would mean recasting the actor, which is really the main reason it won't happen.

While we're armchair quarterbacking, I'll throw in a counterpoint.  If they didn't want to use Ghost more, why did he appear out of nowhere to save Sam's bacon in ep 9 (8?)?  We haven't seen Ghost for absolutely ages, and then he appears as if to say "Hi, remember me?".  That can't be a coincidence - they could have dreamt up a dozen different ways for Sam to get out of that scrap with the other Nights Watchmen. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 22, 2015, 12:46:16 AM
Because this season was written by hacks and it didn't occur to them to just have Thorne walk in.

If they wanted us to remember that Jon is a warg and that ghost is called ghost, the scene would have had Jon in it. Also someone on TV would have mentioned that wargs can live on in animals by now.

Besides, the obvious book purpose of Jon warging into ghost before being revived is to go take a look at events north if the wall. Hardhome covered that for the show. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 22, 2015, 05:07:38 AM
These seem (mostly) on the money:

(http://i.imgur.com/tcNf5a6.png)

Jaime

Stannis

The North Remembers

Tyrion

The Thenns

Jeyne Westerling

Loras

Sansa

Three Eyed Crow


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 22, 2015, 05:12:57 AM
Like Haemish says, the source material for this season sucks, so not surprisingly, the season kind of sucked. I cannot fathom the people who believe that if only they'd stayed truer to the books, everything would be great. Truer to the books means Sansa doesn't even appear in the season (that would be weird), we get lots more Arya doing a whole lot of nothing in Braavos, even more dull shit in Meereen, tons more dull Tyrion-on-the-river muttering about whores along with a cast of nobodies that we're supposed to care about, a viewpoint character whose entire purpose seems to be a feint or red herring and who is utterly dull, another viewpoint character who is mostly on a FedEx quest and again seems totally uninteresting, a few desultory scenes with Jamie in Riverlands, and Jon getting stabbed for more justifiable reasons. Sounds great, am I right?

The reason people are justifiably disappointed is that they expected the showrunners to chuck the terrible Books 4 and 5 even more and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. They tried to make a few of the threads better (thank god for getting Tyrion to Dany quickly), but honestly, Danerys should have been out of Meereen by episode 7 and on her way to Westeros with a Dothraki horde by the last episode; Arya should have been through with her Faceless Men schtick and onward to whatever comes next; Sansa should have continued her evolution towards Apprentice Littlefinger rather than be Helpless Princess in Another Castle just so we get some sense of movement in her arc; Dorne should have served some purpose or have been dropped altogether.

The biggest ball dropped I think is Sansa and Littlefinger. Littlefinger doesn't look anything like a master plotter now, he looks like an absolute idiot. He pushed Lady Crazy out the Moon Door with just a faint hope that Sansa wouldn't burn him, and then did what? Threw away Sansa for nothing, went riding back to King's Landing (and there's a small but potent mistake--if King's Landing is that close and that easy to reach, it kills a lot of the sense of space and distance that is important otherwise) and just dithered around there for no apparent reason. If you have a sinister manipulator in your narrative, their plans need to get more ominous and coherent as they are progressively revealed. Instead the showrunners (and Martin too, maybe) just seem at a loss about what to do with him.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 22, 2015, 05:48:45 AM
I don't entirely disagree, they didn't have a lot to work with, but the problem was that where they did strike out on their own they had about a 50-50 chance of producing utter dross. There were definitely things this season did well; getting Tyrion to Mereen and cutting out Jon Con was something I was pretty pleased with. Streamlining the utter pile of wank that was Dany in Mereen was also good. I'm glad they cut out the Iron Islands too tbh, since that just doesn't fit into the rest of the story, and they did decently with Arya I think, condensing her story well.

HOWEVER

 - What they did with Dorne was just pointless. They could have made it about the Dornish plan to crown Myrcella, which would have stayed true to the books and been better than 'Jaime and Bronn meet HypnoBoobs, Myrcella dies in the end'.

 - Stannis' campaign could have had more success, and represented a credible threat to the Boltons, rather than the long period of brooding nothing followed by a collapse in a matter of minutes of screentime.

 - Sansa and Littlefinger was positioned really well at the end of the last season and then went into strange and not-particularly great places.

 - Jon's story was condensed to the point of not making sense. They didn't do much to explain his motivations at all. It's just a series of things that happen, culminating in his death, which just happens, for reasons.

 - So many of the other characters have become caricatures. I realise that there isn't enough time to give them all depth, but in the amount of time you spent on Loras fucking rent boys you could have had Loras of the Kingsguard being dispatched to Dragonstone.

But I agree, there's a significant mismatch of expectations; yet I can't say that the showmakers did a good job this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 22, 2015, 06:30:35 AM
Issue here isn't directly to do with how faithful they were.

It is about not having good story development.

I don't hate books 4 and 5, but there wasn't much wrong with the broad plot decisions the show made either. It only really fell apart when they tried to convert that plot into a script. Littlefinger's plan was stupid as presented, but I'm fairly sure a decent plot that gets Sansa to winterfell would have been possible. Similarly, Jamie travelling to Dorne to extract Myrcella is fine, the specific choices for his method of travel and his actions while there were dumb.

That said, I don't think it is a coincidence that KL, Braavos,  and the wall (bar the last scene) were the best bits at the same time as being broadly consistent with the books. Based on the evidence of this season, this specific team just aren't very good at developing story without a template being provided.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 22, 2015, 07:10:07 AM
I think they're in a genuinely tough spot, though. They are now dependent upon a story that hasn't been told yet, created by a writer who has palpably lost his grip on his own creation, judging from the last two books. Much as I would have advised them to just grasp the nettle firmly and take the story away from him altogether, and tell a better version of it in a different medium, I get why that is a very, very difficult thing to do under the circumstances.

They really need to get the characters together next season, in no more than two major clusters (leaving aside Bran and Hodor and Rickon). I'm thinking there's got to be "Team North" that's Sansa, Theon, Brienne, Sam, Zombie/Warg/NotDead Jon, Littlefinger, etc., maybe in a long hopeless retreat out of the North, settling some scores as they go with the Freys and the Boltons all that. Then there's "Team South" that's Dany, Tyrion, Varys, Friendzone, Daario, the Sand Snakes, Cersei, Jaime, Arya, that's about landing Dothraki and dragons in Dorne and moving to King's Landing. No more stallings, no more pointless mini-plots.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 22, 2015, 07:23:20 AM
Agreed, and this is something GRRM has acknowledged with the 'Mereenese Knot' in that he has about a quarter of the key characters heading to or around Mereen (Tyrion, Varys, Dany, Victarion, Jorah) when he really needs them to be heading to Westeros. At the same time he's trying to merge previously disparate storylines together, and only having mixed success.

I can deal with Arya's story being standalone because it's strong enough to stand on its own two legs. Unfortunately lots of other stories felt broadly disconnected from the overall narrative, breaking from the previous books and seasons where all the plots, or meta-plots at least had some degree of internal and external connection.

I guess only time will tell. 'Hardhome' was still a bloody good bit of televison.

For a joke a friend and I tried to work out all the factions/individuals posed to invade Westeros or stake a claim (based on the books):

1) Stannis and his army
2) Dany and the unsullied/second sons/(bonus Dothraki)
3) The Ironborn under Euron
4) Fake Aegon, Jon Con, and the Golden Company
5) The White Walkers
6) LIttlefinger, Sansa and the Lords of the Vale
7) The Boltons and Karstarks +etc
8) The remaining Northern Clans (Mormonts, Umbers, Glovers)
9) The Nights Watch
10) Arya + Nymeria and the wolf army
11) The Lannisters and Tyrells and the crown under Tommen
12) Dorne
13) Whoever the Iron Bank feels like sponsoring next
14) The Faith Militant
15) Howland Reed and the Crannogmen
16) The Brotherhood without Banners
17) The Wildlings
18) Rickon Caesar and his army from Skagos

Although some of these factions have some degree of conguence (Merging Dorne with Dany, or Dorne with Fake Aegon wouldn't be the hardest stretch; likewise Sansa/LF and the Northern Lords under Manderly would be an easy join) a lot of these factions need to either join forces with another, or otherwise die or be submit in order for the plot to be manageable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 22, 2015, 07:36:01 AM
The odd thing is that it's hard to see why any of them *want* Westeros. It's about to be frozen for years, civil war means that most of its people are going to starve anyway, nobody has any respect left for the current feudal order so exerting power over both vassals and ordinary folk will require overwhelming (and thus expensive) military force, there are ice zombies coming, there's a terrifying popular religious movement taking hold in the capital city. Whereas Braavos seems like a perfectly decent place to be, Essos is warm and has many big, basically cosmopolitan cities, etc.   Dorne looks like a pretty good place to be now too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 22, 2015, 07:39:23 AM
I honestly can't remember since it's all garbled by lack of reading the books recently, and the changes made by the show, but I'm fairly certain that there's a point where a couple of characters discuss this and the upshot is that Westeros is literally the richest part of the world and represents its greatest economic prize. While the Iron Bank and the Free Cities all have their own levels of wealth, they still pale in comparison to the power and riches that come from ruling the whole of Westeros. I may be wrong about this; but the impression I ahd is that ruling somewhere like Braavos or Meereen is really playing second fiddle to being the king or queen of an entire continent.

And I guess the motivation is somewhat inherent to the whole 'Game of Thrones' motif. The only reason people play the game is because they want the throne, so there has to be a value implied there.

Also not all these actors want Westeros, they just want to return to parts of it (The Starks, mostly), or they want revenge (Arya, BWB), or their own special fiefdom within the kingdom (The Faith, The Boltons, The Night's Watch, The Wildlings)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 22, 2015, 08:45:44 AM
It's touched upon in the books, you get a sense of how fertile and prosperous vast areas of the Reach & Riverlands are, think like Loire Valley or Flanders. Not really sure where wealth is being produced in Essos, we just hear about the teeming free cities which give the impression of being wealthy but maybe that is exaggerated? All the country seems to be unpopulated or haunted wasteland.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 22, 2015, 09:21:58 AM
Of the storylines that cut out from the books, the three I wished they'd kept were Jamie going through the Riverlands (as opposed to Dorne), Mance Rayder's death being faked and Lady Stoneheart. The other stories were either OK or not, mostly based on whether or not I can figure out where the stories are supposed to be going. The Dorne story in book and show felt so useless because we have no fucking idea where it's supposed to be going or what purpose it's serving. Same goes for Arya and the Many-Faced God - we all think maybe she's training to be a face-changing assassin, but she clearly isn't willing to give up being Arya Stark so what's the point? No fucking idea and neither book or show gives us any idea. That she's a likable character is the only reason that story doesn't suck. The same goes for Sansa - the show went a lot farther with her than the books, but we've no idea what she's supposed to be doing, so the story feels somewhat like padding to keep an actress under contract.

There are so many threads from book and show that haven't had any resolution or any indication that they are going to pan out to be something important, and the show compressing those stories doesn't help them because they haven't provided any resolution either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 22, 2015, 09:22:03 AM
People who don't aspire to have power don't understand the allure of actually having it. They want to be lord/ king/ god emperor of Westeros for the power. Other concerns are trivial. Peasants are trivial. Having the power. Being the one who makes other leaders tremble at your prestiege. That's the allure and that's why they want to hold sway.

A similar reason there'd be plenty of people willing to be King or Queen of England today, even absent all the actual power they once had.  Because I'M King, dammit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 22, 2015, 09:24:30 AM
Most of Essos is the Dothraki sea, which I think is something akin to the steppes of Kazakhstan or Mongolia; remote, vast, and largely inaccessible. The free cities all seem to make money from trade, but that's it, and I imagine that Westeros is their major trading partner. None of them seem to have as much primary economy as Westeros, which is far more developed and populous, or at least population-dense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 22, 2015, 09:42:07 AM
Same goes for Arya and the Many-Faced God - we all think maybe she's training to be a face-changing assassin, but she clearly isn't willing to give up being Arya Stark so what's the point? No fucking idea and neither book or show gives us any idea. That she's a likable character is the only reason that story doesn't suck.

I just hope it doesn't turn into an embarrassing fantasy trope. 12 year old girl turns into unstoppable killing machine, comes out of nowhere and saves the day.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 22, 2015, 09:58:50 AM
I'm not sure how they could've made Dorne work without throwing a main character in there.  I guess Jamies storyline was deemed the most expendable.  Without him there though we would have the same complaints as the books "who the fuck are this people and why do i need to give a shit".  This guys know what's going to happen, that they chose to keep Dorne over shit like Jamie in the Riverlands and meeting Brienne or Lady Stoneheart just tells me Dorne has a big part to play in the rest of the story.  They should've kept Ramsay's (or whoever actually wrote it) letter to Jon and his attempt to march on Winterfell.  Good guys fuck up, good guys die, that's how its worked so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 22, 2015, 10:03:44 AM
Just on Dorne, I'm happy to critcise the book for not demonstrating why it was there until the reveal at the end.

You would expect the easy fix to be revealing Doran's plan earlier. Instead the TV show 'fixed' this by removing the pay off entirely. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lucas on June 28, 2015, 01:00:40 PM
Oysters, Clams and Cockles (Trap Remix):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsJhXez42Ko

 :rock: :rock_hard: :argh: :argh:

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 28, 2015, 08:02:45 PM
Same goes for Arya and the Many-Faced God - we all think maybe she's training to be a face-changing assassin, but she clearly isn't willing to give up being Arya Stark so what's the point? No fucking idea and neither book or show gives us any idea. That she's a likable character is the only reason that story doesn't suck.

I just hope it doesn't turn into an embarrassing fantasy trope. 12 year old girl turns into unstoppable killing machine, comes out of nowhere and saves the day.

I was going to agree that it's an embarrassing fantasy trope and then I sort of had to stop and scratch my head. How many unstoppable 12-year old girl assassins are there in fantasy narratives?

I think it more seems like a kind of Mary Sue thing than a trope, maybe? A trope seems to me to have to be "wise but enigmatic wizard with a slightly bad temper" or "angry barbarian warrior who hates civilized people for what they did to him when he was young" or "simple farmboy with a great destiny".   Like, there are lots of examples and even things that don't quite fit the pattern almost prove the rule or don't fit precisely because the writer's trying to escape the trope.

I actually realized I couldn't think of that many 12-year old supercompetent girl assassins with a vendetta in fantasy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: DraconianOne on June 29, 2015, 02:03:56 AM
Same goes for Arya and the Many-Faced God - we all think maybe she's training to be a face-changing assassin, but she clearly isn't willing to give up being Arya Stark so what's the point? No fucking idea and neither book or show gives us any idea. That she's a likable character is the only reason that story doesn't suck.

I just hope it doesn't turn into an embarrassing fantasy trope. 12 year old girl turns into unstoppable killing machine, comes out of nowhere and saves the day.

I was going to agree that it's an embarrassing fantasy trope and then I sort of had to stop and scratch my head. How many unstoppable 12-year old girl assassins are there in fantasy narratives?

I think it more seems like a kind of Mary Sue thing than a trope, maybe? A trope seems to me to have to be "wise but enigmatic wizard with a slightly bad temper" or "angry barbarian warrior who hates civilized people for what they did to him when he was young" or "simple farmboy with a great destiny".   Like, there are lots of examples and even things that don't quite fit the pattern almost prove the rule or don't fit precisely because the writer's trying to escape the trope.

I actually realized I couldn't think of that many 12-year old supercompetent girl assassins with a vendetta in fantasy.

Maybe not in swords/sorcery fantasy per se, but the trope exists quite a lot in general.  Mathilda (Leon, not Roald Dahl), Hanna, River Tam, Hit-girl and a fair few others.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 29, 2015, 06:56:30 AM
I meant more Hollywood fantasy (in the general defenition of the word) than high fantasy fiction, where you have these 100lb girls who are ripping through squads of soldiers, dropping 220 lb men with a single judo chop. The story 80% over, approaching a climax now and she's still basically a novice after a bit of basic training, but does anyone not think she'll soon be back in Westeros killing villains left & right? Kind of absurd when you step back and think about it, but it is still one of the more interesting plotlines so I don't mind too much, but I would be kind of annoyed if Arya and the faceless men came in and altered some long term plot setups with some deus ex machina super duper magical assassinations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 29, 2015, 07:05:42 AM
It's one of the reasons I can't stand the Arya character. Her arc makes absolutely no sense in a world where people make terrible decisions and get murdered. She should be dead on the side of the road 10x over by now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 29, 2015, 08:20:29 AM
The series doesn't tend to have "main characters" around whom the entire plot revolves (at least not for long) and I don't think that's going to change.  Arya's going to get back to Westeros and find that almost everyone on her list is already dead, and those who aren't have become politically irrelevant.  My guess is she'll get to kill Cersei, but it won't matter much to the larger plot because Cersei will have already been booted from power by that point.

Also I don't think she's going to become any sort of unstoppable badass in a straight up fight.  She's good at being in the right place at the right time and she's good at making useful friends.  Good qualities in an assassin and I think those will remain her core strengths.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 29, 2015, 08:36:19 AM
Cersei is almost certainly going to be killed by Jaime.

I saw one theory that suggested that in TWOW Cersei's trial will take the form of Trial of Seven (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Trial_of_seven) and her champions will be the Kingsguard, including frankenmountain, and the Faith's champions will include the Hound, and Jaime. By winning Jaime ensures Cersei's guilt and by default causes her to die. Thus he becomes the Valnoquar of prophecy.

It could all be utter bollocks obviously.

Also, of the thirteen people on Arya's list, only four are oficially still alive: Cersei, Illyn Payne, Meryn Trant, and Dunsen (who?). There's also the Hound and the Mountain who are presumed to be alive in some shape. She'll almost certainly get Meryn Trant, but it seems unlikely that she'll get to kill, or whatever, the Mountain, and she may not kill the hound. She almost certainly won't get Cersei, and that only leaves Illyn Payne and Dunsen, neither of whom are particularly exciting targets.

I suspect that Arya's plot lies somewhere in the idea of 'The Starks Reunited', she'll reaquaire Nymeria and reunite with her Family and Jon Snow for some reason yet to be specified.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 29, 2015, 12:19:39 PM
The prophecy says Cersei dies with her little brothers hands around her neck, that seems too specific for a trial to qualify.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2015, 12:30:11 PM
Plus given how Tyrion killed Shae with a chain of hands, and Cersei's rather odd insistence on various occasions that Jamie should be given that chain...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2015, 12:38:39 PM
I suspect that Arya's plot lies somewhere in the idea of 'The Starks Reunited', she'll reaquaire Nymeria and reunite with her Family and Jon Snow for some reason yet to be specified.

More likely she'll be sewing all through winter and when the spring thaw comes, they will find her body with a needle still locked tight between her frozen fingers.

I imagine she'll kill someone important - possibly becoming noone and coming to understand who is actually important in the process, and probably making a dramatic sacrifice in sight of Winterfell. In other words, a rerun of the Twins only this time she arrives in time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 29, 2015, 01:44:00 PM
Also, of the thirteen people on Arya's list, only four are oficially still alive: Cersei, Illyn Payne, Meryn Trant, and Dunsen (who?). There's also the Hound and the Mountain who are presumed to be alive in some shape. She'll almost certainly get Meryn Trant, but it seems unlikely that she'll get to kill, or whatever, the Mountain, and she may not kill the hound. She almost certainly won't get Cersei, and that only leaves Illyn Payne and Dunsen, neither of whom are particularly exciting targets.

I suspect that Arya's plot lies somewhere in the idea of 'The Starks Reunited', she'll reaquaire Nymeria and reunite with her Family and Jon Snow for some reason yet to be specified.
Meryn Trant is not alive. Did you not watch the season finale?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 29, 2015, 03:40:20 PM
I'm talking books here


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on June 29, 2015, 06:17:54 PM
Jaime isn't beating anygood enough to Cersei's champion left-handed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 29, 2015, 07:07:38 PM
The prophecy says Cersei dies with her little brothers hands around her neck, that seems too specific for a trial to qualify.
I thought the prophecy was that Cersei dies by the hands of the little brother, which has a couple of possible explanations.

Also, of the thirteen people on Arya's list, only four are oficially still alive: Cersei, Illyn Payne, Meryn Trant, and Dunsen (who?). There's also the Hound and the Mountain who are presumed to be alive in some shape. She'll almost certainly get Meryn Trant, but it seems unlikely that she'll get to kill, or whatever, the Mountain, and she may not kill the hound. She almost certainly won't get Cersei, and that only leaves Illyn Payne and Dunsen, neither of whom are particularly exciting targets.
Arya has crossed the Hound off her list by this point.  In the show Illyn Payne won't return.  They retired his character because the actor had terminal cancer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 30, 2015, 05:30:38 AM
The prophecy says Cersei dies with her little brothers hands around her neck, that seems too specific for a trial to qualify.
I thought the prophecy was that Cersei dies by the hands of the little brother, which has a couple of possible explanations.

It is. I've always assumed Tyrion comes back to kill her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 30, 2015, 07:23:15 AM
Except in the same book Cersi's internal monologue butches that it's not fair Jaime is the Lannister heir because she was born first.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 30, 2015, 07:51:51 AM
Except in the same book Cersi's internal monologue butches that it's not fair Jaime is the Lannister heir because she was born first.

Yeah, but I like the Tyrion version better because of the double meaning of little brother.l


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 30, 2015, 07:52:25 AM
The prophecy says Cersei dies with her little brothers hands around her neck, that seems too specific for a trial to qualify.
I thought the prophecy was that Cersei dies by the hands of the little brother, which has a couple of possible explanations.



Cersei: Will the king and I have children?
Maggy: Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you. Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds, she said. And when your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you.

I'm sticking with Jamie uses the hand of the king chain of office.

I don't think GRRM would have used 'valonqar' if he meant Tyrion, it is too on the nose for a Feast prophecy, he would more likely have linked to Cersei's view of him as a monster, or other Tyrion imagery (a white or silver lion, or a long shadow). Wheras it is just the right amount obtuse for Jamie. Given this is introduced after Jamie loses his hand and after Tyrion kills Shae, it also seems likely the phrase 'wrap his hands' is not accidental.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 30, 2015, 04:05:41 PM
Also, of the thirteen people on Arya's list, only four are oficially still alive: Cersei, Illyn Payne, Meryn Trant, and Dunsen (who?). There's also the Hound and the Mountain who are presumed to be alive in some shape. She'll almost certainly get Meryn Trant, but it seems unlikely that she'll get to kill, or whatever, the Mountain, and she may not kill the hound. She almost certainly won't get Cersei, and that only leaves Illyn Payne and Dunsen, neither of whom are particularly exciting targets.
Arya has crossed the Hound off her list by this point.  In the show Illyn Payne won't return.  They retired his character because the actor had terminal cancer.

It's still pretty ambiguous in the books.

Also, in happy news, the actor who plays him was actually succesfully treated for his pancreatic cancer and might be able to return to the show at a later stage. Not that this makes the remnants of Arya's list much less underwhelming.

Except in the same book Cersi's internal monologue butches that it's not fair Jaime is the Lannister heir because she was born first.

Yeah, but I like the Tyrion version better because of the double meaning of little brother.l

Tyrion can't be her little brother because he's another secret Targ and half-brother of Daenerys  :tinfoil:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 30, 2015, 04:46:11 PM
"The valonqar" (as opposed to "your little brother" or "your valonqar") suggests to me that it's not even necessarily HER little brother.  Could be the Hound if he's somehow still alive.  Etc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 30, 2015, 04:53:27 PM
Maybe not in swords/sorcery fantasy per se, but the trope exists quite a lot in general.  Mathilda (Leon, not Roald Dahl), Hanna, River Tam, Hit-girl and a fair few others.

Every anime with any sort of fighting ever made. And a pretty solid number of arcade games.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lantyssa on June 30, 2015, 06:07:20 PM
Also, in happy news, the actor who plays him was actually succesfully treated for his pancreatic cancer and might be able to return to the show at a later stage. Not that this makes the remnants of Arya's list much less underwhelming.
I hope he stays clear.  Pancreatic has an abysmal 5 year survival rate.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 30, 2015, 11:28:59 PM
As much as I dislike the Tyrion Targaryean theory, it would explain an awful lot of choices, from his hair colour, to his dreams of dragons, to why there is so much backstory about Aerys II and Joanna Lannister.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 01, 2015, 05:42:31 PM
Ian McShane has an unspecified role next season. I have to think it is a Kraken role...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 01, 2015, 05:56:55 PM
Randall Tarly or Damphair.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 02, 2015, 02:06:33 AM
Or Euron.

Though his role is supposedly "small but pivotal", so I wouldn't rule out Arthur Dayne in a tower of joy episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 04, 2015, 04:20:52 PM
Ming the Merciless has been cast as Brynden Rivers.

Will be interesting to see what they do with him given they've skipped a lot of Westeros magic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on March 08, 2016, 03:43:22 PM
How the fuck was this on page 4...

Well anyways  Season 6 trailer is here  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuH3tJPiP-U)

'I choose violence' will be my go to phrase of 2016.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on March 08, 2016, 05:41:03 PM
Damn I love Ser Davos.

"Apologies for what you're about to see."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on March 09, 2016, 05:47:18 PM
Dayum, that was nice.

Looking forward to pissed-of-tomboy-Cersei and playing-the-game-Sansa.  :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on March 09, 2016, 11:13:55 PM
Was that Stannis upside down, flayed and burning?

I'm looking forward to Brienne's battles and the Mountain/Cersei combo and hell I'm actually interested in Tommen and Bran's arcs - I get the feeling Tommen might come into his own - at least I hope do.

Daeneris... doing nothing and fucking up as usual :D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on March 09, 2016, 11:43:20 PM
I get the feeling Tommen might come into his own - at least I hope do.

Looks like it.

The actor seems good, the right amount of "going into a confrontation with pants full" look

(https://i.imgur.com/xApoKHS.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on March 09, 2016, 11:51:00 PM
A lot hinges on this season not breaking the show (literally all likeable characters are dead). Now that the book tether is gone its now time for...

THUNDERDOME Westeros edition :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on March 10, 2016, 12:17:46 AM
All likable characters are dead? 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on March 10, 2016, 04:09:07 AM
I think we need to change the Medium to a Totally.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on March 10, 2016, 06:40:19 AM
Ok name who your cheering for.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on March 10, 2016, 07:11:50 AM
Tyrion, Arya, Samwell Tarley and Bronn, always Bronn. Sure I could name more, but those would be the main ones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on March 10, 2016, 08:08:14 AM
Who the hell died that was likable?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 10, 2016, 08:33:12 AM
Jon?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on March 10, 2016, 08:52:32 AM
Ned?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on March 10, 2016, 09:37:12 AM
What's her face?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on March 10, 2016, 09:50:25 AM
A lot hinges on this season not breaking the show (literally all likeable characters are dead). Now that the book tether is gone its now time for...

THUNDERDOME Westeros edition :drill:

You know... 

GRRM largely built the series on taking Fantasy tropes and subverting them.  Worked great for a while, but then left us in the present situation where the plot lines are a mess because he killed all the people he was setting up as protagonists (aside from Dany) and now plotlines are adrift without protagonists we care about. 

I bet he powers out the final books by just subverting what the TV show decides to do...  Stannis dead in the TV show?  All of a sudden he turns around the North situation and Jon Snow didn't matter (besides some brief Warg bullshit) in the books.  The Sparrows are two dimensional antagonists in the TV show?  They become the driving force in Kings Landing, and invite Dany back as a figurehead ruler.  Shit like that.

Or at least just sitting back, copying what works and changing what doesn't, then claiming he had things sorted the whole time.  I could totally see him doing that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on March 10, 2016, 04:14:40 PM
Tyrion, Arya, Samwell Tarley and Bronn, always Bronn. Sure I could name more, but those would be the main ones.

I can give you Sam and Bronn though "tool of the lannisters we still like" is not a good title. They dont know what to do with him seeing as he is the shows Daryl. Arya.. plot armor, if she died on the boat to assassin school no one would miss her. Tyrion is going at a decent clip south as they really don't know what to do with the genre savvy dwarf. In the books tyrions chapters are the most painful to barrel through despite all the plot relevance. In the show moving him from plot point to plot point in the quickest way possible didnt help.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 10, 2016, 04:27:19 PM
Tyrion, Arya, Samwell Tarley and Bronn, always Bronn. Sure I could name more, but those would be the main ones.

I can give you Sam and Bronn though "tool of the lannisters we still like" is not a good title. They dont know what to do with him seeing as he is the shows Daryl. Arya.. plot armor, if she died on the boat to assassin school no one would miss her. Tyrion is going at a decent clip south as they really don't know what to do with the genre savvy dwarf. In the books tyrions chapters are the most painful to barrel through despite all the plot relevance. In the show moving him from plot point to plot point in the quickest way possible didnt help.
Re: Tyrion, I disagree with what you said.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on March 12, 2016, 11:31:38 PM
Apparently Davos has finally hit his limit. It's always the quiet ones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on March 16, 2016, 10:27:41 AM
Was that Stannis upside down, flayed and burning?


No, Brienne ended him at the end of season 5.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on March 16, 2016, 11:46:52 AM
So Ian McShane let some minor spoiler about season 6 slip in an interview last year, and in another interview  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/03/11/ian-mcshane-game-of-thrones-is-just-tits-and-dragons/) he said, in response to rabid fans being all salty about the spoiler:

Quote
“You say the slightest thing and the internet goes ape,” he says. “I was accused of giving the plot away, but I just think get a f---ing life. It’s only tits and dragons."

Henceforth in our house it shall be known as 'Only Tits & Dragons'.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hutch on March 16, 2016, 11:52:00 AM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1217291/Misc/getalife.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on March 16, 2016, 12:03:05 PM
It was a spoiler anyone familiar with the lore and the rumors about current season cast list could have figured out without trying.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on March 27, 2016, 06:51:00 AM
.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on April 11, 2016, 05:48:33 PM
New trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI0ib1NErqg) dropped today.

Fuck yeah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 12, 2016, 11:29:44 PM
45-minute fun, clever, geeky analysis of everything in a season 6 trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHTcr3bM59o) (helps with the more recent trailer, too).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on April 14, 2016, 08:13:54 AM
Oh nice, Max von Sydow is in it. :heart:  I don't mean to sound cold hearted, but 'they' should put him into as many films as possible before we lose him... (He turned 87 four days ago.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on April 14, 2016, 11:39:57 AM
This will always be Max Von Sydow to me:

(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JohnByrne2/2006-04-10_134858_sbr_053Dooley_vonSydow.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 15, 2016, 06:52:20 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40386/Macros/strangebrew.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 19, 2016, 11:04:35 PM
Fantasy Game of Thrones leagues  :awesome_for_real:

http://www.fantasizr.com/sport/fantasy-game-of-thrones-season-6


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 20, 2016, 10:47:21 AM
Fantasy Game of Thrones leagues  :awesome_for_real:

http://www.fantasizr.com/sport/fantasy-game-of-thrones-season-6

I'm in


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 20, 2016, 12:23:57 PM
Created an F13 league if anyone wants to join:
http://www.fantasizr.com/joinleaguelink?league=5846615629758464&key=fD720dA3a5E8eDEC70592a2F9bdddd

Will start draft on Friday.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 21, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Well I joined as WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE.

Not sure if I'll actually be available for when the draft starts, but auto drafting has served me well in fantasy leagues past.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 21, 2016, 01:42:30 PM
I'm in as All Dies must Men. This should be fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 21, 2016, 01:59:04 PM
In as Valar Somethingsomething; does it do the scorekeeping for us or are we going to have to track that ourselves?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 21, 2016, 02:52:57 PM
I think it does it itself, but I can't tell - won't let me start the game until the draft is done.

Set your autodraft ranking even if you think you'll be able to do the draft Fri night. There's a timer, so it'll fall back to your ranking if you don't make a draft pick in time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xuri on April 21, 2016, 05:43:41 PM
Joined, as A Team of Sleet and Mild Heat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on April 21, 2016, 07:33:01 PM
I jumped in as Mr Tinfoil Hat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 21, 2016, 07:44:07 PM
In as    Kahl Drogo's Vacant Stare.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 21, 2016, 07:47:50 PM
I'm in: A Feast for Chimps

Also, I have no f'n clue how this works.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on April 21, 2016, 10:15:22 PM
In as Stark's Sixth Sense. I'll probably be drunk when we draft so that will be fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 21, 2016, 11:35:24 PM
Im in.  Coming, Winter Is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 21, 2016, 11:42:16 PM
This will always be Max Von Sydow to me:

(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JohnByrne2/2006-04-10_134858_sbr_053Dooley_vonSydow.jpg)

I'm not exagerating at all. I say/think "I could crush your head like a nut!" on a semi-weekly basis.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on April 22, 2016, 10:25:24 AM
In as Podrick's Dick!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 01:59:14 PM
Set your autodraft ranking even if you think you'll be able to do the draft Fri night. There's a timer, so it'll fall back to your ranking if you don't make a draft pick in time.
How do you do this? I have never used this site (or any other online fantasy sports sort of thing) before.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2016, 02:03:29 PM
From the main screen that shows all the teams, on the right hand side, you should see a dark blue button that says "settings".  Click it, and one of the options on the drop down menu should be "Set Draft Rankings".  On that screen, you can drag and drop everybody in the order you want to prioritize the site to auto draft (and make sure you hit the button on the top of the column that turns on auto drafting). 

And you really want to do this if you don't think you'll be around, because the default rank order is alphabetical by name.  And they have 'people' like "Sir Pounce" on the list, so you can really get screwed if you don't have auto drafting set.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 22, 2016, 04:08:50 PM
Starting draft in about 30 mins....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 04:37:09 PM
Got my rankings set. Eagerly awaiting draft.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 22, 2016, 04:43:53 PM
Draft started.

With 15 teams, it'll take forever if we pick one by one, so please set your auto-draft selection and enable auto-draft! See a few posts above ..


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on April 22, 2016, 04:46:54 PM
Does this thing refresh automatically?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 22, 2016, 04:50:55 PM
Cyrrex! Draft or put your autodraft on!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 04:51:58 PM
Dunno; I've been F5ing while I wait for my #10 pick and tweak my order.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 22, 2016, 04:54:20 PM
there's a 2 hour window, it goes auto if he doesn't pick. But thats a long time and I couldn't change it ..

edit: I will pick for you if you are stalled longer than 30 mins. Going alphabetically down the list ..


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 22, 2016, 04:55:26 PM
2 hours?  :awesome_for_real:

Well, my auto is on but I wanted to watch for shits and giggles. Guess I will go have dinner.  I have a shit spot anyways.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 04:58:08 PM
I have my list sort of sorted but I kinda wanted to do it in real time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on April 22, 2016, 05:04:26 PM
So someone must have picked, looks like we are on number 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 05:41:49 PM
Paging Merusk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 22, 2016, 05:44:00 PM
I've shortened my 'I will pick for you' time to 15 mins. On #9..


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 22, 2016, 05:47:42 PM
This seems like not the best drafting system lol

Where do we setup our auto order?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 05:48:44 PM
From the main screen that shows all the teams, on the right hand side, you should see a dark blue button that says "settings".  Click it, and one of the options on the drop down menu should be "Set Draft Rankings".  On that screen, you can drag and drop everybody in the order you want to prioritize the site to auto draft (and make sure you hit the button on the top of the column that turns on auto drafting). 

And you really want to do this if you don't think you'll be around, because the default rank order is alphabetical by name.  And they have 'people' like "Sir Pounce" on the list, so you can really get screwed if you don't have auto drafting set.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 22, 2016, 06:09:33 PM
Paging Merusk.
Didn't think you all would start drafting until about now since most are not EST. I'll go set mine now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soln on April 22, 2016, 06:33:18 PM
Someone needs to be in as "Tits & Dragons".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 06:35:56 PM
It's a bit late for that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 22, 2016, 08:06:28 PM
Hm.. team's eccentric so far. Brienne, Hound, and Jaquen. Couldn't nab any of the biggies, let's see how special teams does for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 08:10:01 PM
White Walkers, Ramsey and Lancel. Going to be rooting for some interesting folks this season.

Edit: Autodraft on for my last pick; I'll see who I end up with in the morning.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 22, 2016, 08:14:26 PM
Ramsay should be a good pick. Speculation is he kills his father, stepmother and brother and that's who we saw flayed in the trailer. Good points there if it works out.

Other speculation is that Sansa plays the part of Lady Stoneheart but I think that's way too far fetched.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 22, 2016, 08:20:40 PM
Cersei, Jorah, Tommen, and Roose.  A bit too Kings Landing-centric and no one at the Wall. Hmmphf.  Hope the speculation above is wrong or Roose is out early.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2016, 08:31:53 PM
That's what I'm banking on. White walkers should get me plenty of kill points for random mooks too.

Drafting sped up so I grabbed High Sparrow for my 4th.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetleft on April 22, 2016, 09:32:47 PM
Hopefully FrankenMountain gets me some kills since Davos, states he ain't much of a fighter himself.  Maybe the unsullied get me some red shirt kills, don't expect much of anything out of Meera Reed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 22, 2016, 09:35:18 PM
I'm hella mad that I fucked up my draft order saving and didn't get the dragons, also I apparently forgot to move all the wolves to the bottom of the draft. Considering the show is super opposed to showing them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 22, 2016, 09:52:48 PM
Oh hell yeah, my mad plot for getting all my points off of sex/nudity is working!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
Well, didn't put a whole lot of time into my draft rankings, but at least I got my number 1, Jaime.  He's pretty top end for both killing things and fucking things.

After that......Euron Greyjoy, Loras Tyrell, Qyburn.  Yesh.  I mean, depending on how the show takes them, there's some good potential in the first two.  But they could also do jack shit this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 23, 2016, 05:38:02 AM
Coming, Winter Is needs to turn on autodraft, has been stuck on him since I went to bed!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 23, 2016, 06:03:11 AM
It looks done to me; or did he make his last pick in the last half hour?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 23, 2016, 06:15:46 AM
Yeah, I'm assuming everybody got 4 picks, which means he's done.  While his the roster is pretty bleak, he got "The Old Gods", and depending on how the story turns, that could be wildly successful in terms of kills.   :awesome_for_real:

Its a fun distraction and not serious, but I sort of wish they had just stuck to specific characters and avoided the general ones, like "While Walkers" or "Dragons".  I mean, the White Walkers can potentially kill thousands of people this season if shit goes south, and one of the dragons may just burn a whole city and/or army to cinder.  How the hell do you score that?

But regardless, the league will add some extra comedy to the thread as we watch this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 23, 2016, 06:21:33 AM
Ahh I thought there was another round worth of picks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 23, 2016, 06:22:00 AM
My biggest question is; do peasants count as red shirts, or just Unsullied/ guards. Because the Sons of the Harpy could have been a very strong pick based on that alone.

Oh; point assignment was asked about earlier. Since GoT is one of the sponsored shows, Fantasizr will assign points so no bitching at Viin about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 23, 2016, 06:26:47 AM
Yeah, I'm assuming everybody got 4 picks, which means he's done.  While his the roster is pretty bleak, he got "The Old Gods", and depending on how the story turns, that could be wildly successful in terms of kills.   :awesome_for_real:

Its a fun distraction and not serious, but I sort of wish they had just stuck to specific characters and avoided the general ones, like "While Walkers" or "Dragons".  I mean, the White Walkers can potentially kill thousands of people this season if shit goes south, and one of the dragons may just burn a whole city and/or army to cinder.  How the hell do you score that?

But regardless, the league will add some extra comedy to the thread as we watch this season.
Bolded bit is why they were my first pick. :why_so_serious:
My biggest question is; do peasants count as red shirts, or just Unsullied/ guards. Because the Sons of the Harpy could have been a very strong pick based on that alone.

Oh; point assignment was asked about earlier. Since GoT is one of the sponsored shows, Fantasizr will assign points so no bitching at Viin about it.
Good to hear that the scoring is automatic!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 23, 2016, 06:49:23 AM
Bolded bit is why they were my first pick. :why_so_serious:
Well, the one way that might come back against you is if they decide to only count specific one on one kills.  Like, I can easily see a scene where there's just some guards standing picket outside, hear a noise, and get hilariously killed by white walkers as they storm the city.  Next scene later you see that they slaughtered the city, but you only get points for two red shirt kills because everything else happened off screen.  As I recall (it's been awhile), that's how the slaughter on the Fist of the First Men went as well.  Didn't actually show much killing on screen.

Still a very strong pick regardless though, haha.

Edit:  Also, for auto drafting your last pick, The High Sparrow is not a bad throw away.  He has potential for mayhem this season.

Also, now that I am no longer drunk at 2 AM, changed my team name to the slightly more creative "Gods Perfect Hodor".  Also changed my name to Teleku in league.  If any of you are interested, at the very top right of the page, you should see your name (and facebook portrait if you used that to sign up).  If you hover your mouse over it, a drop down menu with the option for settings will appear.  Under settings, you can edit your name as it appears in the league, if you don't wish to give away your real life name to this forum filled with stalkers and psychopaths.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 23, 2016, 11:02:24 AM
I was leery of the special team picks because they had an asterisk but it never had an explanation of it. They also warned you off of having more than one. There have to be special scoring rules for them but I haven't found it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 23, 2016, 11:27:56 AM
Sorry all about the Autodraft thing, I swear I had set both it and a different draft order, no idea what happened.  Anyway, karma paid me back nicely, as I got Allister Thorne as my best pick....dude never fights, made a vow not to have sex, and is usually only the butt of witty comments.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 23, 2016, 12:31:37 PM
Bolded bit is why they were my first pick. :why_so_serious:
Well, the one way that might come back against you is if they decide to only count specific one on one kills.  Like, I can easily see a scene where there's just some guards standing picket outside, hear a noise, and get hilariously killed by white walkers as they storm the city.  Next scene later you see that they slaughtered the city, but you only get points for two red shirt kills because everything else happened off screen.  As I recall (it's been awhile), that's how the slaughter on the Fist of the First Men went as well.  Didn't actually show much killing on screen.

Still a very strong pick regardless though, haha.

Edit:  Also, for auto drafting your last pick, The High Sparrow is not a bad throw away.  He has potential for mayhem this season.

Also, now that I am no longer drunk at 2 AM, changed my team name to the slightly more creative "Gods Perfect Hodor".  Also changed my name to Teleku in league.  If any of you are interested, at the very top right of the page, you should see your name (and facebook portrait if you used that to sign up).  If you hover your mouse over it, a drop down menu with the option for settings will appear.  Under settings, you can edit your name as it appears in the league, if you don't wish to give away your real life name to this forum filled with stalkers and psychopaths.   :awesome_for_real:
There are points for sackig cities too, so I'm not worried. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 23, 2016, 12:46:07 PM
For having 14th place I did ok with Baelish, but Sansa is a little iffy. Likely to be on screen but not many points.

2nd and 3rd picks are Sam (could be amazing or horribly bad) and Missandei, who I just want to see naked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 23, 2016, 04:49:33 PM
I forgot that Theon already escaped Ramsay when I ranked him so high. He would have gotten me a ton of points for watching people having sex in previous seasons :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on April 24, 2016, 06:59:07 PM
Not many points for anyone that episode. Old tits negate young tits even for the Red Woman.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2016, 07:03:42 PM
Woo big B.  

.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 24, 2016, 07:04:36 PM
The most important kill on this episode was my boner.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on April 24, 2016, 07:07:43 PM
Every time I see this thread updated I keep thinking there is actual GoT discussion going on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Special J on April 24, 2016, 07:17:08 PM
The most important kill on this episode was my boner.

  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 24, 2016, 07:20:31 PM
I scored points for that last scene.

And I am not celebrating. :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 24, 2016, 07:35:29 PM
Is it me or are the points not updated on the site yet?

I got fuckall; maybe a few Wit points for Ramsey but that's about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 24, 2016, 07:58:36 PM
Is it me or are the points not updated on the site yet?

I got fuckall; maybe a few Wit points for Ramsey but that's about it.

I would guess that the person who is calculating the points need to re-watch the show to make sure they got everything. Plus, I am not sure it has aired everywhere yet?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 24, 2016, 08:05:39 PM
Ok, just making sure.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2016, 08:49:12 PM
Every time I see this thread updated I keep thinking there is actual GoT discussion going on.

I was waiting for actual discussion until after it's aired on the West coast. Plus the episode was a little slow, lots of set-up. The biggest thing to happen was my spoiler above and even THAT was just set-up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on April 24, 2016, 11:16:26 PM
With all the buildup of Dorne in the books and the Martells... that was it?

I bought maybe 1/3 of the script and the rest was pretty much filler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 25, 2016, 03:10:16 AM
Re: Dorne



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2016, 04:03:38 AM
Re: Dorne




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on April 25, 2016, 04:43:22 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 25, 2016, 04:44:07 AM
 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2016, 05:49:51 AM
Yeah, that part with the prince was a bit jarring.  As far as I knew, he went back with them on the ship to kings landing.  So... they magically teleported there and walked onto the ship without any issues somehow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on April 25, 2016, 08:15:12 AM
Bronn, Varys, Grey Worm, and Rickon Stark.

I lose.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2016, 08:22:28 AM
Those are all actually pretty good contenders for body count points, except Varys (though if he does kill somebody, the potential is be a big point earner).  And then, you get points for witty comments, so he should be good there.

Well, also requires Rickon to return this season, heh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on April 25, 2016, 08:26:56 AM
Yeah Bronn has potential for just about anything...Grey Worm can maybe give some oral to hottie...They are still alive right? IDK even know who Rickon is...lol


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2016, 08:29:54 AM
Oh, and points have updated.  Though its only the overall score, and the break down of what you got the points for isn't filled in yet, oddly.  ‘All Dies must Men’ and ‘A Feast for Chimps’ in the lead with 55 points each!

'Kahl Drogo's Vacant Stare' in last place with -10.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on April 25, 2016, 08:30:35 AM
I just need Jon Snow to hurry up and get alive so I can actually score some points.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 25, 2016, 08:57:35 AM
They have breakdowns of points in the Stats tab for each individual character, they just don't show up on your team. I wonder if we'll get anything more specific than that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 25, 2016, 10:20:40 AM
They're updating over time. I just checked and had a breakdown for all my teams. As expected Brienne was all my points.  They haven't updated the Martells as far as I can see.

Wife took the lead in our league. She took all the sand snakes and elllaria. Damnit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on April 25, 2016, 10:41:08 AM
Takes awhile for the points to come in:

1.    All Dies must Men                        55
2.    A Feast for Chimps                      55
3.    Coming, Winter Is                       45
4.    Traitors always prosper                38
5.    A Team of Sleet and Mild Heat     15

Everyone else has 5 pts or less (or even LESS).

The person running the scoring has a blog post that goes over her scoring:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/25/11501868/game-of-thrones-recap-season-6-episode-1-the-red-woman


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 25, 2016, 10:45:55 AM
Oh man, I got a -5 for looks on Mellisandre!

Not that I should complain as she got me 45 points total.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on April 25, 2016, 02:37:18 PM
I call bullshit on getting docked points for something that happened last season. Plus Roose should have got something for his verbal beat down of Ramsey.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 25, 2016, 02:53:33 PM
I don't think his thinly veiled threats to Ramsey are going to lengthen his life expectency.

I am not in the game, so I can just comment on the show (which I am current on, finally). Was sorry to see Doran go, but I should have seen it coming. I started to admire and like him, which is the death knell for any GoT character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 25, 2016, 03:26:16 PM
So same shit as always even if we are off GRRM's shitty plotting?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetleft on April 25, 2016, 05:18:30 PM
Yeah, that part with the prince was a bit jarring.  As far as I knew, he went back with them on the ship to kings landing.  So... they magically teleported there and walked onto the ship without any issues somehow.

Well that scene happened as the ship with Jamie had already arrived to tell Cersei of the bad news but the prince was definitely on a ship.  Best I can guess he went later on his own ship before news of Jaime's daughter death had gotten back to Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on April 25, 2016, 07:48:13 PM
Were they supposed to be on the same ship?  I just assumed the prince was traveling on a different ship, presumably to some other destination.  I had the feeling they did a lot of river boating and coast hugging to avoid that whole searing desert thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 25, 2016, 08:32:53 PM
Bottom line is from the send off on the dock last season onwards it was poorly done because nobody is sure on their first watch how any of that worked logistically.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on April 26, 2016, 01:06:07 AM
Too many story arcs going on at once in this. 5 minutes per arc x 10 does not make for great TV. They need to merge some story lines, kill a few people off or start focussing more on 1 or 2 groups per episode.

I'm starting to not care about anyone in it, might skip the weekly watching and just binge it all in June.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on April 26, 2016, 04:12:50 AM
I'm super dissapointed I missed out on the fantasy draft =/. They really need to tie the lines together though, like, Aryas story is so separate that even if she did become grandmaster smash and return to westeros everyone on her list and her entire family will already be dead. Has a bit of Ser Davos syndrome, what are they both actually fighting for now that everyone they ever cared for is dead?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 26, 2016, 04:57:03 AM
Arya still has her list.  Davis issu no. Ow.  Looks like just to save his ass and the guys who supported John because he respected John.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on April 26, 2016, 05:03:24 AM
I'm super dissapointed I missed out on the fantasy draft =/. They really need to tie the lines together though, like, Aryas story is so separate that even if she did become grandmaster smash and return to westeros everyone on her list and her entire family will already be dead. Has a bit of Ser Davos syndrome, what are they both actually fighting for now that everyone they ever cared for is dead?

Does Davos know that Stannis is dead? For that matter does anyone know that Stannis is dead? Even if they know about the battle (which I don't think the people at the Wall do yet), Stannis was alone and away from the rest of his army when Brienne found him. I don't think even Ramsay has seen his body. Also, it would be super lame, but I'm not 100% sure that she did kill him. We didn't see him die and the show is usually pretty explicit about showing the actual deaths of major characters. In the books, he's still very much in play at the moment and maybe there's going to be a flashback scene where we see him come to some agreement with Brienne over Sansa and Ramsay while he goes off to find a new army to get back into the game.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 26, 2016, 07:06:26 AM
Maybe he'll take the black and become the Lord Commander we need, instead of Allister Thorne, the Lord Commander Westeros deserves.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 26, 2016, 07:11:09 AM
Ramsay and Roose seemed pretty sure Stannis was dead, though. I think if no one had found his body, they'd probably assume he was still alive.

I'm still waiting for people in the North at least to actually act like it's winter. Even when it's cold and snowy, nobody seems to worry much about supplies or rationing. And there only seem to be high snowdrifts when the plot requires it (Theon and Sansa jumping). I guess that's part of the point of the show: that the war has stripped people of their ability to think clearly about this. Why, for example, is Roose Bolton worrying about the Lannisters for the time being? He should be locking down the castles he holds and if necessary, doing quick raids southwards to grab as much food and supplies as he can for his soldiers. Nobody fucking marches a medieval army in the middle of a heavy winter in northern Europe. You might do a lot of diplomacy etc.--esp. in GoT world where you can communicate via teleporting ravens that arrive about ten minutes after they take flight from a thousand miles away. But nobody's coming north with military force now if winter is even slightly like what it's been advertised.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on April 26, 2016, 07:35:26 AM
Are they still in the books or have they spun off in a completely new arc yet?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 26, 2016, 07:46:15 AM
I think most stories are now past (or different from) the books; Samwell and Kevan Lannister are still behind. The other exceptions are the characters who just haven't been introduced yet: the other Greyjoys, Septon Meribald & Elder Brother, Griff and crew, etc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on April 26, 2016, 07:55:24 AM
They are working from Martin's outline. They change things freely, but most major points remain the same. Almost all storyline are now moving beyond the novels and into virgin territory.

While there will be a lot in the books that will not be in the show, most of the beats from the show will be in the books in some form or another.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 26, 2016, 08:25:56 AM
I'm super dissapointed I missed out on the fantasy draft =/. They really need to tie the lines together though, like, Aryas story is so separate that even if she did become grandmaster smash and return to westeros everyone on her list and her entire family will already be dead. Has a bit of Ser Davos syndrome, what are they both actually fighting for now that everyone they ever cared for is dead?

Does Davos know that Stannis is dead? For that matter does anyone know that Stannis is dead? Even if they know about the battle (which I don't think the people at the Wall do yet), Stannis was alone and away from the rest of his army when Brienne found him. I don't think even Ramsay has seen his body. Also, it would be super lame, but I'm not 100% sure that she did kill him. We didn't see him die and the show is usually pretty explicit about showing the actual deaths of major characters. In the books, he's still very much in play at the moment and maybe there's going to be a flashback scene where we see him come to some agreement with Brienne over Sansa and Ramsay while he goes off to find a new army to get back into the game.

Davos knows what the red woman said. Which was that they were all gone. The queen, the princess and Stannis.

Roose seemed quite explicit that Stannis was dead when he asked if Ramsey knew who had killed him because he wanted to reward him etc.

It'd be an odd twist if Brienne didn't kill him and not a very good twist for how the show has presented everything.

As for the north and snow. I get what you're saying but I'm not sure Bolton is worrying about the Lannister army in the near term, he says something like "there will be reckoning" in that "feel like a winner" speech and he's always on about how their hold on the north must be absolute when it comes. Which seems to imply he's talking quite a bit down the line.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 26, 2016, 12:01:16 PM
Viewers know with 100% certainty that Stannis is dead. It's been confirmed by show runners.  And as was said they inserted into the Roose/ Ramsay conversation that he's kaput. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 26, 2016, 03:34:55 PM
"It's been confirmed by showrunners" is absolutely meaningless, they've sworn up and down Jon Snow is dead also.  They are not under oath, they WILL lie.  It's fucking stupid to expect them to spoil their own show in the first place so I don't understand why anyone asks them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on April 26, 2016, 03:59:37 PM
Yeah, that part with the prince was a bit jarring.  As far as I knew, he went back with them on the ship to kings landing.  So... they magically teleported there and walked onto the ship without any issues somehow.

Well that scene happened as the ship with Jamie had already arrived to tell Cersei of the bad news but the prince was definitely on a ship.  Best I can guess he went later on his own ship before news of Jaime's daughter death had gotten back to Dorne.

The scene opens with him painting those corpse eye stones that seem to be a feature of Westerosi religion, presumably for Myrcella. So this doesn't add up as a theory.

Too many story arcs going on at once in this. 5 minutes per arc x 10 does not make for great TV. They need to merge some story lines, kill a few people off or start focussing more on 1 or 2 groups per episode.

I'm starting to not care about anyone in it, might skip the weekly watching and just binge it all in June.

Yeah, this is definitely the show's biggest problem right now. GRRM has said before that he used LOTR as a model, whereby everyone starts together in one place, gets split up, and eventually reuintes, only the people who split up have been split again, or killed, or just lost to the aether, and now you have a situation where almost none of the main POV characters is interacting with any other major POV characters. Given that the draw of most TV shows is either big action set pieces or human interaction, the show is almost delivering on the first (Hardhome was the best thing of Season 5), but it barely has any opportunities to do the second.

So now we have a ton of plot to establish and not enough time to do it in. The scene with Jorah and Daario was the best example of this in the first episode. It was what, 4-5 minutes of pretty scenery and irrelevant chit-chat that built up to 'they have her' and that's it, off to the next narrative thread. That's beyond bite-sized narrative.

Tyrion and Varys is about the only interesting relationship happening. All the cool political intrigue of Kings Landing from seasons 1-4 has gone and we're left with a load of people not interacting (because they're all in prison) or just moping about. Most of the more interesting characters are dead. Everything at Castle Black is waiting for Jon to come back to life, which at the current plot pace will happen around  half way through the season, and the show didn't even cover a third of the poltlines that are supposed to be in this season (Vale, Iron Islands, Bran)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 26, 2016, 04:11:57 PM
I've always felt the number of plot threads is an excuse.

They don't need everyone in every episode.

Same thing happens every year, early episodes are weaker because they feel the need to catch up with every damn character.

That said, this wasn't a bad episode 1. Dorne seemed less ridiculous now they've put Ellaria firmly in charge, I liked the North, liked Arya's scene, probably the first time I found Dany watchable. OTOH Mereen was sufficiently dull that I passed the time remembering that Tyrion would not have roamed KL without guards, so it was weird that he'd do so in Mereen, also noting that Mereen has highly educated multilingual graffiti writers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 26, 2016, 04:40:23 PM
I've always felt the number of plot threads is an excuse.

They don't need everyone in every episode.

Er, they've actually reduced the number of plot threads for TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on April 26, 2016, 06:08:49 PM
His point still stands, that episode clearly felt like a "we're worried you have forgotten where things stand" type ep. If they give the north, dornish unrest and KL the bulk of the time and only pop in on the boring training shit going on (Arya, Bran, Tommen?, Dany learning some queenly lesson or another) this could be a good season and we'll forget all about how quick and shitty the 2-4min devoted to most plot points felt ep1.

That ep was also proof that despite how cool the Young Griff (not to mention integral) stuff seems. They can barely fit what they've got. There's no way Euron or the real Dornish story would fit.

Also the north has the potential to put /a lot/ of people back in the same place maybe with the way things might line up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2016, 02:45:00 AM
The Young Griff stuff in the books seems to me the antithesis of cool. Not only does it come through a heaping helping of Tyrion-on-the-dull-boat stuff, it involves a kind of duplication of plot elements and themes. I am sure it's partly Martin wanting to fuck with people in terms of their assumptions about what happens next, and also in pointing out that this is what tends to happen in dynastic states when there is political chaos (lots of people "discover" lost heirs as part of their bid to take over the throne). But until the next book (which I would assume is never) I don't know that you can tell whether it's a short-term fake-out or something Martin is very serious about developing more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 27, 2016, 05:12:57 AM
I don't like that arc either; aside from what you mentioned, it seems lame to have characters who died ages ago offscreen suddenly back to life and important. We don't need any more characters at this point anyway, much less additional characters whose death was important to the motivation of several others (Dany and Oberyn, just off the top of my head).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on April 28, 2016, 12:59:10 AM
I'm in a minority that has no hate for the young Griff storyline. I don't think it undermines the backstory because I don't think you are supposed to believe he is Aegon, I don't even think Doran believes it.

But clearly correct for the show to duck it at this point, if only because the TV audience have only heard a tiny fraction of the back story. Backstory on TV  seems to get dished out as a way to give the better actors screentime, rather than because of its relevance to theme or plot. A spoiler dodging TV viewer knows every detail about Jorah's ex wife but has never heard of the Tower of Joy.

I'm not even certain the TV show is going to tell us who Jon's parents are.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 28, 2016, 04:50:05 AM
I think it's going to tell us that. Soon, in fact.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on April 28, 2016, 06:08:41 AM
Yeah lots of rumors about the Tower of Morning being in the early part of the season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 28, 2016, 07:39:30 AM
His mother. It was clearly established his father is Ned Stark.

YES IT WAS THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT SHUT UP BOOK READERS SHUT UP


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 28, 2016, 07:50:53 AM
Not sure if sarcasm. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 28, 2016, 08:06:07 AM
I mean that if there's stuff people who read the books know about then they should take care not to drop hints about it here in the TV thread, at least without spoiler tags, please.

No I am not really shouting SHUTTUP at anyone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on April 28, 2016, 08:12:09 AM
At this point there is almost nothing a book-reader knows that a TV viewer doesn't. Anything the book reader knows that the viewer doesn't is either: a) irrelevant because it belongs to an alternative version of the story or b) highly speculative, effectively a fan theory.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on April 28, 2016, 08:29:00 AM
There was a no book spoilers TV thread, nobody ever posted on it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 28, 2016, 09:33:52 AM
At this point there is almost nothing a book-reader knows that a TV viewer doesn't. Anything the book reader knows that the viewer doesn't is either: a) irrelevant because it belongs to an alternative version of the story or b) highly speculative, effectively a fan theory.
I'd say if you read the books, at this point you have a fairly good idea who Jon's mother is.  I don't think they've given nearly as many hints in the series, though there are a few lines by Ned in the first season that should give it away a bit if you pay enough attention.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 28, 2016, 09:44:48 AM
It's just a theory though; until we get real proof all that stuff could just be elaborate misdirection. Or, irrelevant if he stays dead (I don't think he stays dead).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 28, 2016, 11:07:52 AM
If it turns out not to be, it will only be because GRRM pulled a lost and changed it because everybody guessed it already.  It's fits everything based on what the characters have said and done, both in the books and the show.  It literally can't be anything else unless he has been planning an elaborate fake out since 1995.  Which would be really silly for such a plot point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Xuri on April 28, 2016, 01:20:30 PM
*still waiting for Gendry to row ashore... somewhere*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on April 28, 2016, 01:46:08 PM
*still waiting for Gendry to row ashore... somewhere*

I don't see where that plot could go to be honest. Unless one of the big players picks him up and puts him forwards, he's just a kid with curly hair. Even he doesn't really know who he is and most of the people who do are dead or have a vested interest in him disappearing permanently. House Baratheon doesn't exist any more in any meaningful sense and none of the other houses are likely to want to take up his claim.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 28, 2016, 01:53:33 PM
I thought he was going to be a blood sacrifice to rez Jon but then I remembered he's been missing since Season 3 so who knows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 28, 2016, 02:00:16 PM
*still waiting for Gendry to row ashore... somewhere*

I don't see where that plot could go to be honest. Unless one of the big players picks him up and puts him forwards, he's just a kid with curly hair. Even he doesn't really know who he is and most of the people who do are dead or have a vested interest in him disappearing permanently. House Baratheon doesn't exist any more in any meaningful sense and none of the other houses are likely to want to take up his claim.
Yeah, Gendry disappeared even sooner in the books and was just used in the 'king's blood' plot point as a convenience by the TV writers. The only scenario where he could have become significant would be if Renly had won the War of Five Kings and been unable to produce an heir. With literally everyone else in House Baratheon dead, nobody is going to be interested in any surviving bastards of Robert's.

They need to quit screwing around and resolve Jon Schroedinger Snow. If he's still mostly dead at the end of the second episode, it's going to be annoying as fuck. Bring him back, or burn the body.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 28, 2016, 02:56:27 PM
If he does come back to life, someone needs to splice Miracle Max into clips of the room with Jon Snow on the table.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 01, 2016, 07:24:58 PM
Well,


Also,

.

One thing that is not working for me so far is Davos. I get that he's a nice guy and a pragmatist and not at all into swearing vengeance this and kill them that but his sudden transition into being a huge Jon Snow fanboy and begging Melisandre for help seems a bit off. Like, he isn't at all resentful still about Shireen? And are the showrunners thinking we forgot it all already?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 01, 2016, 07:42:26 PM
All I know is that   :ye_gods:

(spoilered for fantasy league hintage)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on May 01, 2016, 08:12:47 PM

Hooray for team Stark's Sixth Sense!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 01, 2016, 09:32:02 PM
I am so fucked.

Can you drop people and pick up free agents like in normal Fantasy leagues?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 02, 2016, 04:11:28 AM
I don't think so. The only thing you can do is edit the team name that I have found.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2016, 06:47:30 AM
Yep that's it. We really had too many teams to make a competitive league, though. Public leagues were limited to 8 and that seems to be working better. My other private only has 4 teams and it is also a runaway, but that's mainly because two of the people let it autodraft from the predefined list.

.

One thing that is not working for me so far is Davos. I get that he's a nice guy and a pragmatist and not at all into swearing vengeance this and kill them that but his sudden transition into being a huge Jon Snow fanboy and begging Melisandre for help seems a bit off. Like, he isn't at all resentful still about Shireen? And are the showrunners thinking we forgot it all already?




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on May 02, 2016, 06:56:38 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 02, 2016, 08:35:26 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 02, 2016, 09:03:55 AM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2016, 09:21:17 AM

ed : Spoiler/ quote.. whatever, right!??  :awesome_for_real:

Anyway, stats just updated. Scores are slowly populating to the various games. Give it 30-45 mins and everything should be out there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2016, 09:56:41 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 02, 2016, 10:12:57 AM
How the fuck did Ab get out of negative territory?

Was there some kind of "died memorably" bonus or something?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2016, 10:17:55 AM
Yes.

Edit:  Also, boo.  They didn't count it for the big payoff.  :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2016, 10:38:08 AM
Oh hey, you CAN trade for free agents. It's under Settings now. Trades takes you to a select team page and there it lists any Free Agents.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2016, 11:24:58 AM
I'll be fair and ignore the waiver wire since I'm doing better than a number of other teams.

But for those of you with bleak prospects, "The Sons of the Harpy" is available, and you know they are going to get some kills in here before the season is done, heh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on May 02, 2016, 11:46:22 AM




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 02, 2016, 12:27:31 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on May 02, 2016, 12:33:59 PM
4 characters per team is actually pretty good, but yes some of us got stuck with shit. Maybe Baelish will come back and kill everyone, and I'll win!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on May 02, 2016, 12:50:16 PM
Blog of the scoring:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/2/11566674/game-of-thrones-recap-season-6-episode-2-home


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 02, 2016, 12:53:24 PM
I had a sudden realization about Varys that makes me think the long plotter thing is still alive.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
Considering how close the Harpys have come to killing her, several times, that would be pretty damn counter productive (also just bad writing).  Granted, the way he spoke could have been foreshadowing that he is working with them behind the scenes.  But if that's so, it's not to 'test' her, its to kill her (unless it is just the aforementioned bad writing).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 02, 2016, 01:15:08 PM
Blog of the scoring:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/2/11566674/game-of-thrones-recap-season-6-episode-2-home

Ok I got totally screwed by the "split" of the surprise magic points.  :sad_panda:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 02, 2016, 01:26:18 PM
Go Ramsey as my only scoring member two weeks running! From 9th to 2nd, woo!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2016, 02:05:07 PM
I saw his point totals coming and was VERY upset I didn't get Ramsay in the draft. You picked him right before I did. Good eye.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 02, 2016, 04:08:02 PM
The non-burning was a one-time event and never will be repeated. Martin has explicitly said this a few times and IIRC the show writers have done so as well, citing him. The sole reason Dany didn't burn was something about the birthing of the dragons and the magic surrounding Dany at that time. She can still burn as can any other Targaryen.
Like, she lost her fire immunity when she rezzed the dragons? Because that at least sort of makes sense; that wasn't the only instance of her resisting heat/fire in season 1. Her bath was hotter than McDonald's coffee in the pilot, and she makes a snarky comment when Viserys gets his golden crown; something like "Fire cannot kill a real dragon."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2016, 04:57:50 PM
http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/9356/is-daenerys-targaryen-immune-to-fire

Chalk part of it up to Martin's quixotic approach to worldbuilding. "Probably not" isn't a definitive but also gives him a way out when getting into super-nerd discussions where they trap him in a plot hole of his own making.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2016, 05:22:52 PM
She was also on fire when she flew off on Drogon, so if it's not a permanent thing it comes and goes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 02, 2016, 05:57:23 PM
In this Song of Ice and Fire, ice is not just frozen stuff and fire is not just burning stuff. They both have magical/supernatural properties, or versions, while R'hllor is the heat god and the Other is the cold god. Perhaps the birth of dragons and the breath of dragons are that supernatural kind of fire. The type true Targaryens can survive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on May 02, 2016, 07:30:20 PM
In this Song of Ice and Fire, ice is not just frozen stuff and fire is not just burning stuff. They both have magical/supernatural properties, or versions, while R'hllor is the heat god and the Other is the cold god. Perhaps the birth of dragons and the breath of dragons are that supernatural kind of fire. The type true Targaryens can survive.
I got the impression that they were children of Fire, so to speak. It's not that they won't burn -- they've just got a fairly high tolerance and magics involving fire work better with them. Like DR 5 to fire and fire spells act like you're 2 levels higher when you cast them sort of thing.

So hot water, even the occasional brushing of a stove or brief exposure to fire, sure. Standing in a bonfire? No.

As for Davos...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 02, 2016, 08:15:27 PM
Yeah, Davos pretty much had nothing left but to 'take the Black', anyway. He can't go home, he's been the Hand for a pretender that failed. And then, while he's still trying to digest that, there's a coup in the Night's Watch and a bunch of traitorous bastards are suddenly in charge.

Getting the Red Woman to pull some hocus-pocus was his only chance.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 02, 2016, 11:57:14 PM
As for Davos...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 03, 2016, 12:18:53 AM
One thing did bother me, that interpretation depends in Davos knowing Stannis is dead.  How does he know Stannis is dead? Did he read the script?

While we're at it, how did Melisandre reach Castle Black in a day? And why did she go to Castle Black? I originally thought she would have figured out Jon is Azor Ahai, but her general demeanor suggests not.

I'm finding this sort of thing doesn't bother me as much this year, last season lowered my expectations sufficiently for me to be happy with tits and dragons.

Found this episode a bit flat. Mereen remains dull - felt like the tv writers can't think of anything for Varys and Tyrion to do. Liked the sequence on Pyke. Winterfell was ok, but killing Roose makes me wonder if the show writers have enough pieces left to write an interesting scene there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 03, 2016, 04:10:11 AM
Seems to me Davos could go right back to smuggling pretty well. Though it's a long way home unless the writers need you to be somewhere, in which case you just hop on a horse and you usually make five hundred miles in a day. But he's been convinced about the Long Night (on no particular evidence, mind you, other than having witnessed magic and met sincere people who seem convinced).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 03, 2016, 06:06:40 AM
It occurs to me that these gaps have always been there, but until now we've had book-readers to infill backstory and motives. Lacking that foundation it becomes apparent how little you can convey in 5-10 minute vignettes when trying to avoid (s)exposition.

It also makes it apparent why a soap opera takes 2 years to tell a simple story between 3-4 people.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 03, 2016, 06:12:31 AM
Winterfell was ok, but killing Roose makes me wonder if the show writers have enough pieces left to write an interesting scene there.

I feel like this gets wrapped up quickly since it is now pretty straightforward. Everyone has converged at Castle Black vs Ramsey who is all alone, and they have a large army (Wildlings). I'm guessing Ramsey marches on the wall in short order as he mentioned he wanted to do, before killing Roose, and gets slaughtered (probably betrayed too in the process, as would be poetic).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 03, 2016, 10:33:39 AM
I'm also really sure that maybe even this season



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 03, 2016, 11:25:01 AM
Heh that's kind of cartoonish but seems to be the direction things are trending. Let's just hope there's no rubble surfing scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 03, 2016, 11:27:35 AM
Kind of like this scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeLqsvFO31o


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 03, 2016, 12:42:14 PM
Kind of like this scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeLqsvFO31o

That scene has always bothered me because the warp core is nowhere near the saucer, yet the saucer blows-up while the rest of the hull remains intact.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on May 03, 2016, 02:10:01 PM
If it had blown up at the proper place the ship would have been blown in half and you wouldn't have this lovely scene where it dove into the atmosphere for whatever reason. Well, maybe the saucer could have, but would it have still looked Enterprizey then? vOv


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 03, 2016, 02:16:32 PM
The main thing that I don't get about Ramsey:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 03, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
I was really happy to see Lyanna show up in the flashback at the start of the episode.

Also, good god did they cast young Hodor well.

Also, the Karstarks/etc were totally cool with the Red Wedding.  They're clearly playing for whatever team they think will win and fuck your "honor".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 03, 2016, 03:09:05 PM
Probably that young Karstark there figures he's already in deep with Ramsey, as you mention especially after the red wedding, no point in second guessing him now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 03, 2016, 03:17:59 PM
The main thing that I don't get about Ramsey:


Possibly I'm carrying too much book knowledge over, but the North is balanced between the Bolton faction and the Stark loyalist faction. The Karstarks are still pissed about Robb executing their Lord and wouldn't be trusted by the Stark faction. Ramsey is their only option.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 03, 2016, 04:18:34 PM
And we've seen how well crying "NO FAIR" after an unexpected betrayal tends to work out for surviving allies of the betrayee.   You're either on the bus or you're off the bus.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 03, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
There's that whole weird dinner scene in the books where you think somebody's gonna get poisoned only nothing happens, but it does give you some sense that the North is pretty much either "Waiting for the Starks, and/or waiting to kill Boltons and Freys the first good chance we get" and "Fuck the Starks, and I guess the Boltons will do for now".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on May 03, 2016, 06:05:21 PM
There's that whole weird dinner scene in the books where you think somebody's gonna get poisoned only nothing happens, but it does give you some sense that the North is pretty much either "Waiting for the Starks, and/or waiting to kill Boltons and Freys the first good chance we get" and "Fuck the Starks, and I guess the Boltons will do for now".


Missing out on all the stuff with Lord Manderly will make it almost impossible for strictly TV people who actually get wth is up with the North.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on May 03, 2016, 07:58:05 PM
The main thing that I don't get about Ramsey:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 03, 2016, 08:17:24 PM
Just rewatched end of Season 5. Everybody's right--Davos doesn't actually know what happened at the battle. As far as he knows, Melisandre is the only survivor of a catastrophic defeat, and she's not said anything to change that impression. Makes you wonder if Davos will ever learn the truth.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 03, 2016, 11:18:06 PM
There's that whole weird dinner scene in the books where you think somebody's gonna get poisoned only nothing happens, but it does give you some sense that the North is pretty much either "Waiting for the Starks, and/or waiting to kill Boltons and Freys the first good chance we get" and "Fuck the Starks, and I guess the Boltons will do for now".

Very minor book spoilers:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 04, 2016, 01:31:59 AM
There's that whole weird dinner scene in the books where you think somebody's gonna get poisoned only nothing happens, but it does give you some sense that the North is pretty much either "Waiting for the Starks, and/or waiting to kill Boltons and Freys the first good chance we get" and "Fuck the Starks, and I guess the Boltons will do for now".


Missing out on all the stuff with Lord Manderly will make it almost impossible for strictly TV people who actually get wth is up with the North.

To be fair, they did the thing the TV show has done every episode of season 5 and 6, they had Roose stand in the middle of an empty room and flat out tell Ramsey, "Everyone except the Umbers and Karstarks hate us".

The Winterfell scenes would definitely have benefited from at least some hint of what the Northern factions are up to. I get why Manderly was cut if they wanted to do Feast and Dance in ten episodes, but at least a couple of Northern houses joining Stannis or showing up at Winterfell to seethe in the corner would have been a help.

It doesn't compare very well with the scenes Robb had dealing with the Northern houses during the war, or any of the court or council scenes in Kings Landing prior to season 5, or even Tyrion or Tywin ruling from the Hand's solar. Bran had better scenes being a Lord than Roose has had - he was even seen in more than one room of Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 04, 2016, 01:47:55 AM
Just rewatched end of Season 5. Everybody's right--Davos doesn't actually know what happened at the battle. As far as he knows, Melisandre is the only survivor of a catastrophic defeat, and she's not said anything to change that impression. Makes you wonder if Davos will ever learn the truth.

Melisandre doesn't even know what happened bar any hints from the flames.

So the most charitable interpretation I can put on Melisandre is that she realised Stannis isn't AA after the burning, but more importantly, also that she'd left her phone charger 605 miles to the North at Castle Black, so somehow rode there in a day because she is Gandalf. Seeing Jon is dead is no big deal because she still can't find her charger, those meaningful stares last season were just because he has a cool beard, she clearly doesn't think he is anything special because she hasn't been able to shut up about the prophecy over five and a quarter seasons and nonetheless doesn't think it worth mentioning to Davos now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 04, 2016, 04:26:51 AM
Time and distance are a really annoying thing to me in these kinds of stories. They really do need to be taken seriously rather than just seriously when the writers need them to be and ignored otherwise. Every once in a while Thrones characters do comment on the length of time the story's been going on--Sam says something to Jon like, "We've known each other for years", which in a world where the seasons last for years seems like it could be right. So sometimes the stuff that seems to take a few days could arguably have taken longer and we just didn't get the dull parts. Say the opening journey of the Stark-Lannister entourages to King's Landing from Winterfell, which was still in summer. 

But leaving Stannis about a day's march on foot (!) from Winterfell (that can't be more than 20 miles from the place, really) and getting back to Castle Black without any muss or fuss just doesn't seem quite right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on May 04, 2016, 06:26:03 AM
Just rewatched end of Season 5. Everybody's right--Davos doesn't actually know what happened at the battle. As far as he knows, Melisandre is the only survivor of a catastrophic defeat, and she's not said anything to change that impression. Makes you wonder if Davos will ever learn the truth.

Melisandre doesn't even know what happened bar any hints from the flames.

So the most charitable interpretation I can put on Melisandre is that she realised Stannis isn't AA after the burning, but more importantly, also that she'd left her phone charger 605 miles to the North at Castle Black, so somehow rode there in a day because she is Gandalf. Seeing Jon is dead is no big deal because she still can't find her charger, those meaningful stares last season were just because he has a cool beard, she clearly doesn't think he is anything special because she hasn't been able to shut up about the prophecy over five and a quarter seasons and nonetheless doesn't think it worth mentioning to Davos now.


She mentions in the first episode of this season that she saw Jon Snow in the flames and he was fighting at Winterfell (at about 5:50 if you rewatch it).  That's the reason she went back to Castle Black, and I think she was surprised to see him dead, which led to her final scene in that episode which was a kind of crisis of faith.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 04, 2016, 06:30:55 AM
Time and distance are a really annoying thing to me in these kinds of stories. They really do need to be taken seriously rather than just seriously when the writers need them to be and ignored otherwise. Every once in a while Thrones characters do comment on the length of time the story's been going on--Sam says something to Jon like, "We've known each other for years", which in a world where the seasons last for years seems like it could be right. So sometimes the stuff that seems to take a few days could arguably have taken longer and we just didn't get the dull parts. Say the opening journey of the Stark-Lannister entourages to King's Landing from Winterfell, which was still in summer.  

But leaving Stannis about a day's march on foot (!) from Winterfell (that can't be more than 20 miles from the place, really) and getting back to Castle Black without any muss or fuss just doesn't seem quite right.

Fwiw the people who construct entire wikis from the books claim it's now about two and a half years since the GoT prologue.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 04, 2016, 01:31:45 PM
I must admit that they DON'T respect travel time in the TV series. If they did then we'd be exposed to a lot of drek that Martin dragged us through in the books.

People complain about padding on TV... that is nothing to the sheer boredom in the books


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 04, 2016, 02:40:11 PM
The travel portions are about the best writing Martin has done.  If you think that is padding you really don't like books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 04, 2016, 02:42:04 PM
Sure, I don't want the equivalent of a thousand-page river voyage while Tyrion mutters about whores. It's just that it's hard to have characters worried about the vast distances they might have to travel one minute and then in the next minute be totally casual about the idea of walking five hundred miles by tomorrow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on May 08, 2016, 10:54:26 AM
The travel portions are about the best writing Martin has done.  If you think that is padding you really don't like books.

The padding is in the meals. He's such a fat fuck about describing every aspect of every course of every meal every chance he gets. Once you notice it its painfully obnoxious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 08, 2016, 12:10:15 PM
Yeah, he's to meals what Jordan was to clothing and furnishings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 08, 2016, 07:11:28 PM
Well, that was one of the most inconsequential and dull episodes on the heels of one of the more consequential ones. Boring.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2016, 07:21:39 PM
Looks like another good week for Stark's Sixth Sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 08, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Going to be a shitty points week :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 08, 2016, 07:26:11 PM
"Oh, sorry, did you want to see what really happened, Bran? It will have to wait. Now we need to look at the balance sheets kept by the Hand of the fourth Targaryen king, in specific, the purchase of wines from Pentos over a roughly ten-month period so we can determine the labor outputs of the Essos hinterland over a thirty-year interval."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2016, 07:27:24 PM
Going to be a shitty points week :(
For me too. Maybe I'll get some status handouts for Ramsay and/or some wit from the High Sparrow, but I'm not holding my breath.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 08, 2016, 07:57:15 PM
I had a brief glimmer of hope that I might get some nudity points during the scooby-doo Osha reveal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 09, 2016, 03:21:35 AM
Well, that was one of the most inconsequential and dull episodes on the heels of one of the more consequential ones. Boring.


Yeah the cutoff of TOM was aggravating as hell.  While it was definitely boring the episode wasn't inconsequential. We discovered people can hear Bran, Ned lied about events at the tower for as yet unknown reasons, Tommen is getting manipulat d by the church now, we learned about the "little birds", Arya is confirmed badass, Rickon showed up for stupid plot reasons, and Jon quit the Wall. Most importantly; Fuck Olly.

So yeah, boring but important episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 09, 2016, 04:52:57 AM
I guess there must be a rider in Peter Dinklage's contract that he has to appear at least once an episode, because while I love the guy, that scene tonight was beyond pointless. Five minutes of not-even small talk  :oh_i_see:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 09, 2016, 07:19:36 AM
My fantasy team is the worst. THE WORST. Varys can't even say anything witty. Bronn is off plowing whores or something...Grey Worm just giving hottie chick oral all day...and Rickon Stark has finally made an appearance.... My only hope is for Grey Worm to kill like 800 Sons by himself, ride a boat to King's Landing, where him and Bronn take the Iron Throne together. So, yeah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: grebo on May 09, 2016, 09:32:04 AM
Hey at least all your folks are still alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 09, 2016, 09:51:01 AM
Scores are starting to update; none of the teams seem to be yet but I see certain characters getting new points.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 09, 2016, 11:02:15 AM
A drop to #4, brutal, but then nobody on my team appeared this week.

Jon Snow proving to be the #1 draft pick this season, raking-in MMMMMMMmulti-KILL *BRUTAL* with the execution of 2 drafted and 2 additional undrafted characters last night.  Stark's Sixth-Sense is taking a COMMANDING lead. Can anyone catch the Basterd of Winterfell?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 09, 2016, 11:24:13 AM
Still holding at #2, thanks High Sparrow!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: grebo on May 09, 2016, 03:02:13 PM
Woo you go and be important Bran.  I finally have points.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on May 09, 2016, 03:56:07 PM
This is thread is stopping to make sense for people who don't do this fantasy league...  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 09, 2016, 03:58:29 PM
Welcome to the NFL. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 09, 2016, 04:05:16 PM
I liked the Arya scene. In fact it would have been fine with just that and skipping the screen time spent on her in the last couple of episodes.

I didn't think much of anything else this episode.

The tower of joy scene really irritated me. Lots of good ideas ruined by mediocre piecemeal delivery. Doing the entire tower of joy, or the entire Tommen vs Jonathon Pryce, or anything worth a damn happening in Mereen, could have been a good episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 09, 2016, 05:39:24 PM
Trying to cram too many characters into each episode has always been a problem with this show; this season might just feel worse to me because I actually want to know what's happening instead of just trying to see the cool bits on screen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 09, 2016, 06:52:03 PM
Especially when it's just dumb shit like the scene with Tyrion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 09, 2016, 07:23:48 PM
"Oh, sorry, did you want to see what really happened, Bran? It will have to wait. Now we need to look at the balance sheets kept by the Hand of the fourth Targaryen king, in specific, the purchase of wines from Pentos over a roughly ten-month period so we can determine the labor outputs of the Essos hinterland over a thirty-year interval."


It's the change in format. Rather than focusing on 2-4 story threads per episode, they are trying to show ALL of them every episode. None of them gets any weight or resolution. Bran's journey should be one long flashback episode immediately following a cliffhanger episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on May 09, 2016, 08:17:26 PM
Ned lied about events at the tower for as yet unknown reasons

As for why he lied. Fuck it, it was war, and Stark was young, and he had real secrets to keep. Better to let them all blab about how Stark and Reed took down Dayne (undoubtedly very honorable, even though they never spoke much of it) than wonder WTF happened up in the tower.

The Tyrion scene was pointless.

As for more spoiler stuff:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on May 09, 2016, 08:18:19 PM
Yeah the impact episodes have always been the ones that focus in mainly in one place. That's why my big hope is that you can see that this threads could be bundled up in 2-4 places without leaving much out if we could just get to that point already.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 09, 2016, 08:45:21 PM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 09, 2016, 09:01:33 PM
I liked the Arya scene. In fact it would have been fine with just that and skipping the screen time spent on her in the last couple of episodes.

I didn't think much of anything else this episode.

The tower of joy scene really irritated me. Lots of good ideas ruined by mediocre piecemeal delivery. Doing the entire tower of joy, or the entire Tommen vs Jonathon Pryce, or anything worth a damn happening in Mereen, could have been a good episode.

They also couldn't resist doing another stupid TV fake-out where it looks like Ned is fucked but oh look outta nowhere the guy who was run through comes back to save him. We all knew Ned lives, just like Jon, and we knew Reed lives, so why do this? This is WWF level direction/writing here, the only surprise was that Reed didn't come in swinging a folding metal chair into Dayne's back.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 10, 2016, 07:16:32 AM
I liked the Arya scene. In fact it would have been fine with just that and skipping the screen time spent on her in the last couple of episodes.

I didn't think much of anything else this episode.

The tower of joy scene really irritated me. Lots of good ideas ruined by mediocre piecemeal delivery. Doing the entire tower of joy, or the entire Tommen vs Jonathon Pryce, or anything worth a damn happening in Mereen, could have been a good episode.

They also couldn't resist doing another stupid TV fake-out where it looks like Ned is fucked but oh look outta nowhere the guy who was run through comes back to save him. We all knew Ned lives, just like Jon, and we knew Reed lives, so why do this? This is WWF level direction/writing here, the only surprise was that Reed didn't come in swinging a folding metal chair into Dayne's back.

You completely misread that scene.  It wasn't a "fake out" it was a "Ned won by treachery".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2016, 07:28:34 AM
Yeah, treachery they keep hidden.

Ned lied about events at the tower for as yet unknown reasons

As for why he lied. Fuck it, it was war, and Stark was young, and he had real secrets to keep. Better to let them all blab about how Stark and Reed took down Dayne (undoubtedly very honorable, even though they never spoke much of it) than wonder WTF happened up in the tower.


Yeah, when I said, "for as yet unknown reasons" I meant to the viewers. Even book readers only have theories, not concrete reasons yet. I'm with you that it's to distract from the rest of the story. "Ned took out Dayne? Holy crap!" rather than, "Wait, they were Kingsguard and they stayed with some northern woman the King raped, why? Why throw their lives away protecting some bint when there were still two other Targaryens (Danerys and Viserys) who actually NEEDED protection?"



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 10, 2016, 07:54:07 AM
Don't understand why the show went that route. Ned told everyone who bothers to listen that Reed saved his life. Repeatedly. He never took the credit for beating "Ser Arthur Dayne Sword of the Morning" and its highly against his character to even insinuate he did. In fact he remembers it, 15 years later, as a nightmarish encounter. 3 swords, 7 men, 2 survivors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 10, 2016, 08:00:57 AM
I was complaining more about the directing aesthetics. I'll add that having Dayne fight with 2 swords to make him look more badass was George Lucas levels of pandering too.

Plus any fight that starts with a 7:2 numerical advantage is by default dishonourable for the more numerous party (from a knightly perspective). The final blow coming from sneak dagger compared to a sword thrust when you have a guy surrounded 4 vs 1 doesn't change much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 10, 2016, 08:42:47 AM
Leather armor vs Plate though!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 10, 2016, 09:09:07 AM
It's ok, it's balanced by spellcasting penalties.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 10, 2016, 09:18:20 AM
Also didn't get that. They should have been full plated.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 10, 2016, 10:09:37 AM
I can forgive the dual wield awfulness because the show needed some way to communicate to non book readers how Dayne was a badass.

But speedy is right, the show continues to have issues with weak fight scene direction.

The ideas here are fine.

Even Bran's reaction is well thought out. Ned didn't lie to him, Bran just projected because he was obsessed with knights and chivalry at the time. Ned saw such things as bullshit and said so repeatedly.

His attitude to this fight chimes with Ned's exchanges with Jamie and his refusal to get involved in tourneys. The theme of people not listening to what Ned actually said also stretches to Jon. I'd bet in GRRM's mind Ned never lied about Jon's parentage. The only relevant quotes are Ned referring to Jon as "his blood" and him coming back from the war and telling Catelyn "don't ask me about the kid".

Sadly the whole thing was undercut by providing only half a scene from the middle of a story where a non-book reader can't possibly follow the significance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 10, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
Spoilered because apparently fan theories based on the books are now spoilers even when it's obvious.

A little bit odd that the title of the episode was "Oathbreaker", the obvious is Jon Snow, but by the exact wording of the Oath, he's not:

Quote
"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

He died, his Oath is discharged. This isn't the kind of thematic error these writers make. So who was the oathbreaker in the episode?

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 10, 2016, 10:47:13 AM
Well, there were several parts of the episode that circled the concept of oathbreaking, intentional or not: Dany's interaction with the dosh khaleen, Umber's talk/defection to Ramsay, Ned's lies to his children, John's oath to the Night Watch being broken by his death, etc.  The term used may just be ironic instead of pejorative.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2016, 12:09:22 PM
That little shit Olly breaking his oath to Lord Snow.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on May 10, 2016, 12:27:34 PM
I was complaining more about the directing aesthetics. I'll add that having Dayne fight with 2 swords to make him look more badass was George Lucas levels of pandering too.

Plus any fight that starts with a 7:2 numerical advantage is by default dishonourable for the more numerous party (from a knightly perspective). The final blow coming from sneak dagger compared to a sword thrust when you have a guy surrounded 4 vs 1 doesn't change much.

Agree with Speedy on this. This wasn't a get-stabbed-in-the-back-in-a-Tavern situation. Neither some knightly tourney. What was he supposed to do it after being wounded? Sit out and wait until Ned is finished?

And on the aesthetics as well, the dual wielding swords crossed into the cartoony.


One thing the show still is good at is villains. Maybe it's a dislike of religious fundamentalists, but the High Septim is my new Ramsay Bolton. Hope Cersei has him strangled with is own guts.  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2016, 12:46:52 PM
Jon Snow is definitely not an Oathbreaker, because hey, his watch ended when he died. I hope that means his next move is "I'm gon' go fuck me up some Boltons." I think the title Oathbreakers is kind of being ironic there, as in "Why would anyone expect these sworn Oaths to be worth two shits?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 10, 2016, 01:08:55 PM
Oathbreakers breaking Oaths in this episode include Jon Snow, Dany, the guys who got hanged, the Umbers, Ned Stark and co, the Mereen whore, Sam, at a stretch Arya, and according to one theory that the scriptwriters consipicuously chose to indulge, Varys.

I waa a little surprised there wasn't any obvious oathbreaking going in in king's landing, unless you count Qyburn on general principles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 10, 2016, 01:10:39 PM
Mahrin, we kept that talk about the tower in spoilers or very vague before for the non book readers.  Since it hasn't been confirmed yet (hopefully next god damn episode you cock-teases), maybe you should spoiler it.

I agree that the duel wield thing was pretty eye rolling.  But in the absence of a very good choreographed fight scene, it was a good cheep way to show non-book readers that Sir Dayne was indeed the greatest swordsman of the era, so it didn't bother me to much.

Considering how much more depth we have in the books on the situation of the northern houses and what will likely happen there, concerning the Umber thing:
 

Eldaec, what oathbreaking did Stark commit?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 10, 2016, 01:12:01 PM
I wouldn't regard Ned lying to his kids as oathbreaking - I'm not even convinced that happened. But the whole usurping the king thing probably does count.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 10, 2016, 02:05:52 PM
I wouldn't regard Ned lying to his kids as oathbreaking - I'm not even convinced that happened. But the whole usurping the king thing probably does count.

The Mad King? Yeah, a lot of this can be seen as a delayed 'No, fuck you' from the gods for the oathbreaking surrounding the last Targaryens (including that of Aerys). One thing that has never been more than hinted at was how Rhaegar, supposedly one of the most honorable men in the 7 Kingdoms, triggered off a war with most of the other 'most honorable men' of the 7 Kingdoms.

IOW, we've been touring through the wreckage of a series of events that the living participants didn't want to talk about, and now most of them are dead (Jaime and Varys being the only major exceptions, and Jaime didn't really know what was going on). Brandon's visions seem like they are straight exposition trying to tie those threads together.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 10, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
Considering how much more depth we have in the books on the situation of the northern houses and what will likely happen there, concerning the Umber thing:
 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 10, 2016, 03:18:29 PM
Considering how much more depth we have in the books on the situation of the northern houses and what will likely happen there, concerning the Umber thing:
 





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 10, 2016, 03:36:05 PM

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on May 10, 2016, 05:58:25 PM
Ok first of all the Tower of Joy scene sucked. Just awful. Ofc Howland did something tricky, he's a Reed/Cannogman, disappointing really he wasn't using a spear or poison or threw sand in his eyes. The dual wielding to signify that Dayne is a big deal instead of The Most Famous Magical Sword and just being choreographed well was lame as all hell. Was there a good reason to only use 2 Kingsguard instead of 3?

Also like much of these first 3 eps it felt so rushed. Like you could tell they wanted us to think it was badass but instead it felt like we had other places we needed to be. I guess in no small part because 3-Eyed Raven (who is such a letdown looks wise btw) literally told us we needed to be somewhere else.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on May 10, 2016, 07:22:05 PM
They shoulda upped the game in that scene.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42220/66RUsf6%20-%20Imgur.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 11, 2016, 02:54:48 AM
Considering how much more depth we have in the books on the situation of the northern houses and what will likely happen there, concerning the Umber thing:
 



In the books, Great Jon is still alive (taken captive at the Red Wedding though), and Small Jon was killed at the Red Wedding.  So rather than try to re-introduce a character from the first season nobody remembers (apparently Great Jon was suppose to be in the second season also, but the actor had a conflicting schedule.  So they gave his scenes to others), I can see them saying Small Jon is lord now and just running with that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on May 11, 2016, 05:03:03 AM
I always forget how much F13 hates fun.

That fight scene at ToJ was awesome until the greatest fighter that ever lived barely wounded a guy with a stab through the chest and then said guy is able to stand up and stab him in the neck and presumably live a full life.  Cliffhangers suck but it's a TV show and we've all been on a cliffhanger from the books for like 20 fucking years.

I'm of the opinion that the Smalljon gift isn't a ploy and instead we're going to get a few fingers/dicks sent off to Castle Black trying to incite a fight.  I don't think  is long for this world.

Someone on Reddit/ASOIAF went through and pulled all mentions of "words on the wind" in the books.  Seemed significant
On a fantasy note, 50 points to Arya for MONTAGE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLuSfFLA_98


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on May 11, 2016, 05:15:22 AM
I don't think if this is a ploy by Smalljon, if it was why deliver Osha to Ramsey as well? Regardless, the Direwolfs really need to unionize. We are down to two now (or three if you count rumors about Nymeria). Thats not a safe working environment!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 11, 2016, 07:30:07 AM
I really really hope they don't let Bran change history. That could be super-annoying.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 11, 2016, 07:30:41 AM
Rickon has to die so Sansa can take Winterfell. Male heirs get priority in Westeros. Bran is never returning to the realm of men so he's a non-issue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 11, 2016, 07:57:03 AM
Going to be really god damn stupid if that's how it goes.  I don't see Rickon being killed in the books, and it would be silly for them to do it here.

Then again, there is the ominous flayed/burning person in the trailer, so could very well be Rickon.  Bleh.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on May 11, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
As a non-book reader and not having a clue who the Knight of the Morning (Mourning?) was, I was at least handed a 'this guy is a major badass' with the dual wielding...and , well, to take on 7 guys you better have something up your sleeve. And I guess if you are the worlds greatest swordsman, why not double up?? lol

I thought it was a fun fight in a season that's been pretty slow in that regard.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 11, 2016, 09:54:34 AM
I didn't have a problem with the dual-wielding sword badass, though at one point during the fight, I was thinking "that second sword would probably be more useful if it was a shield." But in terms of visual effects, it did the job illustrating his badassery than just saying it. After all, not many actors can actually pull off really great feats of swordsmanship on a TV budget and timeframe, especially not for a scene that's barely two minutes long if that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 11, 2016, 09:59:52 AM
It was definitely a step up from the fight scenes in Dorne.  :awesome_for_real:

Dammit they were awful (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsioCjw6130)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 11, 2016, 10:09:15 AM
I forgave the scene for being tv writer "but for the tv audience!!" Usual half assed attempts at following cannon on a budget. I turned off my nitpicks because i honestly thought the show writers wont copout and actually complete the fucking scene. But they didnt, they'll tease the rest of the tower of joy scene for an entire fucking season and watch us clap at the "twist".


So yeah the fight itself can be criticized for being too lazy to follow the book when the show writers want to pad their run time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 11, 2016, 11:19:05 AM
This show could use a few more genuinely great start-to-finish mano-a-mano fight scenes. So far in that category it's Oberyn v. the Mountain and the Hound v. Brienne, I think. Some good ensemble pieces here and there too but I am not recollecting another great duel.

I really hope that if they do the "short seventh and eighth season" plan, they completely drop the "here's five minutes in this location, here's five minutes in this location" etc. structure. It's never been a good thing for the show and it's really outstayed its welcome at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 11, 2016, 11:56:08 AM
To be fair, now that they've past the books and can do their own thing, you can see they are painfully trying to push all the characters together into a few concentrated locations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 11, 2016, 01:39:58 PM
To be honest, Oberon and the Mountain stood out for combat but Ned vs Jamie was the best one that actually took the plot somewhere. It showed just who both characters were and triggered the narrative. Brienne vs Hound did this this to a lesser extent and O vs M took us to Dorne which was a dud plot element.

Personally I'd like to see a flashback to Rhaegar and Robert at the Trident.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 11, 2016, 02:28:57 PM
Two spring to mind:

Hound vs Dondarrion.
Bronn vs some random guy in Tyrion's S1 trial.

Both have a lot more personal threat, and much more personality and thematic content in the choreography.

Tyrion's second trial was a fun scene, but it was dancing, not fighting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 11, 2016, 02:34:05 PM
My big question with the weird "sword fight in the desert" scene was more "where the fuck is Ice?".

Ned Stark carried that damn thing everywhere in S1, the thing was a massive 2 handed broadsword made of unbreakable uber-steel, yet he fought in that scene with a regular longsword.

Just seemed off.

Of course, whatever, it is bad television. They don't even show bewbs anymore :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 11, 2016, 03:26:48 PM
My big question with the weird "sword fight in the desert" scene was more "where the fuck is Ice?".

Ned Stark carried that damn thing everywhere in S1, the thing was a massive 2 handed broadsword made of unbreakable uber-steel, yet he fought in that scene with a regular longsword.

Just seemed off.

Of course, whatever, it is bad television. They don't even show bewbs anymore :(
Rickard Stark (his father) probably had it with him when he was killed by the Mad King. He may not have gotten Ice back until later.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 11, 2016, 03:41:28 PM
Also, Ice is what, the best part of a metre and a half long? No way you'd actually spar with that, this isn't Dark Souls.

On an unrelated note, I tried to work out all the narratives currently in the show and I think there's 14. I've tried to group them by likely merges over the course of this season, and this assumes certain things, such as Littlefinger rapidly moving to Winterfell. However, this still leaves eight distinct plot threads. I can't see how they're going to weave Sam and Gilly back into the main plot. I guess Bran will probably merge with the plot in the North at some point, albeit indirectly; and they might get Euron to Mereen by the end of the season by some special TV travel magic. That still leaves Dorne, which could collide with the Kings landing plots, and Arya, which has no clear path to anywhere at this point. This assumes that we don't get a whole bunch of new plotlines, such as the Brotherhood Without Banners, or currently merged plotlines splitting as characters go different ways.

1 - Dany and the Dothraki
2 - Jorah and Daario
3 - Mereen (Tyrion, Varys et al)
---
4 - Bran
---
5 - Castle Black (Jon+Wildlings+Mel+Davos)
6 - Sansa + Brienne
7 - Littlefinger
8 - Ramsay + Rickon/Osha
---
9 - Arya
---
10 - Dorne
---
11 - Cersei+Jamie+Tommen
12 - Margaery and Loras
---
13 - Iron Islands (now with added Theon)
---
14 - Sam and Gilly
---


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on May 11, 2016, 05:35:34 PM
What do you (F13) think of Tommen?

Just from the acting alone (without  book- or metaknowledge or trying to guess writers intent) it's really painful how easy to manipulate he is.  He is moved by the last person that spoke, whether it's Tywin, Cersei or High Cocksucker


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 11, 2016, 06:25:35 PM
He is being played pretty much exactly as the character is written in the books (only a bit older as he was like 10 or 12 when he took the throne in the books.)

He was always sheltered and needed attention. People like that are almost always easily manipulated.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 11, 2016, 06:27:42 PM
Tommen I kinda just ignore ever scene he is in. They aged him up so he can have sex with Queen Margy (the TITS), and so that her capture has "some" emotional weight (the FEELS) to him. He completely forgets about her now that mamma dearest is back. No point of aging a character when he still acts like he is 10 years old.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 11, 2016, 07:25:50 PM
It's credible enough. It's kind of painful to watch, but in a legitimate way. I am guessing he gets pretty brutally fucked over soon enough.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 11, 2016, 07:42:47 PM
He dies before Cersei, according to her prophecy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 11, 2016, 08:14:02 PM
Theon


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 11, 2016, 11:14:23 PM
My big question with the weird "sword fight in the desert" scene was more "where the fuck is Ice?".

Ned Stark carried that damn thing everywhere in S1, the thing was a massive 2 handed broadsword made of unbreakable uber-steel, yet he fought in that scene with a regular longsword.

Just seemed off.

Of course, whatever, it is bad television. They don't even show bewbs anymore :(
Rickard Stark (his father) probably had it with him when he was killed by the Mad King. He may not have gotten Ice back until later.

--Dave

Sean Bean Stark didn't fight with Ice either,  I don't think the books were definitive either way. Ice only being used for ceremonial purposes (and head chopping) seems reasonable and in keeping with Ned's character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 12, 2016, 02:21:17 AM
This season needs more Ser Pounce


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 12, 2016, 10:13:36 AM
Would be amusing to see the High Sparrow get a cat to the face.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 12, 2016, 11:37:31 AM
Theon

Oh shit, you're right, this sounds terrible.

Just thinking about it reinforces how anyone much this show is missing the travelling scenes now that we're covering a book chapter more or less every 4 minutes.

And after thinking about that, now I'm thinking about how they are going to cover the kingsmoot in 6 minutes tops. Le sigh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 12, 2016, 12:06:08 PM
Theon

The fact that he is not there is actually a plot point in the books though.  As in the reason the entire thing was invalid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on May 12, 2016, 01:36:51 PM
It's credible enough. It's kind of painful to watch, but in a legitimate way. I am guessing he gets pretty brutally fucked over soon enough.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 12, 2016, 01:57:08 PM
Theon

The fact that he is not there is actually a plot point in the books though.  As in the reason the entire thing was invalid.

Yeah, but not really a critical one. Theon could arrive after the Kingsmoot and be sent away, or Theon could even be the deciding voice and get the command as a reward.

When Theon returns stronger they can have him challenge the sitting king with one line of dialog.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 12, 2016, 04:15:27 PM
Of course, whatever, it is bad television. They don't even show bewbs anymore :(
Can't believe I let this one go past the first time:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 12, 2016, 04:20:26 PM


And after thinking about that, now I'm thinking about how they are going to cover the kingsmoot in 6 minutes tops. Le sigh.

I hope so. I found the Kingsmoot as pointless as Dorne in the books. I didn't need Martin to add yet more plot threads and more POV characters. I needed him to start tying off loose ends.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2016, 12:16:23 AM
Ymmv, in the books I've long since accepted there is no way this ends well, so the world building is much more fun than another Jon or Dany episode that brings us closer to the inevitable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on May 14, 2016, 07:49:31 AM
It's credible enough. It's kind of painful to watch, but in a legitimate way. I am guessing he gets pretty brutally fucked over soon enough.





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2016, 04:57:37 PM
The GOT subreddit linked me to this:
http://imgur.com/a/SzmfL

Which, for me, explains some of the stupidity of the TOJ fight and the backstabbing. It's the directors trying to be clever with the call-backs to the last fight we saw with Ned. Yes it might be the internet looking into things too hard, but it seems to fit and I've accepted it as head canon until proven otherwise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2016, 05:32:26 PM
In the books, concerning the Tower of Joy, Ned said very specifically that he would be dead if not for Howland Reed.  This is the TV showing that.

Edit:  And actually looking back, in the TV series, Bran said to Jojen about his father: "He saved my fathers life during the Rebellion."  So, they are just closing the loops.  Not sure why people are reading much into it...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2016, 06:39:23 PM
We're not, we're talking about how poorly executed it was compared to the characters themselves. Nobody's said, "Fuck that Reed didn't help."  we're saying, "well, the Reeds use spears and nets and tricks. That should have come in to play, not backstabbing."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 15, 2016, 08:18:06 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/jYBcjON.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 15, 2016, 07:01:37 PM
What was that you guys said about her not being immune to fire? :why_so_serious:

Also hats off to my number 1 pick, still racking up points.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 15, 2016, 07:13:02 PM
Gotta love Khaleesi when she goes the full Targaryen. That was a fun episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on May 15, 2016, 07:26:00 PM
This episode should have been the first episode of the season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on May 15, 2016, 08:06:58 PM
So, under/over on


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 15, 2016, 08:09:18 PM
This episode sucked for my dreams of a fantasy league comeback.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 15, 2016, 08:23:18 PM
Ok, so what the fuck, everybody here who was all like "Oh, Khaleesi is only immune to fire when she's hatching dragon eggs, very unusual and magical and normally not the case at all, not one bit". Go forecast US primary results, accuracy doesn't matter there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 15, 2016, 08:36:08 PM
Dude, we can only go by what Martin's said in t he past. Much like the rest of the season, that's all TV show writers right there.

We're way off the reservation now; just like Sansa and Jon reuniting, Sansa and Brienne, Theon back at home for the Kingsmoot, Rickon held by Ramsay. It's all show writers doing things at this point.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/15/11676666/game-of-thrones-dany-daenerys-fire-immune-recap


ed: Also, that was some wonky CGI face swapping at the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on May 15, 2016, 08:57:37 PM
I did find it kind of funny that we were JUST talking about the one-off nature of Immunity From Fire and this is how the episode rolled.

If


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2016, 06:49:39 AM
Martin himself retconned that whole "fire immunity was a one time thing" in the books, she was on fire when she flew off on Drogon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 16, 2016, 07:37:34 AM
Definitely the best episode so far, glad to see the show actually moving things along.

ed: Also, that was some wonky CGI face swapping at the end.

I guess I'm not the one getting my tits out, but it seems that the distinction between being naked and having your head CGI'd onto a naked body double is a somewhat arbitrary one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2016, 07:44:55 AM
The scene looked weird to me also and i figured it was CGI like the walk of shame but she has claimed it was her.  I imagine it looked weird because everything around her was CGI.  Or she's lying, she did seem to look better than usual.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 16, 2016, 08:39:12 AM
Weird, it looked all kinds of CGI/ fake to me.

Anywho; the best scene was this one. Something I didn't realize I wanted until it happened:
https://gfycat.com/GlitteringEntireHoiho



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 16, 2016, 08:58:19 AM
I really hope something comes of that  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 16, 2016, 11:44:23 AM
Martin himself retconned that whole "fire immunity was a one time thing" in the books, she was on fire when she flew off on Drogon.

Before dragons were even a thing there were whole passages discussing how she gave zero fucks about scalding hot water, deserts, rocks etc.

I took the grrm quote to simply mean you shouldn't assume her resistence is absolute and permanent, and probably ebbs and flows with all the other asoiaf magic. Also with plot requirements.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 16, 2016, 11:46:58 AM
Dragons are also somewhat of a magic amplifier.  So pretty good chances it works when they're in proximity.  But yah, PLOT. 

That brazier tipping scene looked really stupid. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetor on May 16, 2016, 11:52:02 AM
"Die in a Khal fire"  :drill:

I wonder if she also has fire manipulation / pyromancy abilities... or is a huge-ass tent just supposed to light up like that?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2016, 12:23:46 PM
I figured Daario and Jorah oiled it up a bit.  I mean the ground was catching fire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 16, 2016, 12:34:42 PM
The fire seemed to flow out of the tipped Braziers like there was some oil in them.

You'd think they would have been bolted down or something for safety purposes, seemed like any drunk could bumped them over pretty easily and brought the whole hall down in a minute. I hope the engineers take this into account when it's rebuilt.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 16, 2016, 12:37:30 PM
They really need to have Jorrah and friend talking about how they oiled up the place before everybody arrived next episode, or else at least try to explain why the Dothraki use napalm for their braziers.

Episode was OK except for that one death.   :oh_i_see:

There had really better be a reason for introducing that entire plot element.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 16, 2016, 01:27:23 PM
I figured Daario and Jorah oiled it up a bit.  I mean the ground was catching fire.

You're making me think about it which is making me hate it. I had enough of a "WTF" at the non-burning that I'd forgotten my initial, "Wait, Fire doesn't flow like water.. wtf?" reaction.

Time to think of something good again:

Petyr Baelish, demonstrating to Lord Royce JUST how much Royce underestimated him had me laughing with glee. It was fantastic and I was happy we saw Littlefinger again and in such a great scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 16, 2016, 01:42:25 PM
Brienne had 3 of the best parts of the episode, her look when Giantsbane sees her for the first time when she enters Castle Black (someone needs to make a short vid of this with 'dreamweaver' playing over the top), the above referenced gif and then dropping casually how she executed Stannis. The stunned mullet looks on Davos and Melisandre were priceless.

Episode was awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on May 16, 2016, 01:44:07 PM
I guess I should spoiler this..


I'm hoping for a satisfying outcome to the whole King's Landing drama, but I'm bracing myself for a lot of dumb.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 16, 2016, 02:04:35 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 16, 2016, 02:49:33 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 16, 2016, 03:18:01 PM
Boy are these story-lines smartly written.  :awesome_for_real:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on May 16, 2016, 07:47:25 PM
Points are out. No love for Littlefinger  :sad:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/16/11680948/game-of-thrones-recap-season-6-episode-4-book-of-the-stranger


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 16, 2016, 11:31:28 PM
I liked that episode much more than the first 3.

Fewer storylines helped enormously.

Pink letter was good, Brienne was great, Dany was good, Mereen wasn't quite as bad as usual, perfect amount of Dorne, and I could watch an entire hour of Jonathan Pryce being inscrutable.  Yara and Theon remain great on screen together - they've probably had less than 15 minutes in the same place but it is all memorable.  Also notable that Sansa morphed into someone likable - though she really needs to demonstrate some sort of capability to earn winterfell, just holding the knife that kills Ramsey wouldn't be enough.

Have no idea why Jorah and Daario were wasting screentime, or why Mereen is still eerily absent of extras.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 17, 2016, 05:29:36 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 17, 2016, 07:30:22 AM
Serious question, why are people putting plain old speculation in spoiler tags?

Post above is all very possible. Though I've always assumed the house of black and white is playing it straight, what do you mean 'what they are all about'?

Mereen I'd guess they are aiming for Tyrion to teach Missandei and Grey Worm to run the place before he fucks off with the Dragons. Varys will use his stash of narrativium to simply appear in Kings Landing when needed.

Also, while we're doing this, I'm kind of expecting Sam to end up with Dany. He's in the south, she'll (presumably) be in the south, and I expect he has some purpose other than to read books for the audience. If I had to guess what the showrunners want, it would be a single southern Dany group, a single northern Jon group, then KL as the centre of antagonistic humans and the zombies being zombies.

At this point I'd guess the ironborn will meet Dany in the south.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 17, 2016, 08:08:54 AM
Why are people putting anything at all in spoiler tags?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 17, 2016, 08:20:06 AM
I figure you never know what people might think of as "don't show me that, put it in spoiler tags".

With the Faceless Men, I guess what has never been clear to me (books or show) is who they kill or why. They don't seem to just be assassins for hire, but they also seem to have strict internal rules about the circumstances under which it is legitimate to kill someone. Though also flexibility--the "gifts" in return for Arya's "gift" of life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: 01101010 on May 17, 2016, 08:35:39 AM
Why are people putting anything at all in spoiler tags?

My thinking exactly. I see pretty much all these threads as "enter at your own risk."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 17, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
I did yesterday just to respect a 24 hour window but I guess anyone who hasn't seen the latest episode shouldn't really be browsing the thread the day after it airs anyway.

I agree mostly with Khaldun on how this will play out but...

book spoiler:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 17, 2016, 10:01:55 AM

Why are people putting anything at all in spoiler tags?

My thinking exactly. I see pretty much all these threads as "enter at your own risk."

At this point the risk being 'someone might have stolen GRRM' s Winds of Winter manuscript'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 17, 2016, 10:05:04 AM
I did yesterday just to respect a 24 hour window but I guess anyone who hasn't seen the latest episode shouldn't really be browsing the thread the day after it airs anyway.

I agree mostly with Khaldun on how this will play out but...

book spoiler:

Yara I hope (probably with Theon in tow for his own safety). Theon couldn't credibly be up to it, plus I'm quite sure I've seen enough of Theon without Yara to play off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 17, 2016, 11:08:37 AM
Why are people putting anything at all in spoiler tags?

It was originally to keep book spoilers out of the discussion. No need for that anymore.

With the Faceless Men, I guess what has never been clear to me (books or show) is who they kill or why. They don't seem to just be assassins for hire, but they also seem to have strict internal rules about the circumstances under which it is legitimate to kill someone. Though also flexibility--the "gifts" in return for Arya's "gift" of life.

They're assassins for hire on one level and just very expensive. On the level we've seen them, they're worshipers of the many-faced god and keep temple to him. I imagine part of the reason for their huge cost is the need to violate the whole, "Only the many-faced god gets to decide who dies" tenet.

The real question for me has, and is, how they fit into the whole puzzle of the story. Arya's journey and story are wholly separate from the rest. Unless she's going to be used to kill Jon or Dany and gives up the faith or some other trope, she could have died with the Hound and had as much impact on things. I imagine whatever it is will be a huge let-down come the last book/ season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 17, 2016, 11:25:58 AM
Someone hires Arya to kill Dany.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 17, 2016, 11:26:31 AM
Probably something stupid like GRRM's wife liked the character and didn't want him to kill her off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Johny Cee on May 17, 2016, 11:31:36 AM
Probably something stupid like GRRM's wife liked the character and didn't want him to kill her off.

This is exactly it...  remember from some discussion/post on westeros forum ages ago (I think pre-show).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 17, 2016, 11:39:14 AM
Heh that was a guess, but based on reading the same thing about why dragons were in the story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 17, 2016, 11:47:09 AM
Being given Jon's name is unlikely, not least as they cannot give the gift to a name they know, this is why the list is important, and why the sailors on her boat to Braavos were keen to introduce themselves.

Characters of note she does not know by name and who are of sufficient significance for the kill to matter are thin on the ground. Dany, the Night King, High Sparrow is all I can think of.

A less important target might be used to just get her to Jon and Sansa, or inside a critical city like KL where she can go full Assassin's creed.

But I don't buy either of these. Jon tells Arya right at the start...

"You'll be sewing all through winter. When the spring thaw comes, they will find your body with a needle still locked tight between your frozen fingers."

Plus Chekov's direwolf is still roaming the riverlands.

My guess is she'll come across someone she wants to kill, abandon the faceless men, then stow away on Dany's fleet, head back to Westeros, join up with Nymeria, and take over some kind of Brotherhood without Banners analogue. Also she will flip out and kill people all the time. The faceless men will come after her as she is now an oathbreaker and so doomed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 17, 2016, 12:50:00 PM
The real question for me has, and is, how they fit into the whole puzzle of the story. Arya's journey and story are wholly separate from the rest. Unless she's going to be used to kill Jon or Dany and gives up the faith or some other trope, she could have died with the Hound and had as much impact on things. I imagine whatever it is will be a huge let-down come the last book/ season.
Keep in mind that up through the first three books, he had intended for there to be a 5 year gap between book 3 and 4.  So basically two trilogies.  First trilogy covers the fall of the Starks and War of the Roses type shit.  Main characters we thought would win because the standard tropes all said they would, are dead (Ned/Rob).  The remaining children scatter.  At that point, at the end of book three, all of them were setup to become super awesome at something.  Arya runs away to be trained into super crazy assassin.  Sansa to learn all about court intrigue and trickery from Littlefinger.  Bran to become a wizard.  Rickon.... hide out with the reeds and learn to fight and just hang out till he's needed to come in to claim Winterfell as the only viable candidate left.  Or something.  He's to young to have much of an impact on anything.

Also Dany deciding to stay in Mareen to learn how to be a queen.

So then once you jump 5 years and have them all in their roles, you go from there in the second series with everything falling apart in Westeros, and the now super powered Stark children plus Dany jumping in.  Except at the last possible second, he decided to scrap all that, and just describe everything that happened.  Where the first three books all came out within a year or two of each other, after fifteen years, he only has two more out.  He's flailing around trying to describe shit he originally setup to happen off screen, and it shows.  So I'm sure Arya would have played a big role in the hypothetical 5 year later trilogy.  Unfortunately, all the time now is taken up by the training that was suppose to happen off screen, and she'll probably have just enough time to show up and stab somebody important before the series ends.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 22, 2016, 09:10:27 AM
Well at least we know why his name is


Good episode, the pace is picking up in a good and at last Dany finally



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 22, 2016, 09:19:48 AM
How the hell have you seen this already.  It's sunday


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 22, 2016, 09:47:14 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/game-of-thrones-season-6-episode-5-hbo-accidentally-leak-the-door-online-a7042246.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 22, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Given the overall history of TV shows, what is almost guaranteed to really happen is that the show will end with Dany still sitting on the other side of the ocean and Arya still doing something by herself unrelated to the rest of the story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 22, 2016, 12:54:18 PM
 :ye_gods:

Episode explains a lot.  Like, how the others came to be.  Its rather quick and sort of meh, but hey.

And a death nobody is going to be happy with.   :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on May 22, 2016, 01:05:45 PM
I cant wait for all the Tormund <3 Brienne fanfics that are going to start falling out of the sky soon. Although it does remind me of my wife and I so...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 22, 2016, 01:40:08 PM
And a death nobody is going to be happy with.   :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:


Spill it, in a spoiler though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 22, 2016, 01:54:26 PM
And a death nobody is going to be happy with.   :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:


Spill it, in a spoiler though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 22, 2016, 02:35:31 PM
Shitballs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 22, 2016, 07:10:27 PM
Well shit.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 22, 2016, 07:23:01 PM
White Walkers racked up a shitton of points for me this episode. :why_so_serious: Totally softens the blow of the deaths.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 22, 2016, 07:30:59 PM
Fuck your points!  I mean: Hodor hodor hodor!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 22, 2016, 07:40:42 PM
The Sansa / Littlefinger scene shouldn't have been as satisfying as it was.

I'm having problems accepting Bran and Meera would get away from the walkers like that. I see they'll be continuing it next week but it felt like we were lacking key information, like why the door held at all.

Kings moot was resolved nicely but felt too long. I also  said " what trees" when Euryon said to go fell them all. I also wondered why they didn't do this previously if building and crewing 1000 ships is so easily done.

The rest was pretty much continued wheel spinning. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 22, 2016, 08:03:52 PM
I refuse to believe that there's a single fucking tree left on the Iron Islands. I mean LOOK at them.

 

I don't know that the Children/First Men/White Walkers thing
Sansa's speech to Littlefinger was practically written by all the people complaining last season--it felt almost like an apology to fans who thought the whole thing was the showrunners not feeling comfortable moving Sansa's plot too far beyond Martin's.
Same for Tyrion. I'm really irritated with how he's being written this season. I'd like to feel like I'm seeing him take a step forward into being even more politically cunning and instead he feels just goofy--he might as well be carrying a sign that says, "I'm just stalling the plot for a few more episodes."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Margalis on May 22, 2016, 11:05:17 PM
What I see on this page:

Blah blah blah Time Travel blah blah blah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on May 22, 2016, 11:32:15 PM
Jack Bender directed one of the best time-crossing episodes in TV history ("The Constant") and did well with this one too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 23, 2016, 12:36:21 AM
I don't buy the death as heroic



First time I've ever seen Varys at a loss and scared - big props to that scene. I can't think that Littlefinger isn't still playing games - that was all too easy to get Sansa to Riverrun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 23, 2016, 03:24:38 AM
I'm sure he's still playing games. I just desperately want Sansa to be playing him back. Would have been nice if she'd misdirected *him* somehow too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on May 23, 2016, 05:35:26 AM
I have a problem with one of the deaths.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 23, 2016, 05:37:23 AM
I thought that was stupid too. But hey, more points for me!

Edit: Also, we didn't get any explanation for how Dany burned the Dothraki this episode; no Jorah and Daario oiling up the floor or anything of the sort.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 23, 2016, 07:26:21 AM
I think basically, yeah, they decided a long time ago that the direwolves were too expensive to have on screen much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on May 23, 2016, 08:12:39 AM
[/spoiler]


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 23, 2016, 08:24:39 AM
[/spoiler]



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 23, 2016, 08:31:52 AM
Well that's one way out of the hole they've dug, certainly.

Re: The Wolves.

I feel like Martin originally had some sort of plan here, but abandoned it around book 2. There was such a big deal about finding one for each Stark, including Jon, and then making a point of turning them into minor book characters. When things started fragmenting and they got separated, the death of Lady in book #1 symbolized Sana being lost to the house.

However that all seems to have been abandoned now and they're just kind of "There" being pointless, except for Ghost. Removing Summer and Shaggydog isn't a problem with the show writers, it's just an underscore of Martin's abandoning of the concept. I get the feeling if he could go back and rewrite book 1 he'd have had only Jon getting a wolf and be done with the premise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 23, 2016, 09:20:51 AM
I think actually you're misreading Martin here. Despite the fact that Dany and Jon in both books and series are largely conforming to the Chosen One archetype, one of the other messages of the books and to a less consistent extent series is that fantasy tropes are dull and predictable, so let's not do them in that way. So the idea of companion animals who thematically reflect and extend the character of their companions, and whose fate is tied to theirs? Martin kills off Sansa's wolf (while Sansa remains very much alive, if in peril) not to say anything about Sansa but simply to illustrate the capriciousness and cruelty of aristocratic power and to let us in on how out of touch Ned Stark is with the situation he's going into. Rob's wolf gets killed because all things Stark at the Red Wedding are getting killed, and because his enemies are exulting in every aspect of his humiliation and defeat--there's no mystic meaning in it, just cruelty and ugliness that extends to all the victims. Nymeria runs away and hides--I suppose you could say that's to echo Arya but it's not as if we've had even a hint of the wolf shadowing Arya's movements. I think it's just "that's what a wolf would do". I think Martin mostly just wants to say, "Don't assume anything about how things turn out--anybody can die, and not all deaths will be full of glory or meaning. Including beautiful direwolves."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 23, 2016, 01:13:48 PM
The wolves were central to the whole warg thing in the books, which Bran is the only one in the TV show that has any of that going on (and they never really showed him using the wolf that way in the show like it is in the books). The whole "conciousness survives in the animal" bit with the wildling guy never happened in the TV show either which I am sure was how Martin was going to have Jon "resurrected" in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 23, 2016, 02:56:54 PM
I wonder what Yara's plan is? I get that step one of the plan is 'get the fuck away from Euron' and that's a good step for sure. I'm just not sure what step two is.

I hope the show gets on and does something interesting with Tyrion, because having him kicking his heels in Mereen for half the season isn't particularly interesting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 23, 2016, 03:01:30 PM
If i had to guess step two would be to get to Dany before he does.  Dany can't have kids anyways so a husband with no cock is not much of a drawback.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 24, 2016, 03:15:55 AM
Are we going to see Richard E Grant more? Or was that just a little cameo.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 24, 2016, 04:18:44 AM
If Dany makes her move on Westeros finally (or even if she stayed in Mereen) sooner or later her advisors *would* need to address the dynastic problem. She's either going to need an heir of her blood (in short supply, but maybe not as short as Dany herself thinks. Maybe not even shorter, if you buy one fan theory...)  Or she's going to need to find someone that everybody respects as heir. Or she's going to need a new kind of kingdom...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 24, 2016, 12:44:01 PM
If Dany makes her move on Westeros finally (or even if she stayed in Mereen) sooner or later her advisors *would* need to address the dynastic problem. She's either going to need an heir of her blood (in short supply, but maybe not as short as Dany herself thinks. Maybe not even shorter, if you buy one fan theory...)  Or she's going to need to find someone that everybody respects as heir. Or she's going to need a new kind of kingdom...

It will be the latter. I can't see how the story can have a satisfactory ending with anyone on the Iron Throne.

TV has been foreshadowing that fairly explictly, she had a house of undying vision of a ruined throne room and was talking about breaking the wheel not so long ago.

Also she is clearly going to have some form of child, when the sun rises in the west (dorne rising?) and the seas go dry (the iron fleet carries the khalasar?)  when the mountains blow in the wind (volcano reference? Similar to the doom of valyria?). MMD's prophecy is referenced too often to be nothing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 24, 2016, 01:16:45 PM
I would guess it's going to be a magic baby though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
SON rises in the West - Sam goes home. Starts shagging Gilly.
Seas run dry - Ironborn give-up drinking, found Westeros Mormonism
Mountains blow in the wind - Ser Gregor's new life as a gay zombie begins.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 24, 2016, 01:17:50 PM
Prophecies in general are very important in GoT; it's the one fantasy trope that isn't subverted.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 25, 2016, 02:34:29 AM
I would guess it's going to be a magic baby though.


Oh definitely.

It also has to be a stallion that mounts the world for one thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on May 25, 2016, 07:19:57 AM
I don't buy the death as heroic


Maybe I'm just trying too hard to find a bit of heroism in a character I'm fond of, but...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 25, 2016, 08:48:22 AM
I thought the death was completely heroic. It really upset my wife, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on May 25, 2016, 11:30:15 AM
I wonder what Yara's plan is? I get that step one of the plan is 'get the fuck away from Euron' and that's a good step for sure. I'm just not sure what step two is.

I hope the show gets on and does something interesting with Tyrion, because having him kicking his heels in Mereen for half the season isn't particularly interesting.

Step one: live long enough to figure out step two.

She did not expect her uncle to show up, openly admit to murdering her father, and get cheered for it. That was pretty much time to execute step GTFO and figure the rest out later.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 25, 2016, 12:17:03 PM
I did not care about Hodor dying. I would've rather seen him go on to start talking and become a giant boss ass warrior that punched the frost giant thing in the face.

Also, fuck this show is slow as balls.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 25, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Greyjoy book references spoiler


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 25, 2016, 12:45:48 PM
I would like it a lot if Yara's men team up with the wildlings to help retake Winterfell for the Starks in exchange for being able to settle in the North, since both groups are sort of displaced at the moment.  On the other hand it seems like it'd be out of character for either group to actually want to settle anywhere under any sort of ruler, so maybe there'd need to be some other motivation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 25, 2016, 12:55:55 PM
Team waiting for Sansa to die this season  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on May 25, 2016, 01:51:31 PM
Team waiting for Sansa to die this season  :drill:

I'm waiting for Sansa to have Jon killed off in the ultimate twist. Brienne will kill off Melisandre and Davros at the same time so there's no coming back.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on May 25, 2016, 02:10:52 PM
Team waiting for Sansa to die this season  :drill:

I'm waiting for Sansa to have Jon killed off in the ultimate twist. Brienne will kill off Melisandre and Davros at the same time so there's no coming back.

Drop this show faster than the walking dead  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on May 25, 2016, 02:17:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5RXSRRO.gif)

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 25, 2016, 02:55:53 PM
The Tormund looks at Brienne have pretty much been the only entertaining thing this whole season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on May 25, 2016, 09:15:33 PM
I am totally rooting for Tormund.  That Ginger bastard needs some lovin too!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Surlyboi on May 25, 2016, 09:47:28 PM
(https://www.rollingstone.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/25/10/hodor-1-620x338.jpeg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on May 26, 2016, 05:36:12 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/5RXSRRO.gif)

 :why_so_serious:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7351206/Gwendoline%20Christie.GIF)

I love the real life  :why_so_serious: face.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on May 26, 2016, 06:21:07 AM
 :heart:   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 30, 2016, 06:23:49 AM
I've mostly been fine with the changes the show has made, and not as down on things as some of you have been.

But the changes to Sam and Arya's story this episode is the first time I think I've well and truely gone  :uhrr: :uhrr: :uhrr: :uhrr: :uhrr:

Just, fuck.  Why!?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 30, 2016, 06:33:36 AM
What changes? Arya is way ahead of the books.  Sam sent Gilly to live with his parents while he went off to old town, there is also nothing preventing this from happening at some point either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on May 30, 2016, 06:37:12 AM
I really liked how GoT was basically War of the Roses meets Helliconia at start but the further along the story goes the more fantasy and side-plots are added the less I'm interested. This is especially true for the characters that have no real power to alter the big picture (like Sam and Arya) except as some kind of magical Deus ex Machina.  :oh_i_see:

I'll still keep watching since I've made it this far and expecting the books to get finished in the near future... (or even that they'd be any better)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 30, 2016, 06:55:24 AM
Arya's only just gone farther along than the books (and the released chapter of Winds) with this episode, it's just that her story has been mixed up to hell and back.
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Arya_Stark

Sam's story was fucked with to get him to Horn Hill for who knows what reason. Probably just to get another Valyrian sword in to play. The Maester from Oldtown he talked to must not be terribly important (shock, surprise.)

For a guy who wanted to avoid fantasy tropes, they're really starting to rely heavily on them. Arya, Dany, Bran, and Sam should be dead multiple times but have been protected by destiny/ need to get the story to a point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 30, 2016, 07:13:49 AM
Agreed, the plot armor is getting pretty obvious lately.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 30, 2016, 07:59:02 AM
Sam stealing the sword was pure  :uhrr:.

He should have just left her at horn hill and been done with it.  Dragging her back to Oldtown after all that build up, AND stealing the god damn sword from his family, is just pointless stupid bullshit.  The very correct thing to do next episode is have his father catch up with him half a day outside of Horn Hill, and kill him.  That's the only possible outcome of this (but of course they wont).  There cannot possibly be any story reason for him taking it.

I understand them having him stop by Horn Hill along the way to introduce his father.  Randyll Tarly has increasingly played an important role in the books, and I remember it being commented on that he was the most dangerous one of the Reach lords.  He could very well pull a Bolton later on with the Tyrells, so it's important to get the character introduced to the show properly.  Everything else that happened though......

Arya successfully killed people for the faceless men in the books.  She's gotten skilled and willing to take people out.  Here she has fucked up every single task given to her.  It makes no god damn sense.  I mean, I guess its a way to get her away from that story line and back to Westros, but its going to be without any magical killing powers now.  Maybe what she does in the released chapter of the Winds of Winter in the books leads to the same outcome as this episode, but the character development has been way the hell worse.

At least we finally got an origin story for how Cold Hands came about, heh.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 30, 2016, 09:44:11 AM
At least we finally got an origin story for how Cold Hands came about, heh.

Delivered via hurried exposition without any buildup of the character whatsoever.  It feels like they budgeted their time poorly and are now just trying to hit the major plot points by any means necessary.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 30, 2016, 09:48:18 AM
That's odd because they said there's only like 13 episodes left after this season; you would think they could slow some things down this season and stretch that to 20 for 2 more full seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on May 30, 2016, 01:08:51 PM
Quote
Arya, Dany, Bran, and Sam should be dead multiple times but have been protected by destiny/ need to get the story to a point.

True. But the show stays true in one sense: Scenes with Cersei areawesome and Daenerys is a bloody bore.

Edit: But regarding plot armour, yes. Seeing how powerful the faceless man are being presented and how Sam is just one fat guy both Arya and Sam should end up dead after what they have pulled off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on May 30, 2016, 01:34:43 PM
Actually, kind of mad how they changed Cersei as well.  She is a complete incompetent fuck up in the books.  A drunk idiot who is only good at backstabbing, and is terrible at every single other thing she does.  Here they've made her way the hell more competent and sympathetic.  I keep rolling my eyes every time she is being awesome and/or sympathetic.  That's not Cersei!   :oh_i_see:

I really hope they aren't having Jamie head up to the Riverlands to re-enact all the pointless shit he did in book 4, which I thought we had gracefully glossed over.  Hopefully its just a way to get him out of town while everybody in Kingslanding gets murdered by the church somehow. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on May 30, 2016, 01:39:41 PM
One very obvious thing: Arya unsheating the sword before blowing out the candle in the dark. Considering how we saw her fighting blind before that's pretty wink wink

Actually, kind of mad how they changed Cersei as well.  She is a complete incompetent fuck up in the books.  A drunk idiot who is only good at backstabbing, and is terrible at every single other thing she does.  Here they've made her way the hell more competent and sympathetic.  I keep rolling my eyes every time she is being awesome and/or sympathetic.  That's not Cersei!   :oh_i_see:

I really hope they aren't having Jamie head up to the Riverlands to re-enact all the pointless shit he did in book 4, which I thought we had gracefully glossed over.  Hopefully its just a way to get him out of town while everybody in Kingslanding gets murdered by the church somehow.  

I don't know, having some character growth and/or progression seems "realistic". Else she would get boring form a viewers POV ("She is a fuckup and can only end up fucked up"). Giving her a small "chance" makes it more interesting.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 30, 2016, 02:38:55 PM
I found Cersei more sympathetic in the books. There was much more explaination of what made her batshit crazy.

Everyone has more character depth in the books - mostly because way more scenes.

Anyway - decent episode.

Jonathan Pryce again best thing in the episode.

I'm not totally sure Benjen is coldhands at this point. It could just as easily be a Jaquen/Kindly Man type thing.

For instance book Benjen might well show up when Jon goes north as ghost.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 30, 2016, 02:45:58 PM
Sam stealing the sword was pure  :uhrr:.

He should have just left her at horn hill and been done with it.  Dragging her back to Oldtown after all that build up, AND stealing the god damn sword from his family, is just pointless stupid bullshit.  The very correct thing to do next episode is have his father catch up with him half a day outside of Horn Hill, and kill him.  That's the only possible outcome of this (but of course they wont).  There cannot possibly be any story reason for him taking it.


The story reason is that it is Valyrian steel - ergo kills white walkers.

The sword has Chekov's status in the books, so I expect this is a typical TV rush job of a book storyline.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on May 30, 2016, 04:29:49 PM
I can't place it but something isn't right about Daenerys, character/actor feels like something from SyFy channel. Hammy as fuck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 30, 2016, 04:38:52 PM
She keeps making dumb decisions and getting away with it, while also existing so far away from the rest of the cast that it's hard to believe she matters. I've never really liked her, since it was obvious since book/season 1 that she was the REAL main character and the Starks are just window dressing to be killed off for shock value.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on May 30, 2016, 08:34:25 PM
I can't place it but something isn't right about Daenerys, character/actor feels like something from SyFy channel. Hammy as fuck.

Having just watched Triassic Attack on SyFy recently which came out one year prior to GoT and starred Emilia Clarke, you aren't too far off there. There are some fairly bad actors on GoT and she's one of them. I'd have to go back and rewatch season 1, but I feel like she might have benefited from speaking Dothraki quite a bit early on. Made it harder to notice how stilted her dialogue usually is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2016, 03:31:01 AM
She wasn't the only mediocre casting in S1 lead roles. I guess it makes sense, I don't imagine they were likely to get Diana Rigg, Richard E Grant and Jonathan Pryce before the first season had aired.

Characters like Tyrion, Cersei, Jamie, Arya who turned out well were also all actors who you'd previously have expected to see on SyFy productions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2016, 03:43:13 AM
Quote
Arya, Dany, Bran, and Sam should be dead multiple times but have been protected by destiny/ need to get the story to a point.

True. But the show stays true in one sense: Scenes with Cersei areawesome and Daenerys is a bloody bore.

Edit: But regarding plot armour, yes. Seeing how powerful the faceless man are being presented and how Sam is just one fat guy both Arya and Sam should end up dead after what they have pulled off.


I agree, but expect this to change as we get closer to the end.

Arya has made an enemy of the faceless men, broken an oath, and her death has been fortold. She is going to die.  It is just a matter of how long it will take and what she might do with her final 0 to 14 hours.

Sam is a different beast, if well written they have enough scope to do whatever they want with that. I have no particular problem with TV Tarley not wanting to embarass his house by dragging his son out of the citadel.

Bran on the other hand has been protected by Gandalf stuck in a tree. And within another 10 minutes of screentime he will actually be Gandalf. That's enough to explain it imho.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on May 31, 2016, 04:32:12 AM
She wasn't the only mediocre casting in S1 lead roles.

Which ones were worse, or on a par? My memory is not serving me well.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on May 31, 2016, 05:00:05 AM
She wasn't the only mediocre casting in S1 lead roles.

Which ones were worse, or on a par? My memory is not serving me well.

Kit Harington doesn't have much range, and it doesn't help that he's got pretty bad judgement when it comes to picking projects outside GoT. I don't think Sophie Turner is particularly good either, but I also don't think she was given much to work with for most of the show (the same could be said of her role as Jean Grey also). Jason Momoa also didn't really have to do much and was another one who maybe benefited a bit from speaking almost entirely in a made-up language.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on May 31, 2016, 05:19:51 AM
She wasn't the only mediocre casting in S1 lead roles.

Which ones were worse, or on a par? My memory is not serving me well.



Petyr Baelish was awful at first. I think he improved a bit but he was very wooden in S1.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on May 31, 2016, 07:28:27 AM
Sophie Turner isn't a great actress but at least the casting was good and I kind of buy into her as the brattish ne'er do well who you end up feeling sorry for, she's probably one of the most well developed characters.

I have no issue Kit Harrignton, he isn't too bad an actor and he has a good screen presence when required. I would say he's perfectly casted regardless of his outside choices, at least he doesn't bring them to GoT.

Baelish, yeh he was poor, though I've kind of grown to be ok with his stilted manner.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 31, 2016, 07:34:13 AM
Yeah Sophie Turner nailed the annoying spoiled teenager role, until she became a giantess I guess.  The problem is the character of Sansa is universally disliked and doesn't have much to do for most of the series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on May 31, 2016, 07:44:23 AM
She's also really hot, which does help smooth over the cracks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2016, 08:23:34 AM
Baelish is the only character whose TV actor isn't my head canon image when reading the books.

He's a weird case because he is clearly a good actor.

Kit Harrington was probably the worst offender in S1. And his role was a good deal easier to work with than Dany's.

 I never warmed to Catelyn's portrayal, but I think that was more about the choices the script writers made to have her be annoyingly wrong in out of character ways more often than she is in the book.

Robb Stark never really convinced either. Not enough Henry V, too much Henry VI.

But all this is relative. They are all perfectly adequate for tits and dragons. When you can cast Richard E Grant as a carnie in season 6, it doesn't seem completely fair to hold season 1 casting to the same standard.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on May 31, 2016, 08:51:45 AM
True that, but I think some of the bad casting is coming back to bite a little, especially Daenyrs. Really should have thought harder there, Natalie Dormer would have done a better job.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 31, 2016, 09:16:48 AM
She keeps making dumb decisions and getting away with it, while also existing so far away from the rest of the cast that it's hard to believe she matters. I've never really liked her, since it was obvious since book/season 1 that she was the REAL main character and the Starks are just window dressing to be killed off for shock value.

When she gave her speech about heading over the water to claim the throne it struck me that the last thing Westeros needs is another war. We don't see the ordinary people very often but presumably the constant fighting over who's going to be king isn't very good for them. And it's not as if she has a noble motive for doing it (like she did for deposing the slavers) - she just thinks she's entitled to be queen because her mad father used to be king.

I know this sort of thing is par for the course in Game of Thrones but in the past I'd always assumed we were meant to be cheering for Daenerys. Now the idea that she's going to sweep over everyone with her army (of rapists and slavers) and dragons just seems really annoying. I hope the story turns out to be more interesting than that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 31, 2016, 09:47:20 AM
Yeah, it's funny how she has no problem with the Dothraki who are a key part of the slave trade.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on May 31, 2016, 10:43:13 AM
The plot/characters/motivations for this whole series is pretty thin. The TV show hooked us by showing us a lot of nekkid ladies in the first season.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2016, 11:03:34 AM
Dany's story is weakest in the books and she lacks real character development on the exact front you just pushed-forward; Her concern for "her people." In the first few, when she's 15 and being lead around by the nose by her brother then her rapist husband, you can give her a pass on the Westeros thing. It's what she's been raised to want and so far as she knows the only real motivation for a life she has.

As soon as Drogo dies and she starts to come into being her own person, caring for her freed-slave-subjects, etc, you'd think she'd start to think a little harder on that end goal. It never happens, though, and the whole plot is weaker for it.

Yeah, it's funny how she has no problem with the Dothraki who are a key part of the slave trade.

We're past her story from the books now, but I've got to assume she'll ban that practice, unless Martin is a complete hack unaware of his own character's motivations and beliefs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 31, 2016, 11:19:57 AM
The real question is whether she's starting to believe in her own theocratic-magic god-queen thing or whether she understands that's an act that creates power (the shadow that Varys talks about). I'd like to see something in her development that lets us know which it is. If it's the former, then her arc has to bend towards getting a comeuppance eventually (believing in your own god-queen status is Do Not Pass Go, Become the Mad King, unless you actually *are* a god-queen, and even then...) If it's the latter, then that's what pays off the faith of some of her inner circle and makes her the leader Westeros needs--but I don't know that Clarke is capable of playing a sly boots who can ham it up for the crowds and tone it down in private very well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 31, 2016, 12:40:04 PM
I'd guess that she figures that now that she's their leader, she's going to put an end to Dothraki slave-taking.  Like she kind of tried to do as Drogo's wife, except now she has a lot more power to get it done.

As for Westeros I think her main motivation there is getting back at the usurpers that killed her family (Rhaegar and his children -- I don't think she necessarily gives any more fucks about the Mad King than she did about Viserys).  She hasn't been keeping up with current events on the other side of the sea and probably has no concept that at this point most of the people who were involved in that coup are no longer in the picture.  

Curious to see how Tyrion and Varys counsel her on all this (she's going to head back to Mereen to get her boats and other two dragons, right?) given that they've both expressed their desire to avoid shitting things up with pointlessly destructive wars and they're both very politically savvy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2016, 12:54:51 PM
Her story is (I think) supposed to be about learning to use power to do good without destroying everything. She repeatedly breaks down a status quo, initially with disastrous consequences (Mirri Maz Duur), then does the same thing over and over with varying results until by Mereen she can at least keep a lid on things even if she can't make a stable plan.

Maybe her tragedy is that she realises she cannot rule in peace and her story ends in glorious sacrifice.

Maybe she figures it all out and rules Westeros till she is 203.

My money would be on the former, but there is plenty of time left to do either. I'd also guess Vaes Dothrak gets more than 15 minutes in the book and much of the development could have been done there - the crones would make a pretty good opportunity for character discussion, or visions, or imparting wisdom.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2016, 12:58:21 PM
The real question is whether she's starting to believe in her own theocratic-magic god-queen thing or whether she understands that's an act that creates power (the shadow that Varys talks about).

There was quite a bit around slavers bay where she demonstrated that she understood this.

What she seems to struggle with is making the drains work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 31, 2016, 01:26:53 PM
I think this episode was always going to struggle to match up to 6x05, especially given how strong the direction on Hodor's scene was. Finishing this one on Dany just didn't carry much weight, or so it seemed to me. I guess they were banking on dragons being an awesome visual, but frankly there's nothing there we haven't seen before. But I guess we have to have at least one Dany speech per season where she hypes herself up something crazy. The episode should have ended with Arya blowing out the candle.

Best theory I've seen about Sam and the Sword is that he's stealing it to take it back to the Wall. In doing so he supplies the North with another weapon that works against the others while also dragging his father (supposedly one of the finest military minds left in Westeros) and his army up to the Wall to help the fight. As theories go it is a bit of a reach, and continues the ridiculous pin-ball of characters around the world on incredibly minor pretexts, but hey ho. Maybe he'll bump into Littlefinger and borrow his teleportation device.

I think there's a lot of fun stuff to come. Arya vs the Waif, Bastard vs Bastard in the North, and the Hound vs the Mountain. So I'm optimistic about the remaining episodes, even if this one was pretty meh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2016, 02:01:50 PM
CLEGANE BOWL '16. BE THERE.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2016, 02:12:26 PM
On the fantasy league front:
Quote
I will be adding new characters that can be drafted and whose points I will start counting next week. They will be available on a first-come-first-serve basis later this week -- if you are playing along on Fantasizer there will be a league update when they are added. Til then, the new characters, in no particular order (obviously):

    Kinvara (aka High Priestess Rachel Weisz)
    Edmure Tully
    Benjen Stark
    The Waif
    Eddison Tollett (aka Dolorous Edd)
    Smalljon Umber (who?)
    The Night's King
    Randyll Tarly
    Gendry (just for fun!)
    Catelyn Stark (just for fun!)
I can't tell if by "drafted" she means traded onto our team in place of existing members, or if there will be an additional draft round. We haven't been doing trades so far (except for Viin that one time); if these are only to be traded onto our teams, is everyone cool with us doing so?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on May 31, 2016, 02:36:32 PM
The episode should have ended with Arya blowing out the candle.

Yes, totally agree.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2016, 02:51:35 PM
The episode should have ended with Arya blowing out the candle.

Yes, totally agree.

Followed by a whispered, "Queen Cersi, Ser Meryn, Ser Ilyn..."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
Hey I found a legitimate subject for spoiler tags.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2016, 03:52:48 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 31, 2016, 04:31:22 PM
I've been thinking that reveal could be the final scene this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2016, 04:56:08 PM
They did mention the Brotherhood Without Banners last episode, and we haven't heard of them since Season...3? So, maybe.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 31, 2016, 04:59:58 PM
Being as they already did the Coldhands reveal as a couple of sentences of exposition, they could easily do Stoneheart the same way.  Although since Brienne has already found Sansa and pledged service to her, I can't see that plotline playing out even remotely similarly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2016, 05:16:31 PM
You never saw Stoneheart's origin in the books, it was a shocking reveal.

Here's how I see it playing out, if she comes about (popular theory remains Sana will take the role, tho that would be dumb):  Walder Frey's two boys (who mentioned the BWB) get caught by the BWB on the way back to try and retake Riverrun. After some bravado about daddy or the Lannisters coming to save them, Stoneheart is revealed and she offs them. Would explain Jamie treating with Blackfish rather than joining-up with the forces Frey just sent back w/ Edmure in tow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 31, 2016, 05:21:23 PM
I can see them thinking is the shock reveal that would keep book-readers feeling vaguely superior. I still have a vague sense of stall in that respect--they don't want to do anything that will be WILDLY out of touch with Martin's possible/eventual dealing out of resolutions.

For example, well, Arya in the books has already murdered people on command and gone way deeper into being loyal no-one. But I can see her eventually rebelling and fighting free. Then we'd all say, "well, it's two versions of the same thing, but adds up the same". But if in the books she becomes head of the Faceless (Wo)Men and decides to quit the wars of Westeros because they're all nonsense, well...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on May 31, 2016, 05:23:29 PM
Being as they already did the Coldhands reveal as a couple of sentences of exposition, they could easily do Stoneheart the same way.  Although since Brienne has already found Sansa and pledged service to her, I can't see that plotline playing out even remotely similarly.

At this point adding in LSH just feels like fanservice. I'm not sure what she'd actually add to the plot. Benjen was a fair whack of fanservice, but at least his appearance has some relevance to the overarching plot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2016, 04:38:29 AM
In the books she definitely has relevance to Brienne and Jamie, and if that is a necessary plot point I don't see why you'd choose to do it without SH.

That said, with Jamie repurposed as a fellow traveller for Cersei to plot with, I'm not sure the Brienne and Jamie plot has any remaining impact.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 01, 2016, 05:04:10 AM
I don't think there is a Brienne and Jaime plot any more. My impression of it was that it was purely there to redeem Jaime and show that he was fundamentally honourable at heart. After he returned to KL and, especially after the death of Joffrey and Mirrella, he doesn't have any particular reason to get involved with Brienne any more. He loves Cersei and he's not going to abandon her for Brienne. He's most definitely all-in on Tommen and he knows that if House Lannister is to keep its position, then it all depends on Tommen staying alive and on the Iron Throne. To that end, he has to stick with Cersei and the Tyrells no matter what. I don't think there's anything that either Catelyn or Brienne can say or do that will break him out of that and neither of those have any particular impact on KL or court politics anyway. Pretty much the only significant thing I can see coming from it is a showdown between Jaime and Catelyn about the North and Jaime being the kingmaker who gets to decide whether the Boltons or the Starks get to win. It's still a bit far fetched but it would be an interesting arc for a couple of episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 01, 2016, 05:09:02 AM
Quick question: has anyone worked out yet why we weren't explicitly shown Stannis's death? Brienne outright said that she executed him last episode, and this isn't a show that shys away from clearly depicting people's deaths, so the only reason I can think of for them not showing it is if he's still alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2016, 05:19:50 AM
You'd also be assuming Brienne is lying.

I thought it was to avoid the show looking like an early Peter Jackson movie. May be remembering it wrong but I don't think we saw the blow for the other beheadings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 01, 2016, 05:22:00 AM
The only thing I can imagine putting Jamie on a new path is if while he's away, the Sparrows stage a complete coup and kill Tommen, Margery and Cersei (or imprison them and say they will execute them, as in the case of the French Revolution). Under the circumstances he might be desperate enough to beg for assistance from almost anybody, at any cost. I can certainly see Margery thinking that if she controls Tommen, then she controls the High Sparrow, and overplaying her hand in that regard, since the High Sparrow seems like a genuinely canny fellow.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2016, 05:30:30 AM
I don't think there is a Brienne and Jaime plot any more. My impression of it was that it was purely there to redeem Jaime and show that he was fundamentally honourable at heart.

Not just to start Jamie's development, it also taught Brienne operate beyond her assumptions about what honour means.

In the books Jamie is stil very much on the journey - TV Jamie would need to transform back to end of season 4 Jamie somehow.

I agree it would be bad writing, but it was bad writing when he completely changed character overnight at the start of S5, so I wouldn't put it past them. 5 minutes of complaining to Bronn that his lover and son sent him away would be par for the course.

It all depends how critical getting Jamie Brienne and Catelyn back together actually is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 01, 2016, 06:11:31 AM
Quick question: has anyone worked out yet why we weren't explicitly shown Stannis's death? Brienne outright said that she executed him last episode, and this isn't a show that shys away from clearly depicting people's deaths, so the only reason I can think of for them not showing it is if he's still alive.

My guess is that they hadn't made up their minds yet about whether they were going to kill him off or not and were leaving their options open.  Which is kinda lame.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 01, 2016, 06:20:22 AM
Another board had an idea how the Arya thing could turn out actually pretty awesome in my opinion:

edit: this really would be a spoiler if it happened anywhere close to this way and you were aware of it beforehand from reading about it


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 01, 2016, 06:24:52 AM
Too awesome to happen here, I'm afraid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 01, 2016, 06:25:49 AM
Another board had an idea how the Arya thing could turn out actually pretty awesome in my opinion:

edit: this really would be a spoiler if it happened anywhere close to this way and you were aware of it beforehand from reading about it

Not sure why we are spoiling theories but the waif doesn't always leave the room when Jaqen and Arya talk, she was there when the "original" Jaqen drank poison after Arya's first failure.  In fact i have no idea who this Jaqen is, the waif turned into Jaqen after the first one died.  Edit: also no, guesses are not spoilers even if they end up being right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 01, 2016, 07:30:26 AM
Gaaaaah that would be super cool.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on June 01, 2016, 07:34:06 AM
The Waif could be in the same room as the more dominant personality by "magic." Stranger things have happened on the show. Hell at this point it could be the same character from the future/past if you really want to comic it up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 01, 2016, 08:25:30 AM
It's like some of you never saw Fight Club.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 01, 2016, 08:32:17 AM
Well yeah, it would be easy to believe Jaqen can in some way see what's going on in Arya's head because he's not your average guy. Maybe he even went through a similar thing himself as an apprentice.

(I'm now just going to assume this fan theory is true until it's proved otherwise)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2016, 10:54:06 AM
Waif's history in full... she admits to an untruth and an exaggeration in here. If you can make it reconcile with Arya through one untruth and one exaggeration, then you got yourself a proper theory.

Quote from: The Waif?
I was the only child of an ancient noble house, my noble father's heir. My mother died when I was little, I have no memory of her. When I was six years old my father wed again. His new wife treated me kindly until she gave birth to a daughter of her own. Then it was her wish that I should die, so her own blood might inherit my father's wealth. She should have sought the favour of the Many-Faced God, but she could not bear the sacrifice he would ask of her. Instead she thought to poison me herself. It left me as you see me now, but I did not die. When the healers in the House of the Red Hands told my father what she had done, he came here and made sacrifice, offering up all of his wealth and me. Him of Many-Faced faces heard his prayer. I was brought to the temple to serve, and my father's wife received the gift.

As far as Arya knows she is indeed an only child, and her mother did die when she was little. She has no memory as this is no one talking.

The untruth could be that the man in the rest of the story is her father....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2016, 05:32:10 AM
Not sure why we are spoiling theories but the waif doesn't always leave the room when Jaqen and Arya talk, she was there when the "original" Jaqen drank poison after Arya's first failure.  In fact i have no idea who this Jaqen is, the waif turned into Jaqen after the first one died.  Edit: also no, guesses are not spoilers even if they end up being right.
Pretty sure this is still the original Jaqen, and he didn't die.  Remember she tore off the face, found others, till she eventually found her own, and then was struck blind.  Pretty sure they were just fucking with her and trying to teach a lesson.  Or the 'death' of her eyesight was the actual repayment for the life wh took, or something like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2016, 06:07:10 AM
It's definitely not the original Jaqen from season 2 - they made that clear last season.

I interpreted the scene where "Jaqen"  drinks poison as a real death by a servant of the many faced god, but not necessarily the kindly man who had been training Arya. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there has been more than one kindly man training Arya.

The faceless men aren't fucking around when it comes to paying for life and death. Both book and TV established that at Harrenhall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 03, 2016, 06:35:43 AM
Well yes, but there was never a death payed for the murder she did in the book to the night watch deserters.  They just gave her something to make her go blind as punishment.  So obviously they make exceptions.  :p


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 05, 2016, 06:05:37 PM
 :awesome_for_real: pre-opening credits scene


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 05, 2016, 07:09:32 PM
End scene.  :ye_gods: :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 05, 2016, 07:20:04 PM
WOOF WOOF, motherfuckers. WOOF... WOOF.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2016, 07:23:43 PM
Ok.

First off, hiring Ian McShane to play Septon Fred Rogers in his neighborhood is at least mildly perverse.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 05, 2016, 09:39:03 PM
The Fight Club theory is gaining strength IMO.  I'm pissed we have to wait until next week to find out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 06, 2016, 01:16:22 AM
Overall I really liked this episode and that was probably due to no dragons (or anything related to that part of the plot) in it. This probably means that I'll hate the next episode which will in all likelihood be Daenarys-heavy.   :awesome_for_real::oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 06, 2016, 02:59:10 AM
Lady Mormont has entered the game = total badass and showed Sansa what it's all about.

BWB is heading towards a certain reveal IMO.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 06, 2016, 05:10:55 AM
The Fight Club theory is gaining strength IMO.  I'm pissed we have to wait until next week to find out.

I don't see how it gained strength here at all. I still think it's too much for the writers or Martin to have come up with and just fans wanting the story to be better.

Seemed a shame to use McShane on only one episode, though.
Lady Mormont has entered the game = total badass and showed Sansa what it's all about.

BWB is heading towards a certain reveal IMO.

That 10-year-old killed it. She's going to be awesome if she doesn't fall victim to the child-actor curse.

I think BWB was just used as a convenient in-world scapegoat. Having the reveal after they slaughtered a few dozen innocents is a terrible introduction. That group was about avenging not mindless killing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2016, 05:13:59 AM
I hope that wasn't the BWB, really. I don't get it otherwise.

I also hope the Arya thing turns out to be some kind of misdirect. Otherwise that entire plotline is going to feel pointless--what, you apprentice with face-changing assassins and then walk boldly around town booking a boat? Can't be that stupid.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 06, 2016, 05:46:34 AM
I really want Arya Archer and Castor Waif to start throwing out lines like

"Isn't this religious, ah yes. The eternal battle between good and evil, saint and sinners... but you're still not having any FUN!"

and

"l'd like to take her... her face... off. Yes"



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 06, 2016, 05:59:00 AM
I really want Arya Archer and Castor Waif to start throwing out lines like

"Isn't this religious, ah yes. The eternal battle between good and evil, saint and sinners... but you're still not having any FUN!"

and

"l'd like to take her... her face... off. Yes"


Add in a few doves flying off for the full woo effect...  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2016, 07:10:46 AM
I kept thinking the whole time with Arya wandering around pre- and post-stabbing that it was a trick to flush out the attack she knew was coming.  Or it's the Tyler Derden thing. Otherwise, it's really just fucking stupid.

It was a strange waste of Ian McShane but he was great with what little he had. As for the BWB, aren't they mostly following the Lord of Light? As such, destroying a Septom of the 7 wouldn't be totally out of character. Also felt like one of those scenes the writers HAD to do from the books (sort of) but had to change enough to not be like the books because of where Brienne is in the story. I don't care, I'm just happy that character is back.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 06, 2016, 07:16:26 AM
The BWB killing all those innocents felt off to me, too; they weren't even Lannisters. We haven't seen any of the BWB in forever though, so who knows what their motivations are anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 06, 2016, 07:38:48 AM
The Fight Club theory is gaining strength IMO.  I'm pissed we have to wait until next week to find out.

I don't see how it gained strength here at all. I still think it's too much for the writers or Martin to have come up with and just fans wanting the story to be better.

The scene toward the end where she was staggering through the crowd felt very dreamlike/hallucinatory to me, and the reactions of the crowd looked like they could have been interpreted as "why is this girl acting so weird".  When we were watching it my gf (who has NOT heard the fan theory) even said "is this actually happening?" because of how it was shot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 06, 2016, 08:41:06 AM
Since it was shot from her perspective I took it as trying to recreate the sense of blood-loss/ dying and disorientation a gut wound and plunge in cold water would give. I suppose you can interpret it as a dreamlike sequence as easily.

I kept thinking the whole time with Arya wandering around pre- and post-stabbing that it was a trick to flush out the attack she knew was coming.  Or it's the Tyler Derden thing. Otherwise, it's really just fucking stupid.

I'm totally going with "fucking stupid." Their actual (in)ability is showing hard this season without a script to interpret or scenes that were previously set-up. We got a glimpse of the "fucking stupid" last season and this season with Dorne so I've been filing things like this or Dany's missing horse in there. (Or did nobody else wonder where her horse went when she showed-up on Drogon later..)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2016, 09:12:48 AM
I figured Drogon ate it.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 06, 2016, 09:14:41 AM
...(Or did nobody else wonder where her horse went when she showed-up on Drogon later..)
I'm going with in Drogon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 06, 2016, 10:54:46 AM
Horses are pretty important to the Dothraki, so that would send a pretty negative message.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 06, 2016, 11:12:13 AM
this season with Dorne

Wow I totally forgot that happened. What was that episode 2? No mention of it since then.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 06, 2016, 12:35:19 PM
Yeah, it was pretty amazing how quickly Dorne became irrelevant to the plot and both Cersei and Jaime apparently forgot all about avenging their daughter in favor of fucking about with the Sparrow and the Riverlands respectively.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2016, 12:39:07 PM
I think it's now possible to see very clearly how much of last season was just a big stall--I wonder if Martin kept telling them he might actually finish the book.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 06, 2016, 12:57:37 PM
I enjoyed tis episode a lot. Arya's story is still too full of ambiguous rules and mysteries to make any sense, and Yara and Theon having some quality time was pretty forgettable. Otherwise though the rest of the episode was great. Loved Jamie and the Freys, loved the Blackfish, glad that Bronn is back, Lady Mormont was awesome, and Jon, Sansa, and Davos' journey around the north was the right amount of everything. I'm pleased that we're at a point now where we can get more than one five minute scene in each area per episode. Also Oleanna vs Cersei was just perfect.

The only headscratching I'm left with is why the BWB killed all those people, that doesn't seem to make much sense. It also seems to dent the prospects for Cleganebowl too. The way the show portrays the Hound in this episode doesn't suggest anything about religious conversion or conviction. He's a little more humble perhaps, but he hardly seems like the ideal candidate to become the faith's champion. Especially since his presumptive sponsor (Ian McShane/Septon Meribald) is now dead.

As such I think in the show it's more plausible that in any trial by combat that Cersei has to endure, the Faith will use Loras as it's champion (having broken him in their dungeons). The Hound will then go on to assume the remaining portions of Brienne's storyline from AWDW, since mashing her into the BWB now wouldn't seem like it could work. If they do bring back LSH (and I hope they don't at this point), Brienne can just point out that she's Sansa's sworn bodyguard and left her in the safe company of Jon Snow.

But really, who knows at this point.

Also, no Dorne since episode 2!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 06, 2016, 01:03:59 PM
Hadn't it been indicated in the books that the BWB had basically spiraled out of any sort of central control? At this point associating yourself with them is just like getting a license for banditry.

I still haven't given up hope for the Clegane bowl.  Maybe he can just kill his way to King's Landing.  It's not like the High Sparrow would hesitate in using him. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 06, 2016, 01:04:15 PM
Yeah, it was pretty amazing how quickly Dorne became irrelevant to the plot and both Cersei and Jaime apparently forgot all about avenging their daughter in favor of fucking about with the Sparrow and the Riverlands respectively.

You would think someone in KL would be concerned that the high prince of a major kingdom (with an intact and capable army) was assassinated and replaced by a trio of crazy-sexy ladies who are keen on enacting violent vengeance upon the trio of kingdoms that are behind the throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 06, 2016, 01:23:37 PM
Yeah, it was pretty amazing how quickly Dorne became irrelevant to the plot and both Cersei and Jaime apparently forgot all about avenging their daughter in favor of fucking about with the Sparrow and the Riverlands respectively.

You would think someone in KL would be concerned that the high prince of a major kingdom (with an intact and capable army) was assassinated and replaced by a trio of crazy-sexy ladies who are keen on enacting violent vengeance upon the trio of kingdoms that are behind the throne.

It hasn't even been mentioned in passing; whereas pretty much everything else tends to crop up in one or more of the other storylines as a reference by someone (except Arya who's basically in a bubble).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 06, 2016, 01:50:09 PM

That 10-year-old killed it. She's going to be awesome if she doesn't fall victim to the child-actor curse.
 

Not that the kid acted bad, but I thought it fell to "kid being badass" issue. Same with earlier Arya, it just come across weak, to me.

Overall a good episode. Best scenes were in Kingslanding and with Lost-his-hand.

Edit: And Jamie is so sexy. oh god.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on June 06, 2016, 01:52:25 PM
Oh look, it's Captain Darling !


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 06, 2016, 01:59:14 PM
Oh look, it's Captain Darling !

What?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 06, 2016, 02:09:14 PM
Oh look, it's Captain Darling !

What?
Lord Glover was played by Tim McInnerny, mostly famous for playing Captain Darling in Blackadder Goes Forth.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on June 06, 2016, 02:24:41 PM
I loved him in this, must have been the beard.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 06, 2016, 02:43:11 PM
Ok.

First off, hiring Ian McShane to play Septon Fred Rogers in his neighborhood is at least mildly perverse.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 06, 2016, 02:45:45 PM
I thought when Sandor said it was the brotherhood, that was meant to mean it was the brotherhood - I don't really see any other explanation or any reason it couldn't/shouldn't be the brotherhood - but the internet is long and full of terrible theories.

Cleganebowl is an absolute lock after the line about hate keeping him alive, next week I expect he is one of the 'No One' that the episode is named for, he could easily get sucked into another sparrow/brotherhood encounter and disappear into the faith militant. Next season he shows up out of nowhere and downs the mountain, knocking out the last challenge to the sparrow in KL.

On Arya, I don't think it is a misdirect, the fight club theory is fun but I don't buy it. There certainly would have been more book clues. As for why the plotline exists, first off there isn't actually all that much of it in the books and Arya needed to spend time somewhere, secondly the book faceless men are holding a dragon egg, and have a man in citadel trying to get an item out (thought to be the book "Blood and Fire"), so they must have a role in the shakedown.


Most of all, this episode made me think surely they are not planning to finish next year. Dany isn't leaving Essos till maybe the last 5 minutes of the season, soonest anyone at the wall sees a white walker is going to be the same episode, and I wouldn't bet against the possibility that neither of those things happens at all this year.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 06, 2016, 03:23:43 PM
Much as I hate the current trend of judging shows episode by episode... I really enjoyed this one  :why_so_serious:

Shame we only got Ian McShane for one episode, he was great. Really very bored of the Arya storyline, it feels pointless and completely unconnected with anything else.

Anyone have any thoughts about who was Sansa writing to? The obvious answer is Littlefinger but could it also be Tyrion? He was, after all, one of the only people who's not been an utter shitbag to her in the last few years. But I'm not sure if she has any idea where he is or what his situation is.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 06, 2016, 03:31:07 PM
I think we're supposed to assume she's writing to LF, but the show does love misdirection.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 06, 2016, 03:32:43 PM
Yeah she wrote it right after their conversation about the troop situation looking like long odds and she knows LF is sitting nearby with 5,000 knights.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
Since when do the book Faceless Men have a dragon egg?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 06, 2016, 03:46:12 PM
Oh look, it's Captain Darling !
He'll always be Lord Percy Percy to me.

(http://i.imgur.com/1qGjA5N.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on June 06, 2016, 04:57:04 PM
Never would have recognised him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 06, 2016, 07:15:28 PM
As it is wont to do, the Internet has used its combined powers to deliver spoilers and confirmations.

Sansa's letter: http://imgur.com/a/p2mfe#jzGzmx4


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2016, 08:41:43 PM
I mean, DUH, there's not really anyone else she can call on at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 06, 2016, 09:14:16 PM
So when that plays out, whose side do we think that army is going to be on?   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 06, 2016, 10:35:50 PM
Since when do the book Faceless Men have a dragon egg?


Balon was almost certainly killed by a faceless man (based on one of Dany's most literal visions) and then Euron tells us he had an egg, but "threw it into the sea" (which is of course how Balon died).

Granted it isn't 100%, but it matches so well with their guy at the citadel not being there to murder anyone, that I consider it canon until proven otherwise on par with R+L=J.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 06, 2016, 10:46:07 PM
I mean, DUH, there's not really anyone else she can call on at this point.

I haven't seen the latest episode yet, but unless something has happened to him, could that letter be to Robin Arryn? Sansa is the only person who could really persuade Robin to override Littlefinger, and it's his birthright to command the Knights of the Vale and tell Littlefinger to bugger off. If Sansa is the new force she seems, manipulating Robin would be the best way around Baelish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 06, 2016, 11:22:25 PM
On Arya, I don't think it is a misdirect, the fight club theory is fun but I don't buy it.

I don't think it was even really Arya. Her demeanor was 180 degrees from what is was last appearance and what it should be if you think you're being hunted by a worldwide network of face-shifting super assassins in their hometown. Where did she get the fuckton of silver from that she's tossing around in public, and where was her sword?

Not that this aspect matters a lot, but those wounds were fatal. Not fast killing, but intentionally painful and fatal. That's not Arya unless they plan on her dying off or they just don't give a shit about believability.

I think it's more likely that this part was a test for the Waif and that the Faceless Men took Arya in for that purpose, never expected her to stay and become one of them, and give no fucks about her betrayal. The Waif on the other hand seems to still have a lot of personal ego for a Faceless Man and to test her they needed a believable setup, and that's what Arya's whole roll was. The waif was told specifically not to let her suffer, which she did on purpose with quite a bit of enjoyment, plus she seemed pretty pleased that she was given permission to kill Arya when she should have just nodded and treated it like any other task she was asked to do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 07, 2016, 12:55:07 AM
Oh look, it's Captain Darling !

What?
Lord Glover was played by Tim McInnerny, mostly famous for playing Captain Darling in Blackadder Goes Forth.

Thanks very much! :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 07, 2016, 01:28:50 AM
Sexy Jesus wearing an Arya mask IMO. Buying her passage and setting it up to test the Waif. The Waif is using a mask that Arya touches in an earlier episode (the old woman).

Dead JH wore an Arya mask just before she was blinded so it's possible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 07, 2016, 02:43:29 AM
I like that theory much better than the weird fight club theory.  Granted, it's still a stretch, but would be neat.  At the very least though, I think your right that the waifs actions in this are going to come back to haunt her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 07, 2016, 02:51:25 AM
Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but even the TV writers would have realised they needed at least a partial reveal in this episode to avoid mask shenanigans seeming cheap.

I could imagine the Kindly Man saving her because reasons. But my money is on "she survived and will recover fully in 30 minutes because television".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on June 07, 2016, 05:52:32 AM
On Arya, I don't think it is a misdirect, the fight club theory is fun but I don't buy it.

I don't think it was even really Arya. Her demeanor was 180 degrees from what is was last appearance and what it should be if you think you're being hunted by a worldwide network of face-shifting super assassins in their hometown. Where did she get the fuckton of silver from that she's tossing around in public, and where was her sword?

Not that this aspect matters a lot, but those wounds were fatal. Not fast killing, but intentionally painful and fatal. That's not Arya unless they plan on her dying off or they just don't give a shit about believability.

I think it's more likely that this part was a test for the Waif and that the Faceless Men took Arya in for that purpose, never expected her to stay and become one of them, and give no fucks about her betrayal. The Waif on the other hand seems to still have a lot of personal ego for a Faceless Man and to test her they needed a believable setup, and that's what Arya's whole roll was. The waif was told specifically not to let her suffer, which she did on purpose with quite a bit of enjoyment, plus she seemed pretty pleased that she was given permission to kill Arya when she should have just nodded and treated it like any other task she was asked to do.

Dig it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 07, 2016, 07:18:19 AM
Yeah, I like the "This is actually a test for the Waif, and she just failed" theory. Or the "Arya is using stagecraft to fake out the Waif" theory. Both are better than the Fight Club theory which is super-convoluted--that kind of thing takes exclusive attention across an entire film to set up satisfyingly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 07, 2016, 07:53:06 AM
Let's face it... the whole Arya storyline is super-convoluted and likely makes no sense because there isn't a clear story arc for that character to take which also keeps her relevant to the main storyline of Westeros being besieged by goddamn hordes of pissed off undead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 07, 2016, 09:05:40 AM
I like the "It's not Arya, it's Jaquen because he was the third name she gave him" theory.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on June 07, 2016, 09:41:02 AM
My theory is that I skip the Arya scenes now because they are boring and nonsensical.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 07, 2016, 11:47:47 AM
Arya is one of several places where I think Martin wrote himself into a conventional fantasy trope and then got all convoluted because he didn't want to admit it to himself. I wish they'd just go ahead and say, "Yeah, ok, she's a vengeance-driven assassin girl. Fine. Yeah, she's the teenage equivalent of the Bride. Fine. On with the murder and stabbiness, then."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on June 07, 2016, 12:12:42 PM
I quite like the Arya storyline and I think Bob's theory might have nailed it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 07, 2016, 01:20:30 PM
Let's face it... the whole Arya storyline is super-convoluted and likely makes no sense because there isn't a clear story arc for that character to take which also keeps her relevant to the main storyline of Westeros being besieged by goddamn hordes of pissed off undead.

It works better in the books for sure, but yeah the whole revenge plot feels pretty out of sync now that the entire rest of the narrative has moved on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 07, 2016, 01:29:58 PM
Another small irritation for me was this: why is Bronn still working with the Lannisters? Are they paying him anything at all? He knows they're kind of broke--he was working with Tyrion when Tyrion discovered how deep in debt the crown was and how much the Lannisters were in the hole with them. I assume he's been getting some gold, but he's been promised much more for some really high-risk gigs. He doesn't get off on power, particularly, so being promised command over Lannister forces and all that is hardly much of an incentive. He's not an idiot and he has good sources of information, so he must know that not only are the Lannisters not all that rich any more, they're also on the knife's edge of serious disaster in King's Landing. I could see that maybe there's not much of anyone else out there who's buying, I guess--the Boltons and the Greyjoys would seem a really bad idea, Littlefinger probably pays well but that must feel somewhat like being a henchman for the Joker in terms of the risk of getting whacked at the end of the job, Dorne is not a good place for him to go, and I don't know that anyone in the Reach has any need for him. But still. You'd almost think he'd ask Jamie to pay up as much as he can and hop on a boat for Pentos or Braavos where the money's good and the gig is a bit safer. Or even see if he can sign up with Tyrion again, who looks at this point almost like a better patron than Jamie and Kevan. Or just go sit it out in an inn unless Jamie greases his palms right now right this second.

Or maybe if the siege doesn't go all that well, he'll get a note to the Blackfish and offer his services...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 07, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Bronn's stuck because his payments are tied to the crown. He's the dumbest sell-sword ever, he went for lands and title over gold and jewels. He's got obligations he can't walk from now. His latest bribe appears to be, "bigger lands, better title."

So in short, Bronn's just a foul-mouthed lesser lord now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 07, 2016, 10:48:38 PM
And even with all of that stuff about the Lannisters taken into account, it's probably still the best gig he's had in his life other than when Tyrion was Hand.

As far as him or Sansa contacting Tyrion for work/help, does anyone in Westeros even know where he is or if he's even alive?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on June 08, 2016, 01:38:16 AM
Bronn is desperate for a bit of land and a wife, probably sick of being a sell sword and sees this as his last opportunity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 08, 2016, 05:00:14 AM
Qyburn doesn't quite have Varys' contacts, but news from Essos does seem to be trickling back generally. I would think by this point that Tyrion's presence in Mereen might have been rumored, since he's been seen in public there numerous times. Cersei is a bit distracted so she might not be all that interested in hearing it at the moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2016, 06:49:52 AM
Book Cersei is absolutely obsessed with that question. TV Cersei is a paragon of restraint and strategic thinking by comparison.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2016, 07:48:44 AM
Bronn is desperate for a bit of land and a wife, probably sick of being a sell sword and sees this as his last opportunity.

It's the great dream of every two-bit sellsword or hedge knight. In the book (and occasionally on the show) Davos spends a lot of time dwelling on how he had it and lost it but maybe it wasn't that great anyway because it's just another sort of bondage while younger Bronn still desires it and probably will have some rough ending over it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 08, 2016, 09:09:57 AM
Book Cersei is absolutely obsessed with that question. TV Cersei is a paragon of restraint and strategic thinking by comparison.

Man, it's been so long I'd forgotten about that, but yeah, isn't book Cersei offering such a large bounty on Tyrion that people are just murdering random dwarves and sending her their corpses hoping to get rich?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 08, 2016, 01:37:07 PM
Book Cersei is absolutely obsessed with that question. TV Cersei is a paragon of restraint and strategic thinking by comparison.

Man, it's been so long I'd forgotten about that, but yeah, isn't book Cersei offering such a large bounty on Tyrion that people are just murdering random dwarves and sending her their corpses hoping to get rich?

Yes. On the way to Meereen, Tyrion meets up with half of the dwarf duo who performed the comedy joust at Joffrey's wedding. The other half of the duo is dead because someone figured that it might be Tyrion and fancied a go on the dwarf lottery.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 08, 2016, 01:51:28 PM
So a friend of mine thinks that Yara is going to end up as the show's version of Quentyn, which actually has some merit. She'll try and seduce Dany, and then to prove her love to her she'll d something stupid with the dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 08, 2016, 01:54:48 PM
So a friend of mine thinks that Yara is going to end up as the show's version of Quentyn, which actually has some merit. She'll try and seduce Dany, and then to prove her love to her she'll d something stupid with the dragons.

I think maybe not the prove her love part, but I think she'll put forth Theon as a suitor and do something stupid with the dragons ala Quentyn.  Theon can't make heirs, and Dany can't make human ones either I think.

This season feels like it's moving so fast that it's painful to watch how much time they spend on Arya even though I love Arya.  Everything else has so much progression towards something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2016, 03:40:24 PM
I've been surprised just how much more Dance and Feast there has been this season.

Iron Islands and Riverlands have been 100% feast, Arya only reached the end of dance when she went to see the play, and only her last scene was definitely beyond the Winds preview chapter. Only the post Hodor bit has been new to Bran. Sandor this week was all Feast material.

Mereen, Vaes Dothrak, and the North are definitely beyond book readers - but Mereen and the North are hugely reinterpreted. In KL the clearing out of all the players bar Cersei Margery and the Sparrow had already happened at the end of Dance, admittedly Tommen getting religion is new.

So someone becoming Quentyn wouldn't be big shock, also not impossible we'll get a version of Lord Manderly, and Sam still hasn't reached the citadel and met the people he meets there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 08, 2016, 03:45:56 PM
First off who gives a fuck why Bronn is there. More Bronn is always a good thing.

Ep 9 is titled 'Battle of the Barstards'.  Woot


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on June 08, 2016, 04:09:41 PM
First off who gives a fuck why Bronn is there. More Bronn is always a good thing.

This, but I still can't believe that's Jerome a la Robson & Jerome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2016, 06:46:20 PM
I've been surprised just how much more Dance and Feast there has been this season.

They are obviously going back and using more book material to a) stretch the series as much as possible and b) because the shit they write themselves like the Dorne plot is total ass. I bet we get lady stoneheart also, and that's from book three when we should be on book six.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 08, 2016, 07:07:04 PM
The Dorne plot WAS from the books, only the book version had more characters from Westeros who ultimately didn't matter one fuck. It was also just as bad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 08, 2016, 08:17:04 PM
The Dorne plot WAS from the books, only the book version had more characters from Westeros who ultimately didn't matter one fuck. It was also just as bad.

The Dorne plot was not from the books. Like at all. Not a single scene.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 08, 2016, 08:17:54 PM
The Sand Snakes trying to overthrow the Dornish king and kill Myrcella was very much from the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 08, 2016, 10:58:14 PM
If by kill Myrcella, you mean crown her queen of Westeros then yes.

If by overthrow Doran, you mean head to KL on his orders to infiltrate the sparrows and small council, then sure.

It was Darkstar who wanted Myrcella dead for reasons that have not been revealed. There are certainly parallels in the the snakes being part of a faction wanting war, but there are no bad pussies.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 09, 2016, 02:35:56 AM
The Sand Snakes trying to overthrow the Dornish king and kill Myrcella was very much from the books.

Haha no.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 09, 2016, 03:16:04 AM
While what they did with Dorne was still awkward, I didn't think it was too bad by itself (I imagine its better if you don't have book bias to help you rage against it, heh).  But in the end, using only a few episodes of material (there really wasn't that much Dorne stuff last season, and almost none this season), they managed to cleanly swipe away probably over 500 pages of material.  All of the golden company stuff, all of the endless retarded Dorne plots from the books (Sand Snakes/Darkstar and Prince Extra Crispy), all condensed down into one final result:  There is a large army in the south now marching north.  Dorne and the Sand Snakes are now the stand in for the Golden Company and Prince Deus Ex.  That's only a little bit of airtime to get to the same place that hundreds of pages of shitty material took to get (ok, I sort of like the Golden Company stuff, but its just needless extra plot lines at this point).

So in that regard, I'm fine with it.  Plus hypno tits makes up for a lot, imo.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 09, 2016, 05:58:23 AM
I've been surprised just how much more Dance and Feast there has been this season.

They are obviously going back and using more book material to a) stretch the series as much as possible and b) because the shit they write themselves like the Dorne plot is total ass. I bet we get lady stoneheart also, and that's from book three when we should be on book six.

I'm fine with them reaching back for interesting plot lines.

So, the whole no travel time to get from one end of a continent to another with no dragons was starting to bother me as in the books, as much as it's annoying as fuck sometimes, there is a sense of distance.  My wife, a non-book reader, made a good observation that she never assumed the different stories were synced up perfectly and it looked like when someone arrives somewhere it's because that plotline was taking place during one of the plots we had already seen. It sort of made sense if you don't think about it too hard.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 09, 2016, 07:14:28 AM
So I'm just wondering, if they can bring Jon, both Cleganes and Thoros back.... then who is this standing behind the Waif in the just released photos for next episode?

Spoiler alert if true




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 09, 2016, 07:22:56 AM
Of course, with the Faceless Men, we never know who anyone "really" is. They could send Ned Stark to talk to Arya if they want.

You know, assassins' guilds are such a fantasy staple that I wish Martin and the show would think differently here too. There have actually been groups of assassins in human history--we get the word from one such actual group--but they don't tend to be killers-for-hire, mere mercenaries available to anyone with the coin. They're almost always either religious cults or the specialized subunit of a clannish or small political-military organization. I suppose the Faceless Men are a 'cult' but I still really don't get a sense of what motivates them. It would be interesting if it turned out that they're more or less the covert arm of the Iron Bank, the made men of it--I could imagine that, and it could be a reason why they send Arya back to Westeros without any real strings attached, because they know she'll rip the shit out of the Lannisters, who it turns out do *not* pay their debts.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2016, 07:47:38 AM
While what they did with Dorne was still awkward, I didn't think it was too bad by itself (I imagine its better if you don't have book bias to help you rage against it, heh).  But in the end, using only a few episodes of material (there really wasn't that much Dorne stuff last season, and almost none this season), they managed to cleanly swipe away probably over 500 pages of material.  All of the golden company stuff, all of the endless retarded Dorne plots from the books (Sand Snakes/Darkstar and Prince Extra Crispy), all condensed down into one final result:  There is a large army in the south now marching north.  Dorne and the Sand Snakes are now the stand in for the Golden Company and Prince Deus Ex.  That's only a little bit of airtime to get to the same place that hundreds of pages of shitty material took to get (ok, I sort of like the Golden Company stuff, but its just needless extra plot lines at this point).

So in that regard, I'm fine with it.  Plus hypno tits makes up for a lot, imo.   :awesome_for_real:

I had forgotten about the Golden company, it's been a few years and there were so many forgettable parts haha. As you say this is going to accomplish what that convoluted plot did: A large army is going to start wrecking stuff in the Crown Alliance's previously untouched heartland (The Reach & Stormlands). Probably leads to a Tyrell collapse. I do remember the foreshadowing from early on which stuck out to me, when they were derided as the "Knights of Summer". They are the Italian army of Westeros. 4-5 books/seasons later the flower knights (on paper the largest and richest force) still haven't been tested in any real conflict.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 09, 2016, 07:51:58 AM
From those photos, a definite spoiler for episode 8:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2016, 07:53:43 AM
So, the whole no travel time to get from one end of a continent to another with no dragons was starting to bother me as in the books, as much as it's annoying as fuck sometimes, there is a sense of distance.  My wife, a non-book reader, made a good observation that she never assumed the different stories were synced up perfectly and it looked like when someone arrives somewhere it's because that plotline was taking place during one of the plots we had already seen. It sort of made sense if you don't think about it too hard.

That's what I assume, but it's still very jarring when you see it happen on screen especially when a character moves a big distance withing a single episode or two. I wonder how much it would change the feel of the show if they had added some narration or captioning to explain it as cheesy as that might be to a lot of people, it would make it more book-like.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 09, 2016, 08:03:31 AM
Of course, with the Faceless Men, we never know who anyone "really" is. They could send Ned Stark to talk to Arya if they want.

You know, assassins' guilds are such a fantasy staple that I wish Martin and the show would think differently here too. There have actually been groups of assassins in human history--we get the word from one such actual group--but they don't tend to be killers-for-hire, mere mercenaries available to anyone with the coin. They're almost always either religious cults or the specialized subunit of a clannish or small political-military organization. I suppose the Faceless Men are a 'cult' but I still really don't get a sense of what motivates them. It would be interesting if it turned out that they're more or less the covert arm of the Iron Bank, the made men of it--I could imagine that, and it could be a reason why they send Arya back to Westeros without any real strings attached, because they know she'll rip the shit out of the Lannisters, who it turns out do *not* pay their debts.

I would have to assume they work with the Iron Bank. In one of his speeches to Arya he talks about how the Faceless Men are the founders of Braavos so one assumes they are patriotic and working for Braavos' long term interests, and probably still in the ruling circle when you factor in the cult's ancient connections, religious awe over the people and their powerful skills.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 09, 2016, 09:25:20 AM
Ok, you're right, I forgot the Sand Snakes weren't trying to kill Myrcella, just kidnap her and put her on the Iron Throne. Or use her as a pawn for something something revenge for Oberon. Their beef with the Dornish king was about him not taking revenge for Oberon. They very much did want to invade Westeros and they did injure/scar Myrcella. That whole bit of Dornish bullshit from the books had so many moving parts, I've forgotten most of them and I'm glad the show did as well. So many characters that had no bearing on the rest of the story whatsoever.

That's not to say what the show had was better, just shorter. Still feels utterly unconnected to the whole thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 09, 2016, 10:42:02 AM
So I'm just wondering, if they can bring Jon, both Cleganes and Thoros back.... then who is this standing behind the Waif in the just released photos for next episode?

Spoiler alert if true




God, i fucking hope not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 09, 2016, 11:35:54 AM
Ok, you're right, I forgot the Sand Snakes weren't trying to kill Myrcella, just kidnap her and put her on the Iron Throne. Or use her as a pawn for something something revenge for Oberon. Their beef with the Dornish king was about him not taking revenge for Oberon. They very much did want to invade Westeros and they did injure/scar Myrcella. That whole bit of Dornish bullshit from the books had so many moving parts, I've forgotten most of them and I'm glad the show did as well. So many characters that had no bearing on the rest of the story whatsoever.

That's not to say what the show had was better, just shorter. Still feels utterly unconnected to the whole thing.

What the show did wrong imo was not introducing more of Dorne in season 3 or 4 so they had room for you to care about it.

They could easily have edited out 6 hours of Theon getting tortured and halved the number of Bran and Dany scenes to make room.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 09, 2016, 11:38:21 AM
So I'm just wondering, if they can bring Jon, both Cleganes and Thoros back.... then who is this standing behind the Waif in the just released photos for next episode?

Spoiler alert if true




God, i fucking hope not.

They like fucking with people who post popular but ridiculous theories, I'd rather they stop.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 09, 2016, 12:23:26 PM
It would be the most awesome thing ever if true.  I don't care what you all say!!!  All would be forgiven at that point!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 10, 2016, 02:47:38 AM
So I'm just wondering, if they can bring Jon, both Cleganes and Thoros back.... then who is this standing behind the Waif in the just released photos for next episode?

Spoiler alert if true





God, i fucking hope not.

Yup, this.  A show/book that made its mark by showing that noone is safe is really starting to lose that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 10, 2016, 04:04:46 AM
I'm starting to think that the series is like the later Dune books. Want to revive a character - no worries - into the Axlotl tanks with some DNA and have Paul/Leto/Jessica/Duncan/Teg et.al back regardless of death. It's cheap and for me, the main reason that Jon Snow should have stayed dead.

I'll buy the Hound (didn't die) and to a much lesser extent LSH (she isn't Cat anymore but the equivalent of the dead the WWs raise) and I'll even buy into Robert Strong (just an automaton)... but not Thoros or Jon Snow.

Having said that, I'll sit back and enjoy the ride because if I don't suspend the disbelief too much then nothing will make sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 10, 2016, 04:49:20 AM
Wait, did Thoros die?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on June 10, 2016, 05:32:05 AM
He raised people from the dead, calling on the lord of light.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 10, 2016, 05:41:35 AM
Only ever one person at a time per Priest. Thats a tight limitation that helps not making death cheap.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 10, 2016, 06:17:47 AM
And with some serious consequences--Beric isn't quite a zombie, but he's not a whole and independent human being any more.

If we're talking raising the dead, don't forget that *everyone* who dies north of the Wall or near it has been raised unless they've been burnt. So arguably everybody in the series who has died will eventually be joining the White Walkers as they move south.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 12, 2016, 06:19:56 PM
God dammit writers, really? I fucking give up.

Also, Sandor Clegane: The Murderhobo in everyone's middle school D&D group.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2016, 07:47:44 PM
Whelp wtf Cleganebowl.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 12, 2016, 07:49:29 PM
I thought this episode was fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 12, 2016, 07:59:35 PM
Seriously. That was maybe ? the worst episode of the entire series to date.

Like, that was FOUR fucking anticlimaxes, FOUR wasted arcs. What the fuck.

Hound: I'M COMING AND HELL IS COMING WITH ME! Wait, what? Oh, ok, whatever, sure, I'll just hang these guys like you were going to anyway. Whatevs. At least I shoved an axe into someone's crotch and made a joke about chicken. I bet you thought something important was going to happen. Nope!

Arya: No, it wasn't a fake-out, I was actually stabbed in the gut by a trained assassin while trying to wander around town going la di dah to buy tickets to Westeros, I actually survived and wandered around town, I was actually nursed by an actual  actress lady who isn't anything other than what she appears to be (and claims to be good at stabbing-cures because she stabs lovers sometimes and then heals them), and then I actually ran through town chased by the least effective assassin in the history of face-changing assassin people and no, it was not a fake-out or a trick or anything even remotely clever, it was all goddamn literal. And then I just said, "Oh hai, master of assassins, I'm going home, seeya."

Blackfish: I WILL FIGHT FOREVER FOR...something I guess. Oh, hi, Brienne of Tarth, you were sent here for...some reason? Is there a story involved that someone is trying to tell? I guess? Can you tell me what the point of your coming here actually is? Like why we're all wasting time here? No? Ok, I'm going to go die off-camera so nobody has to waste time on a cool sword fight or anything.

Tyrion: Hi! I have been having character growth! I am really great at politics! Good luck Varys, I guess you have to go off and do the end of Dance With Dragons because it's in the contract or something. I'll just hang out here and eat up ten minutes of screen time with Drinking Games With Eunuchs and Translators. Oh! Fuck! We're being attacked! I guess I'm not a political genius! In previous seasons someone like Grey Worm would kill me right now as a useless fucking idiot but in this season I guess I just, I dunno, keep talking or whatever. Oh, good, it's Danerys who just walks in the room while Drogon flies away even though Mereen is being burnt to the ground. Congratulations! We wasted an entire season with a couple of decent scenes, we're sticking closely to the books after all.

I have enjoyed this season mostly but this episode made me wonder what the fuck is going through the writers' heads. I think maybe they need Martin more than I thought they did. In which case we're all screwed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 12, 2016, 08:41:10 PM
So Braavos was Dorne Mk2 and Riverun was Dorne Mk3?

Seriously - the writers seem to have no idea and every single bit was anti-climatic.

The only highlight was Bronn/Pod and Brienne/Jamie and that was far too brief.

There was so much that they could have done with this episode, so much that it could have filled 2-3 episodes and yet they decided to have stupid jokes and boring discussions that resulted in nothing.

I agree, they really do need GRRM to help them out because you can see the exact point that there is no source material to draw on. I think the stories of him telling them how it all pans out are just that... stories.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 12, 2016, 09:23:25 PM
I think maybe they need Martin more than I thought they did.

Well, they were fans who got Martin's permission to make a series by correctly answering his "Who is Jon Snow's mother?" question. So now that they've overtaken the books and he's given them permission to do as they please, it's fan fiction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 12, 2016, 09:24:48 PM
I'm with Rendakor, I thought it was fun. The whole Clegane bowl stuff made no sense anyhow - the Hound gets nursed back to health by an old Septon and now he's somehow going to wind up champion of the faith an episode or two later? This was better - he wanted revenge on the guys who killed his friend. He got it, so that's done. Now he's deciding what to do next with his now rather pointless life.

Its not Masterpiece Theatre by a long stretch, but it managed to make me smile and even giggle a few times this episode. Good enough for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 12, 2016, 11:37:42 PM
This was awful, generic, predictable crap.  I hope the books (we'll never know, he won't finish) end up being a bit more creative than this.  

It's still entertaining, but it's really just turned into something where the plot armor is making for a lot of lazy resolutions to what were semi-interesting story lines. Gah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 13, 2016, 12:53:09 AM
I think that they are trying to quickly move towards the ending that GRRM laid out for them, and without his books for the path between they are having to fall back on classic tropes he would probably have inverted, subverted, or head-faked.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on June 13, 2016, 03:05:22 AM
I think that they are trying to quickly move towards the ending that GRRM laid out for them, and without his books for the path between they are having to fall back on classic tropes he would probably have inverted, subverted, or head-faked.

--Dave

15 years ago he might have been able to do that since it's a lot easier to avoid tropes when you aren't actively trying to move forward to a resolution. Being willing to shockingly kill off main characters for instance only works for so long before it gets to the point where you start running low on characters the audience actually cares about and who can drive the plot (Walking Dead has much the same problem, although the writing there is worse as well). GRRM has already gotten to the point where he's willing to bring characters back from the dead (and will presumably do it with Jon Snow in the books as well) which is one of the cheesiest tropes you can use in fiction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 13, 2016, 03:17:10 AM
Seriously. That was maybe ? the worst episode of the entire series to date.

Like, that was FOUR fucking anticlimaxes, FOUR wasted arcs. What the fuck.

Hound: I'M COMING AND HELL IS COMING WITH ME! Wait, what? Oh, ok, whatever, sure, I'll just hang these guys like you were going to anyway. Whatevs. At least I shoved an axe into someone's crotch and made a joke about chicken. I bet you thought something important was going to happen. Nope!

Arya: No, it wasn't a fake-out, I was actually stabbed in the gut by a trained assassin while trying to wander around town going la di dah to buy tickets to Westeros, I actually survived and wandered around town, I was actually nursed by an actual  actress lady who isn't anything other than what she appears to be (and claims to be good at stabbing-cures because she stabs lovers sometimes and then heals them), and then I actually ran through town chased by the least effective assassin in the history of face-changing assassin people and no, it was not a fake-out or a trick or anything even remotely clever, it was all goddamn literal. And then I just said, "Oh hai, master of assassins, I'm going home, seeya."

Blackfish: I WILL FIGHT FOREVER FOR...something I guess. Oh, hi, Brienne of Tarth, you were sent here for...some reason? Is there a story involved that someone is trying to tell? I guess? Can you tell me what the point of your coming here actually is? Like why we're all wasting time here? No? Ok, I'm going to go die off-camera so nobody has to waste time on a cool sword fight or anything.

Tyrion: Hi! I have been having character growth! I am really great at politics! Good luck Varys, I guess you have to go off and do the end of Dance With Dragons because it's in the contract or something. I'll just hang out here and eat up ten minutes of screen time with Drinking Games With Eunuchs and Translators. Oh! Fuck! We're being attacked! I guess I'm not a political genius! In previous seasons someone like Grey Worm would kill me right now as a useless fucking idiot but in this season I guess I just, I dunno, keep talking or whatever. Oh, good, it's Danerys who just walks in the room while Drogon flies away even though Mereen is being burnt to the ground. Congratulations! We wasted an entire season with a couple of decent scenes, we're sticking closely to the books after all.

I have enjoyed this season mostly but this episode made me wonder what the fuck is going through the writers' heads. I think maybe they need Martin more than I thought they did. In which case we're all screwed.

Yeah, everything you just said++.

This was a hard episode from me to get through.  Had to stop, roll my eyes, and do other things several times.  The character dialog is still great, but such wasted fucking plot.

There had really better be a reason they decided to bring back the fucking Riverrun arc even though they had already blessedly skipped that shit.  Brienne didn't get an army, Edmund sells out is castle and soldiers so they wont kill a baby he's never seen before, to a woman who was just sleeping with him so her family could slaughter his.  And they kill off the fucking Blackfish even though he actually does get away in the books.  They literally did the opposite of everything I thought might come out of that arc.  It seems really fucking pointless right now.

 :uhrr: :uhrr: :uhrr: :uhrr: :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2016, 05:19:48 AM
Riverrun being a waste of time is a product of stabbing Robb's wife at the wedding just to fuck with book readers. She's supposed to be alive, in the castle, and possibly pregnant - which is why the siege matters (aside from just giving Jamie more screen time).

Braavos, yeah, well, TV writers. You have to wonder how hard it would have been to make the wound less obviously fatal last week.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 13, 2016, 05:43:36 AM
Seriously. At least we might then have gotten an intimation that Arya is somewhat skilled, if she twisted away and just got wounded along the side or something. She got stabbed in the intestines and the blade got twisted. You don't get a bit of chicken soup and herbal medicine for that and get well enough to run away from the Terminator in 18 hours, especially after falling into a canal in a city where medieval sewage flows into the water. The whole thing was so fucking stupid that I still can't believe that there isn't some kind of twist to it. There was not one ounce of cleverness in the whole Braavos story arc as it plays out in the series. I'm not terribly fond of it in the books either, but it is at least somewhat more developed and you can see that Arya coming back to herself in the books is going to be a more momentous kind of thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 13, 2016, 06:15:16 AM
The sad thing is, she didn't even need to get stabbed.

Goes paranoid looking for a faceless waif
Optional: Heads to the only safe spot with the actress, could even kill actress by mistake or actress is JH... runs
Chased by waif into Arya's trap
Waif dies
Optional: Waif was Arya or JH

JH's line "finally you are no-one" was fucking stupid. Just because she killed the Waif doesn't suddenly make her a FM and she's holding needle to his chest - you know, the weapon that has held her individuality ever sice Jon gave it to her. It's the god damn sword the FM made her give up for that exact reason - it messed with her being no-one


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 13, 2016, 06:22:24 AM
The whole thing was so fucking stupid that I still can't believe that there isn't some kind of twist to it.

This episode was so "Nope, it's all exactly as it appears despite lots of twists" that in a way it was a twist itself. Of course that means Arya is an idiot for walking around crowds with her hands behind her back whistling, but whatever.

Another thing bothering me was the Blackfish, Edmund, and others still using "Kingslayer" as an insult to say Jaime has no honor or whatever. Meanwhile, people are running around killing their fathers and it's all cool with people because "he was a cunt" and they'd have killed their own dad if he hadn't died. I had been attributing to a general decline caused by high casualties amongst the older nobles in the war and a generation of less traditional, younger nobles coming to power. But now I just suspect it's more that I read to much into it and it was just shitty writing throwing established worldbuilding out the window for some easy plot devices.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2016, 06:28:10 AM
Poison. I'd have used poison. Easy to explain threat of death and hope of a cure.

Plus the waif was explictly shown teaching Arya about poison, so both characters get to act competant.

Also, Varys bothers me. Assuming he is going to do the thing he does in the books....  Why? In the books he did it to destablise KL, but on TV I can't see how it would make a blind bit of difference.  S6 has a whole bunch of people doing things they did in the books, but at a different time and in circumstances where it makes no sense.

It's not unlike the s5 problem where book dialog and actions would be given to different characters for whom it made no sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 13, 2016, 06:31:49 AM
JH's line "finally you are no-one" was fucking stupid. Just because she killed the Waif doesn't suddenly make her a FM and she's holding needle to his chest - you know, the weapon that has held her individuality ever sice Jon gave it to her. It's the god damn sword the FM made her give up for that exact reason - it messed with her being no-one

Yeah, it was another instance of the episode wrecking seasons of previous worldbuilding. That ending scene took the Faceless Men from a group of ascetic monk-assassins with strict rules and traditions to to "Yeah, I told her to kill you, but you killed her. So fuck it, you get to be a faceless man. IT ALL WENT ACCORDING TO PLAN OR POSSIBLY MY COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE." It couldn't have gotten any dumber if they'd started playing I'm a Bitch when she started giving her I'M ARYA STARK thing and left.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 13, 2016, 06:52:37 AM
Yep.  Man who can look at you and slap you whenever you tell a single lie, even if you don't realize that it's a lie when you say it, is all "Finally!  You are truly nobody now!  How does it feel?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 13, 2016, 06:56:37 AM
Seriously. At least we might then have gotten an intimation that Arya is somewhat skilled, if she twisted away and just got wounded along the side or something. She got stabbed in the intestines and the blade got twisted. You don't get a bit of chicken soup and herbal medicine for that and get well enough to run away from the Terminator in 18 hours, especially after falling into a canal in a city where medieval sewage flows into the water. The whole thing was so fucking stupid that I still can't believe that there isn't some kind of twist to it. There was not one ounce of cleverness in the whole Braavos story arc as it plays out in the series. I'm not terribly fond of it in the books either, but it is at least somewhat more developed and you can see that Arya coming back to herself in the books is going to be a more momentous kind of thing.

It was just bad TV writing. They just add on ZAP! BLAMO! KABOOM!  moments because I guess they think that's what people want (hardly why the GoT show got popular in the first place though). They could have keep the realism level at least on this planet by either reducing her initial wound, or having a less dramatic car chase through San Francisco (say a hobbling Arya sneaks away a bit by outwitting her until finally cornered).

The whole Riverrun thing was very irksome as a waste of time. I guess it's supposed to be character development for Jamie & Brienne, but why did they kill off Blackfish when Martin made a big point of him sneaking out? He's supposed to be one of the best veteran marshals left.

The siege is already screaming TV stupidity when you have a surprise 1000 ship fleet city bombardment coming from wooden ships like they are all WW2 battleships. Ships don't fire on cities, because they are valuable and made of wood and can easily be set on fire themselves by return shot. Furthermore there are dragons all over the place that can drop fire on it from hundreds of feet above.

At least the KL stuff is getting interesting and one presumes coming to some kind of dramatic moment the next 2 episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2016, 07:07:57 AM
Even excusing that Arya may have been out for days, or a week, or whatever before the Actress died. As soon as she leapt out of the window, stiches torn, bleeding, death. The not-bleeding until the 2nd fall was just so eye-rollingly bad I was pissed as it was happening.

Plus we've wasted essentially two episodes on the same outcome that we could have had at the end of Arya snuffing the candle. It was a pointless, pointless, pointless arc and we're worse for it.

Hell, even Clegane's story is better. He's changed and you can see it. He actually hangs around Barric instead of killing them as he said he would have in the past. Real growth and change. This Hound you can see might help BoB or work against the Lannisters. Old Hound would have kept running and killing.

The Mereen stuff seemed like it was just because Dinklage has a contractual amount of screen time he has to get now. All scenes there with Tyrion, Grey Worm and Miss. have been pointless.

Varys going back?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 13, 2016, 07:09:52 AM
Just like Stannis, I'm not sure the Blackfish is actually dead because we didn't see him die on screen nor did we see a body. This episode also basically confirmed that we aren't getting LSH since Beric is still alive; it would be pretty stupid if they found her years-dead body and rezzed it now.

Edit: I don't think she was actually bleeding after the 2nd fall; they make a point to show that she fell into a crate of blood oranges, so I assumed it wasn't real blood and that she was just using it to bait the Waif. That jives with her being able to best her in a fight, since she was actually in better health than she appeared to be. That does assume she was convalescing for longer than an evening, but the timing has been pretty shit for a while now (with everyone basically teleporting to wherever the plots needs them to be) so it didn't really surprise me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 13, 2016, 08:49:03 AM
The Blackfish had plenty of time to escape and chose death, the Lannister guard confirmed his death.  He is not alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 13, 2016, 09:09:26 AM
Edit: I don't think she was actually bleeding after the 2nd fall; they make a point to show that she fell into a crate of blood oranges, so I assumed it wasn't real blood and that she was just using it to bait the Waif.

Previously I would have said that blood orange juice doesn't look much like actual blood and probably wouldn't fool anyone who's had a cut, let alone a trained assassin. Now though? Sure, why the hell not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
Just like Stannis, I'm not sure the Blackfish is actually dead because we didn't see him die on screen nor did we see a body. This episode also basically confirmed that we aren't getting LSH since Beric is still alive; it would be pretty stupid if they found her years-dead body and rezzed it now.

Maybe, but with Brienne in theatre you'd have to assume they are doing the same story with Beric. Which is worse. Like so much of s5 and s6, it would mean replaying a book scene shorn of all context.

Even if they couldn't get Fairley back they could have recast the part and kept her hooded, making who she is a "mystery" until an expensive one off cgi reveal.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 13, 2016, 10:54:49 AM
So I was completely wrong about Arya and the whole faceless men thing as it turns out there was no great insight or mystery to the whole Aray plot and could have been cut from the story altogether and replaced with Aray just surfacing somewhere at the beginning of the next season without affecting the greater plot at all (seems like this is one of the plot points that the time skip GRRM originally planned for the story would have greatly benefited from).  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 13, 2016, 11:10:52 AM
90% of the plot points would have benefited from the time skip (since they were all setup for that).  That's why everything started to go to shit after book 3.   :oh_i_see:

Just, bleh.  I'm having a hard time reconciling the overall great adaptation decisions made by the TV writers during the first half of this series, with what's happened the last two seasons (mostly this season).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 13, 2016, 11:18:51 AM
Well as someone confirmed a few pages back, the whole long Arya the assassin plot was shoehorned in because his wife liked the character otherwise she'd be long dead. The basis of any great story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2016, 11:46:40 AM
If TV Arya had the same proportion of screentime as book Arya had page time, they'd have covered the entire arc in less than half an hour.

And that isn't what GRRM said. Arya's plot has been foreshadowed from the beginning. GRRM said he was tempted to write more of her for his wife and was scared of killing her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 13, 2016, 12:56:19 PM
Yeah, as far as I know, he intended her to be a long term character from the get go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: angry.bob on June 13, 2016, 05:30:17 PM
There were just so many better options to go with this last episode for her, and they picked what I consider the worst one. It's been 6 seasons of build up and we got the equivalent of how they handled Sauron in the theatrical release of LOTR. "But gandalf, Sauron is still alive in his tower" "Yes, and there he'll have to stay because we have to go do some other shit someplace else, LETS GO!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 13, 2016, 05:42:36 PM
Plot-wise it's salvageable if someone were to explain that the faceless wanted to train Arya as a killer and turn her loose to wreak havok on Westeros, and that fighting the waif was a test of her abilities and intentions, but I doubt they'll go that route


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 13, 2016, 06:36:53 PM
I don't mind that they didn't do some insane zomg Fight Club plot or whatever. I am furious though that they didn't just leave Arya huddled in the dark waiting for the Waif. They have enough other characters and plots, go do those. The next time we saw Arya, she should have been meditating next to a candle, then said a few tough-ass things when the Waif came in to murder her, and then darkness. And then fine, show us putting her bloody face in the temple, it's beautiful at that point. But the whole goddamn "I got stabbed, I survived, I have to escape the Terminator, I got healed by the nice lady, the nice lady got murdered, I escaped the Terminator, look at the oranges", jesus fuck. The impulses behind that would have had Ned Stark grabbing a sword, fighting the executioner personally, and getting blasted by magic from Khadgar the Warcraft Mage or whatever. It is a shitty eruption of dumb and obvious into what has been surprising and careful. Martin's books have been more in charge than I thought, fuck it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2016, 11:00:02 PM
Plot-wise it's salvageable if someone were to explain that the faceless wanted to train Arya as a killer and turn her loose to wreak havok on Westeros, and that fighting the waif was a test of her abilities and intentions, but I doubt they'll go that route

It would have been salvagable if they'd given us any way to read this in to what was on screen before this episode. As it was, the kindly man's smirk was simply irritating.

Fwiw I didn't hate Maisie Williams performance in this and I did quite like the idea of beating the waif by combining the blindness training with her water dancing (my guess is that is a book idea). But the problems remain the choice to overdo the stab wound, the choice to have waif act nothing like a FM, the choice to never allow Arya even close to crossing a moral line, and the choice not to have shown the FM do anything outside of Arya's PoV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2016, 11:42:01 PM
Getting off of Braavos for a moment, KL was very well done this week. Really liked the way the sparrow sought to offer terms before moving on cersei. The Qyburn reveal was surprisingly nimbly done for a s5/6 plot point.

I'm now putting all of this in head canon...

Cersei will find the mad king's wildfire, then attempts to burn down the city, probably after the sparrow causes Tommen's death, ending the "Baratheon" line and leaving himself as the only source of of power. We know Tommen must die before Cersei because of Maggy's prophecy.

Jamie will kill Cersei to stop her burning the city, again as per Maggy's prophecy. He might not be successful in stopping the fire (Dany's TV vision of a burnt throne room), but not a chance that he misses out on repeating his Kingslayer moment.

Finally, as Sandor is likely to cross paths with Jamie soon, this also provides us with the road to Cleganebowl, only instead of a trial by combat, we get a no holds barred smackdown in a city on fire - which sounds much more satisfying, and resolves Chekov's face burn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 14, 2016, 12:13:22 AM
'Only Tits & Dragons' - Season 6, my review so far:

Entertainment 70%
Plot holes 40%
Unnecessary rape & torture of female characters 0%

E > P+R therefore it remains on the watch list.

Could do with more tits and dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 14, 2016, 03:24:17 AM
What it really needs is more Pod and Bronn. Whenever an episode is lagging the answer is always more Pod and Bronn  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 14, 2016, 04:06:03 AM
Can't argue with that. In fact I'd go so far as to class them both as honorary dragons. Or tits. Whatever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2016, 08:11:02 AM
I was fine through about 2/3rds of this episode. Right up until the Blackfish decides to be a fucknut and get killed offscreen (probably because the actor didn't want to do it anymore - it felt like a very Sean Connery in Highlander 2 moment). The Hound had funny moments and killed people funnily. Tyrion had some fun character interaction with solider and translator. The siege from the water seemed silly, as I think a siege by land from the books made more sense. This felt kind of tacked on for the sake of unnecessary drama. Dany coming back in was ok but didn't really have that inspirational feeling.

And then Arya... what... the... fuck? Not only was the whole pile of shit we've seen on her this season complete bullshit, it now turns out to be pointless bullshit because the only thing we got out of it was that Arya became an actual badass? I mean, really? Did we need all this just for that outcome? Couldn't a training montage set to an '80's power anthem have been just as effective? And yes, it made the entire Faceless God cult seem completely ridiculous and nonsensical even in the context of a fantasy story. It was clownshoes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 14, 2016, 08:28:11 AM
Militarily, the siege from the water is stupid.  But plot-wise it makes it much more reasonable that the Ironborn can show up, wreck the fleet, and actually look useful enough for Dany to negotiate/ally with.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Tommen gets offed suddenly in the final episode of the season, with Margery then claiming she's pregnant with his heir.  Bonus points if it turns out she's faking that next season before Cersei chokes a bitch and leaves the power vacuum the High Sparrow is waiting for.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on June 14, 2016, 09:33:18 AM
"You're shit at dying, you know that'. That made it for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 14, 2016, 10:13:39 AM
I was fine through about 2/3rds of this episode. Right up until the Blackfish decides to be a fucknut and get killed offscreen (probably because the actor didn't want to do it anymore - it felt like a very Sean Connery in Highlander 2 moment).
It's not a whole lot different from how it went down in the books except that the show has closed the door on that character (which is probably a good move). In the books he surrenders in return for exile to the Wall after being given Edmure by Jaime, but thinks he's still being set up so he escapes before the castle is occupied. We don't hear from him after that. I can see why the show decided they didn't need that character hanging around as a potential loose end any more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 14, 2016, 10:32:13 AM

And then Arya... what... the... fuck? Not only was the whole pile of shit we've seen on her this season complete bullshit, it now turns out to be pointless bullshit because the only thing we got out of it was that Arya became an actual badass? I mean, really? Did we need all this just for that outcome? Couldn't a training montage set to an '80's power anthem have been just as effective? And yes, it made the entire Faceless God cult seem completely ridiculous and nonsensical even in the context of a fantasy story. It was clownshoes.

At least we shouldn't see anymore of that for the next 2 episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2016, 11:13:13 AM
Oh come on, you know she'll teleport to Winterfell to stab Ramsey Bolton from behind.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 14, 2016, 11:35:17 AM
Cersei is the more likely target; I don't think Arya even knows who Ramsay is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 14, 2016, 11:44:45 AM
I would not be at all surprised if Arya shows up to kill Ramsay after he retreats into Winterfell to wait out a siege or something of that sort. If Littlefinger can zoom around Westeros in a day or two, why not others? Arya may not know who Ramsay is, but if he's in Winterfell and she goes home she's going to get the picture very quickly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
I expect she'll stand over Ramsey's body with Needle dripping in her hands, look right into the camera and say, "I'm Arya Stark... BITCH!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thrawn on June 14, 2016, 11:58:40 AM
I expect she'll stand over Ramsey's body with Needle dripping in her hands, look right into the camera and say, "I'm Arya Stark... BITCH!"

I have a hard time laughing at this because with the quality of the writing this season, especially with Arya, I could see this actually happening.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 14, 2016, 12:04:05 PM
You forgot the [crotch chop]


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 14, 2016, 12:21:43 PM
I was fine through about 2/3rds of this episode. Right up until the Blackfish decides to be a fucknut and get killed offscreen (probably because the actor didn't want to do it anymore - it felt like a very Sean Connery in Highlander 2 moment).
It's not a whole lot different from how it went down in the books except that the show has closed the door on that character (which is probably a good move). In the books he surrenders in return for exile to the Wall after being given Edmure by Jaime, but thinks he's still being set up so he escapes before the castle is occupied. We don't hear from him after that. I can see why the show decided they didn't need that character hanging around as a potential loose end any more.
Big issues I have with this overall is WHY.  Why bring up Riverrrun and everybody in what they just admitted to was years after it mattered.  Even in the books all this shit seemed a little pointless when faced with everything else GRRM needed to address (and that was with it taking place in the immediate aftermath of book 3 events).  Brienne comes down for an army.  Could have left it in a way that she leaves with the Blackfish leading his rebels away from the castle at Jaime's orders, having effect further down the season.  Nope, and the reintroduced Blackfish everybody totally forgot about offs himself.  Why bother.  Brienne leaves with nothing, why bother.  Crown forces take control of the castle, which everybody at this point had already assumed happened when the stark faction got wiped the fuck out at the wedding.  WHY BOTHER.

I literally would have been happier if they'd taken the time to show Tyrion working even harder at having witty conversations with Grey Worm (not by much).  If it was 'we need an excuse to get Jaime away from Kingslanding' while everything goes to shit and Cersei burns it to the fucking ground, they could have done that in a hundred ways much easier ways.

All that shit, along with the pointless unrealistic 'Arya runs 10 miles with her stomach ripped open' shit (as people said, just cut straight to the candle room), is giving me serious doubts about their decision making.  And I've been really pro TV to this point.

They still have great writers on the show, you can tell, by the awesome character dialog.  Over all plot and direction is the big fucking issue though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2016, 12:33:59 PM
So I was completely wrong about Arya and the whole faceless men thing as it turns out there was no great insight or mystery to the whole Aray plot and could have been cut from the story altogether and replaced with Aray just surfacing somewhere at the beginning of the next season without affecting the greater plot at all (seems like this is one of the plot points that the time skip GRRM originally planned for the story would have greatly benefited from).  :oh_i_see:

Arya the character sucks imo, so I have no reason to believe these writers could make anything interesting out of her. She's one of GRRM's Mary Sue's that should have been dead 10x over by now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 14, 2016, 02:46:41 PM
There is nothing wrong with plot armor survival. Otherwise, honestly, a true-to-life story like this would have the only survivors being dumb-luck (and people would complain, even though it does happen) and maybe the people who never get within a hundred miles of a battle. And maybe not even then--if it was medieval/early modern, some of the characters would just die from sepsis or venereal disease.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 15, 2016, 12:55:20 AM
Why bring up Riverrrun and everybody in what they just admitted to was years after it mattered. 

Wasn't Jeyne Westerling there? I can't remember if that's Why the Lannisters/Freys were attacking.

For the TV version the answer is:

Why Dorne?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 15, 2016, 04:10:05 AM
Militarily, the siege from the water is stupid.  But plot-wise it makes it much more reasonable that the Ironborn can show up, wreck the fleet, and actually look useful enough for Dany to negotiate/ally with.

Pretty sure Drogon could wreck that fleet single handed. Ships be mighty inflammable yo. I fully expect the next scene in Mereen to largely involve a fleet of burning wrecks as yet another deus-ex-army gets wiped out inconsequentially.

In other news, this:  :awesome_for_real:

(http://i.imgur.com/KauL5Vj.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/45i4VRT.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/fGGTutr.png)





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 15, 2016, 05:02:26 AM
Why bring up Riverrrun and everybody in what they just admitted to was years after it mattered.  

Wasn't Jeyne Westerling there? I can't remember if that's Why the Lannisters/Freys were attacking.

For the TV version the answer is:

Why Dorne?

In universe they just want riverrun because riverrun is the symbol of authority over the riverlands.

In book it contains Jeyne Stark, and introduces the idea of her flight to (presumably) Howland Reed, while at the same time it is a training montage for Jamie the leader, and gives him an excuse to stay the fuck away from Cersei. It also puts Jamie in the riverlands so Brienne stuff can happen.

If the Brienne stuff doesn't happen then I'd agree the decision to do Riverrun was just weird on TV. But judging from the trailer, Brienne does not appear to have apparated back to winterfell for the battle next week.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on June 15, 2016, 11:31:57 AM
Arya needs to join up with the Hound again.

Dog 'n Arry: Chicken Morgulis.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 15, 2016, 03:54:20 PM
The Hound's just going to be invincible from now on isn't he? Like Arnie in a movie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 15, 2016, 08:13:21 PM
I think if and when he dies again, it is going to have to be pretty epic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 15, 2016, 08:14:28 PM
I'm actually fine with Invincible Hound. Needs to work in a subtle "Yaarp" at some point though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on June 16, 2016, 10:05:28 AM
The show is still based on the Martin outline.  He sets you up to expect one thing so that it rips your heart out when the opposite happens.  I would not be surprised by anything, still.  Hound could end up a White Walker, ride a dragon, or drink himself to death.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 16, 2016, 10:34:36 AM
The show is still based on the Martin outline.  He sets you up to expect one thing so that it rips your heart out when the opposite happens.  I would not be surprised by anything, still.  Hound could end up a White Walker, ride a dragon, or drink himself to death.

Why not all three?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 16, 2016, 12:29:07 PM
At the same time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 19, 2016, 07:05:28 PM
I'm sure you pack of miserable Barstards will find a way to hate it but..

Fuck. Yes.


(Also tracking shot ftw)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 19, 2016, 07:08:22 PM
Only two things I bitched about.

Mereen resolved fantastically. Well done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 19, 2016, 07:11:27 PM
Nevermind. Fanboyism took over.

Still we all saw it coming , whooooo careeees


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 19, 2016, 07:15:38 PM
Our dog watches with us and normally reacts mostly to the horses (strong dislike) and to Ghost (fascination, interest). Also to big medieval explosions, which he also strongly dislikes. Also he really really really flipped out about the Mountain killing the Red Viper.

He pretty much freaked out at the end of tonight's episode and stayed agitated for a good while. This could be a very good sign or a very bad sign.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 19, 2016, 07:19:33 PM
The only surprise this episode was that Rickon is freaking huge apparently.  Even though it was all extremely predictable and cliche it was very well done and highly enjoyable none the less.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 19, 2016, 07:41:57 PM
At least my star player racked up more points before finally dying.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 19, 2016, 08:01:15 PM
Yes, predictable but well-staged. I think that's the basic thing I ask: if you're gonna do the classics, right down to being rescued by Porn Machiavelli Gandalf, just do it well. They did that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 19, 2016, 08:38:56 PM
They drew it out long enough that I started to doubt it would actually happen, too.  Well done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 19, 2016, 09:18:31 PM
I'll also take some more Daenarys and Yara flirting too (along with Tyrion's eye rolling while watching).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on June 19, 2016, 09:29:34 PM
How many more episodes for this season?  Just asking because I'm going to get HBO for one month to binge watch the season then cancel.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 19, 2016, 09:40:31 PM
One. Season finale is next week.

Holy shit that was great.  One the best depictions of that type of combat I've seen on screen. Fucking epic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 19, 2016, 10:17:48 PM
I was yelling "SERPENTINE, BABOU!" at the screen but it didn't help.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 20, 2016, 02:04:06 AM
Wun Wun  :ye_gods: I rate him over Hodor in terms of impact on a series of scenes.

Mereen was fantastic (for once) and the Dany/Yara interplay was great.

John = idiot Stark even if it's only by association. Sansa = smart Stark (possibly the only one TBH) who is playing the game of thrones, possibly to win although I still want her to die and have Dondarrion to resurrect her as vengeful Stark. But then who would rule Winterfel unless Bran. I'm predicting that Winterfel falls to the White Walkers regardless.

Melisandre may not have much time left as the Onion Knight looked royally pissed off.

I think that Tormond now has plot armor, especially as fan service demands Torienne.

The battle was well done apart from John being stupid and committing  his forces to a losing battle that he initiated despite Sansa warning him the night before. Ned/Robb/Bran/Arya would be proud he's keeping the tradition of stupidity alive.

Good episode that almost made up last week's crappy writing. BTW where was Ghost - they could have got rid of another direwolf!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 20, 2016, 04:04:22 AM
I liked the episode except for the fact that both battles were decided by a Deus ex Machina -charge of surprise (to both sides fighting from the start) cavalry. Otherwise the battles were a great contrast between clean and bright fantasy battle vs a darker and more gritty fight (just wish that the results of the battles would have had the contrast too instead of rewarding Jon's stupidity).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 20, 2016, 04:13:13 AM
Sansa's logical development path is as a player. But the only satisfactory endings I can imagine involve ending the game - not least as that is the implicit or explicit goal of Dany, Jon, Varys, Tyrion and Arya. So I struggle to imagine her surviving the story, at least not unless she has a lot of development still to come.

Sansa as Stoneheart would be a pretty cool trick for TV to pull  - though I'm not convinced she has enough reasons left to be sufficiently pissed off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 20, 2016, 04:55:32 AM
My take is Sansa played the game of thrones and won the battle where Jon played the game and lost. Of course Littlefinger is the real winner but at least he isn't wearing a watch this week.

Big props to the blurred dragon in the background as Dany negotiates with the masters and to Lady Mormont who said nothing but had so much screen presence by glowering at Ramsey. Ironically, that's the actresses surname.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 20, 2016, 05:33:59 AM
Narratively I thought that was a great demonstration of Ramsay's battlefield cunning, actually--I was sort of wondering how they'd make Sansa's warning come true and they did it in a very layered and compelling way. Hopefully next week has Jon admitting he knows nothing--that he's fought supernatural opponents and human opponents who don't really have a battle plan besides "swarm over you with superior force", and cunning human opponents are a new thing (or were) for him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 20, 2016, 05:35:45 AM
Dany and Yara,

"I'm a woman"
"Yes and I'm a woman"
"So no more raping and pillaging"
"Hmm, K"

If Euron is smart he let the terms of that agreement fuck Yara over and be her downfall, but no he'll die next season "down with the patriarchy!"

Jon Snow and Sansa,

"OMG JON WTF ARE YOU DOING!"
"Well TELL ME WHAT I'M DOING WRONG!!"
"Nothing, I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm just pouting because your not listening to me and I have nothing important to say. And yes while this show will pretend like I foreshadowed what will happen to you, lets not be too dumb to think that I brought any real insight"

Why is anyone praising Sansa? Her last minute save was far more reliant on Little Finger being dumber that he has ever been in 5 seasons, than Sansa pulling off some play of the game move on her part. She insist that Jon takes winterfell with no men, than turns away the one man guaranteeing her several thousand men to take winterfell, only to overplay her claim to the north realize that no one cares about a twice married stark, and than in an act of sheer stupidity little finger accepts a plea for help from the very woman that wanted him gutted in the woods outside castle black. How is Sansa a player? She makes even dumber moves than Caityln, with a extra side of zero good advice and lying bitch. The Stark house is doomed.

Yes the battle at winterfell was cool.

The rest can probably burn. And its funny because stuff like this happens and fanbase is like "woot thrones is exciting again" but don't realize how much dumber the plot has gotten. Your all suffering from the Michael Bay effect. That's why the slow episodes are intolerable but the "omg cool sword fights and dragons!" lets you forget that you watched fantasy transformers.





Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 20, 2016, 05:57:57 AM
It's not Deus Ex Machina when the surprise has been set up previously.  We KNEW Sansa had written to Littlefinger and he was sure to show up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2016, 06:29:32 AM
You're right, it's not full Deus Ex. It's the arriving at 00.1 on the bomb timer I found bullshit manufactured drama. Arriving earlier or (as fits the show) too late to save people would have been more satisfactory.

As I said, though. It's the one trope that always makes me angry. It's as lazy and cliche as you can get.

Big props to the blurred dragon in the background as Dany negotiates with the masters and to Lady Mormont who said nothing but had so much screen presence by glowering at Ramsey. Ironically, that's the actresses surname.

When I caught that I got giddy. I wasn't expecting Dany to ride them, or the other two to break-out but I knew a Drogon smack-down was coming and it was going to be amazing. Grey Worm's final stroke was equally satisfying.

Narratively I thought that was a great demonstration of Ramsay's battlefield cunning, actually--I was sort of wondering how they'd make Sansa's warning come true and they did it in a very layered and compelling way. Hopefully next week has Jon admitting he knows nothing--that he's fought supernatural opponents and human opponents who don't really have a battle plan besides "swarm over you with superior force", and cunning human opponents are a new thing (or were) for him.

Agreed, very well-done. I kept bitching that Jon was an idiot and doing exactly what Sansa warned him against. Rickon was dead as soon as the game started, Sansa warned Jon he wasn't going to live and would have known exactly what the trap was. Jon isn't cold-blooded enough or cunning enough by half to have known.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 20, 2016, 06:33:32 AM
Yea, the timing is key. If the reinforcements had arrived an hour earlier, Ramsay and Co. would have retreated into Winterfell for a siege; an hour later and "welp, everybody's dead."

It was pretty stupid that Sansa was all "don't attack, you don't have enough men" without mentioning that she wrote to Littlefinger.

I wonder if we have one more episode of Dany faffing about in Mereen or if she'll teleport directly to Westeros for the season finale.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 20, 2016, 06:35:08 AM
It's not Deus Ex Machina when the surprise has been set up previously.  We KNEW Sansa had written to Littlefinger and he was sure to show up.

it is when LF can hide a whole army of knights so neither side has any idea of them so close that he can strike with perfect timing.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on June 20, 2016, 06:38:56 AM
Come on, this was a good episode. Glad to see Ramsay finally gone. She should have chopped his cock off and fed it to the dogs first, though.

My gripe...in typical Stark stupidity, Rickon runs in a straight fucking line. Come on. Zig and zag a bit! Jon falls for the trap. Should have caused all their deaths.

I got a laugh out of the shield wall chant, it reminded me of Army of darkness.

Everyone knew The Knights of the Vale were coming. And wow, they seem pretty bad ass.

Anyway, at least it wasn't dwarven drinking games and Arya time wasting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 20, 2016, 06:48:12 AM
To echo what MediumHigh said, how exactly is Sansa so smart? She got a lot of Northmen allies killed (at least in the overly sensational *TV writing* version of events), and almost got Jon killed too because she didn't confide in him that she had a brigade of knights on their side who she had secretly turned down and then summoned again. She rants at Jon like a child after the council the night before about his plans being bad, but offering no helpful suggestions, all while withholding a huge secret that would have dramatically altered the calculations of her marshals. I would be kinda pissed at her if I were Jon.

The battle direction itself was great aesthetically during the initial clash.  I don't think I've ever seen a battle sequence done like that from the tight over the shoulder perspective. Really captured the ferocity and chaos. Excellent work, very crisp too. Then it got kind of stupid. Ramsay Bolton's men are Spartans now? SInce when did Northmen equip and fight like that, deck out as Athenian hoplites? The way they were able to slowly march up and surround 2000 Northmen with a circle 4 ranks deep, without anyone noticing is kind of absurd. I feel like this was all built around a shot they wanted to do (Jon in the crush, also very well done), and contrived of the phalanx as a way just to set it up.

I don't want to sound like a whiner cuz overall it was very entertaining and like I said some of the battle direction was off the charts good, but just disappointed these writers can't resist inserting ridiculous dramatic moment cliches into almost every scene as if that's the reason the Game of Thrones show was popular in the first place and that's the only way they can retain their audience.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on June 20, 2016, 07:14:20 AM
My suspicion is that Sansa is actually "broken" and now an anti-Stark.  During her rant to Jon, and knowing (or at least strongly suspecting) that she was aware of the disposition of the vale, I began to wonder whether she wasn't using him to act unwittingly as the holding force for her Vale brigade.  She doesn't (and never has) cared for Jon... she wanted Ramsey dead and Winterfell in her possession.  Jon was a pawn.  And, even as pawns go, a surprisingly stupid and shitty one.  The only things she told him were 1) Don't attack and 2) beware the baiting of the Bolton Bastard.  Jon Snow, 0 fer 2.  Were he not one of "the Three" he'd be dead-dead, proper dead by now.  Sansa is headed down a wicked path; Martin would probably have had her snuffed somewhere either at her nadir or near her almost success.  The TV writers?  I'm smelling heroic redemption after a season of grasping treachery.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 20, 2016, 07:35:00 AM
Actually not attacking was Jons idea. He ignored his own advice. Sansa's advice "don't get baited by him" wasn't advice. It was a no shit don't be stupid we all managed to make it to the age of 21 in this fucked up world comment. That's like being in the back seat of a car advising the driver not to hit a 2 foot deep pothole in the middle of the road.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 20, 2016, 07:38:25 AM
I think the question now is what is the next step for the Starks? I assume they'll work to consolidate the North and then what, go after the Freys?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 20, 2016, 07:45:38 AM
Sansa doesn't have to be the smart one when Littlefinger is around.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 20, 2016, 07:56:26 AM
The battle direction itself was great aesthetically during the initial clash.  I don't think I've ever seen a battle sequence done like that from the tight over the shoulder perspective. Really captured the ferocity and chaos. Excellent work, very crisp too.

There's a really great video explaining the cinematography and battle direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93k4uhpf7g


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 20, 2016, 07:59:30 AM
I think the question now is what is the next step for the Starks? I assume they'll work to consolidate the North and then what, go after the Freys?
They ought to just start getting ready for the White Walkers and reinforce the wall, maybe start manning those empty castles up there. That was Jon's whole point of taking Winterfell, right? He needed a good base in the north to support the Watch. If he goes south to fuck around with the Freys he's just as stupid as all the other players still involved in the war between men; that would make his entire time with the Watch worthless as it would show that he has learned nothing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 20, 2016, 10:02:39 AM
The battle direction itself was great aesthetically during the initial clash.  I don't think I've ever seen a battle sequence done like that from the tight over the shoulder perspective. Really captured the ferocity and chaos. Excellent work, very crisp too.

There's a really great video explaining the cinematography and battle direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93k4uhpf7g


Thanks for that.  Excellent video.

I think next episode we'lol see Dany board a ship but won't see her land till next season.

It's titled Winds of Winter so I'm guessing we are going to see some invading zombie army crap
Are we getting two more seasons or one?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 20, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
There's a really great video explaining the cinematography and battle direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93k4uhpf7g

Wow, a lot more of that battle was "real" than I thought would be possible.  Very impressive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 20, 2016, 11:48:47 AM
First, what I hated.   :awesome_for_real:  Since most of you already addressed those points, I'm going to do a bit of sir brucing.
You're right, it's not full Deus Ex. It's the arriving at 00.1 on the bomb timer I found bullshit manufactured drama. Arriving earlier or (as fits the show) too late to save people would have been more satisfactory.
Yes.  They literally waited until Jons entire fucking army was dead.  Only then saving the day.  Which is cool and all, but literally everybody in the north is dead now.  If Jon is seen riding around with an army that is not 99% Vale knights, its horseshit lazy TV Writing because all his men died, and he killed all the men of every other major house in the North (since all of them apparently did just go over to Bolton).  Could have been handled in a less cliche way, that left more open for the future.
Yea, the timing is key. If the reinforcements had arrived an hour earlier, Ramsay and Co. would have retreated into Winterfell for a siege; an hour later and "welp, everybody's dead."
They were on horseback.  If they had attacked earlier, they would have crushed into the side of Bastards army before he had a chance to get back, and he probably would have died with everybody else.  A bigger battle overall at that point, but the casualties all moved around (which would have been way better from a story telling standpoint).  Also helps address the point above (though only a little).
My gripe...in typical Stark stupidity, Rickon runs in a straight fucking line. Come on. Zig and zag a bit! Jon falls for the trap. Should have caused all their deaths.
I hated this to, but for a different reason.  Making perfect shots like that is pretty fucking stupid on top of all the other mary sue bullshit surrounding Ramsey.  What that action should have caused, in keeping with the shows theme (until this season) of punishing stupidity and cliches, is that Ramsey (overconfident cock that he is) misses every shot and Jon saves him.  Ramsy looks pissed, goes well fuck, and is forced to charge the army now since they have Ned Stark's true born son.  THATS what realistically would have happened if anybody tried that bullshit.  Instead we got the biggest mary sue in history keeping up is god like perfection.  Bleh.  Should have just flayed him alive on his side of the line or something.
To echo what MediumHigh said, how exactly is Sansa so smart? She got a lot of Northmen allies killed (at least in the overly sensational *TV writing* version of events), and almost got Jon killed too because she didn't confide in him that she had a brigade of knights on their side who she had secretly turned down and then summoned again. She rants at Jon like a child after the council the night before about his plans being bad, but offering no helpful suggestions, all while withholding a huge secret that would have dramatically altered the calculations of her marshals. I would be kinda pissed at her if I were Jon.
And yes, very much this.  Her not mentioning anything was such pointless TV drama bullshit.  She literally got thousands of people killed for no apparent reason.  Since she was with him the very next day, she obviously had to have known he was within striking distance before the battle started.  At that point, its "Hey, there's an entire army of knights from an entire kingdom that hasn't lost anybody at all in the last several years of warfare half a day away.  Just go out and like, distract the Boltons by standing in front of them for awhile, and we'll murder them."  Again, its just....really really jarring. 

BEYOND all that stupidity..... good episode.   :awesome_for_real:

The battle sequence was really well done for the first half.  I was not expecting that level of detail and care, since this series has tried really hard to avoid showing any major battles on screen (I mean, battle of the blackwater was a few dozen men running around in the dark next to a wall).  That may be one of the best portrayals of medival fighting I've seen.

Well, until they just stood there and let the other guys slowly march around them with shields.  Then do a cross between 300 and the Garbage Compactor scene from Star Wars.  That was also stupid and broke immersion.  They keep flailing between amazing ideas and terrible ideas.  They seem to have forgotten the middle ground.   :|


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 20, 2016, 12:04:48 PM
Yah, from the level of Starkiness to the plot resolution, it was a bucket of dumb. But, it was well executed and very visually satisfying.  It was fun to watch, and they pulled off a level of scale that I wasn't sure they were capable of portraying well. The aftermath should be interesting as well.  

Mereen was good until the whole Ironborn sit down.  It was a bit clumsy, although if it gets us a Yara on Dany scene, I'm OK with it.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2016, 12:10:46 PM
Dany certainly looked like she'd be willing to give it a go when Yara implied it.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 20, 2016, 12:27:05 PM
Dany certainly looked like she'd be willing to give it a go when Yara implied it.  :grin:

"I'm a woman"
"Yes and I'm a woman"
"Friends forever!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 20, 2016, 01:33:58 PM
I am still guessing the Wall comes down next week. Probably right after Littlefinger reveals that he's scheming to put himself on the Iron Throne with her as his wife in charge of the North--I think Littlefinger is in place for his comeuppance in which he discovers that the Game of Thrones is over and now begins the Game of Bones (not the brothel kind, the undead ice zombie kind). That makes next season full-on Ice and Fire time--I suspect Dany will land in Dorne with a Dothraki/Dragon/Unsullied/Second Son/Ironborn/Sand Snake horde, while Jon and Sansa become the focal point for all the characters who are not in the south (Brotherhood and Hound; Brienne and Pod; Bran and Coldhands and Meera). Sam, Euron, Arya are the characters where I think it's pretty hard to figure out exactly how they're going to fit in with everything. Maybe the last defense will be in Oldtown rather than King's Landing (since it was the first place the First Men settled, that seems appropriate).

I dunno whether Cersei's going to blow up King's Landing this season or not, though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 20, 2016, 01:41:52 PM
Hey, I actually got some points this episode. Go Sansa!
 
Player           Violence   Sex/Nudity   Wits   Status   Looks
Petyr Baelish   0   0   0   25   0
Sansa Stark    45   0   30   30   0


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2016, 01:43:36 PM
I dunno whether Cersei's going to blow up King's Landing this season or not, though.
Next week is the Trial and Jamie is at Frey's. If you believe Jamie will kill her to stop it then it won't happen until next season. I think it'll be the season closer, King's Landing in flames and Tommen dead by her stupidity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 20, 2016, 01:56:27 PM
Sansa has an army supporting her  now. The victors who took no casualties. Jon has an army that he almost led to destruction. The roles are reversed and while Sansa may not have realised it (I'll reserve judgement as that smirk at the end may mean she is feeling true power as a result of revenge for the first time), she is the powerbase in alliance with Petyr. Their roles reversed and interestingly, her decision to come late to the party and sacrifice Jon's forces parrallels Ramsey's decision to open fire on his own troops who had engaged Jon;s forces.

I have a feeling that Jon and Sansa will fall out if this is the case as she is far more understanding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 20, 2016, 02:06:23 PM
This season has taught me that you are giving her to much credit.  There is no scheme.  They came late because it was good TV drama.  It will play out with Peter and Jon negotiating stuff while Sansa stands idly around with a smirk like she did something.  Maybe in the end they work it against Peter, but it will ignore anything that came before it except them finding out he was responsible for their fathers death.  She had zero plots or thoughts before Littlefinger showed up.  She will just go with the flow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 20, 2016, 02:37:14 PM
This season has taught me that you are giving her to much credit.  There is no scheme.  They came late because it was good TV drama.  It will play out with Peter and Jon negotiating stuff while Sansa stands idly around with a smirk like she did something.  Maybe in the end they work it against Peter, but it will ignore anything that came before it except them finding out he was responsible for their fathers death.  She had zero plots or thoughts before Littlefinger showed up.  She will just go with the flow.

My bet is that when Jon asks Sansa WTF she says something about trust/deals with the devil and Littlefinger was a very very last resort for whatever reason and that they totally would've gotten there at the start of the battle if Jon hadn't charged in and instead followed his own plan.

I really enjoyed the whole episode.  My biggest gripe was Sansa's smile at the end. It is either (1) way too heavy foreshadowing for Evil Sansa or (2) totally unnecessary as she already turned around and looked back to watch the dogs.  They really could've pivoted her to stoneface killer instead of sadistic.

Prediction for the end of the season: King's Landing in green flames, Horses on Boats: The Dany Story, Jon gets the Crypt/Tower of Joy "Who am I?" reveal through Bran, Sansa kills Littlefinger somehow with "The north remembers".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 20, 2016, 03:03:48 PM
Might be that Bran and Arya both show up at Winterfell just in time for ringside seats at the invasion of the White Walkers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 20, 2016, 03:22:25 PM
So, this was a great episode, but I couldn't help but imagine how much better it would have been with buildup on par with seasons 1-4.

Dany was great and I thought credible for the first time in 59 episodes.

Regarding the Riders of Rohan arriving at one minute to midnight, I took Sansa's look to mean, "I didn't tell you about these guys because you are a dumbass and would have committed them too early". I took them to have been waiting just over the hill the whole time. For me, it paid off the apparent stupidity of Sansa not telling Jon about her letter.

Jon being a dumbass was well earned, the parley was great, the war council scene with Sansa was great, the scene with Melisandre was great, and the thing with Rickon was great. Missing any one of them would have made it not great.

Sansa at the end was also fine - given the way they handled her with Ramsey they needed something over the top, the show would probably be better if they didn't feel the need to add so much Theon, Sansa, and Ramsey torture porn, but you can't just have the first two then kill Ramsey off screen.


Next week I'd assume Bran is resolving the tower of joy and explaining how the walkers will threaten the wall. The trailer implies we get at least the opening of Cersei's trial, the white raven scene, unnecessary winterfell emo bullshit, and you have to hope Dany hands Mereen over the Grey Worm and Missandei. Jamie in an expensive looking scene at the twins is intriguing, not least as Brienne and the Brotherhood are headed the same way, which opens up the possibility of a Stoneheart replacement plot. Or even actual Stoneheart.

I wonder if we'll get an establishing shot at the citadel. I can't help wondering if that is where friendzone is headed - it feels like he needs a 30 second closing scene, the Citadel seems a logical place to try for a cure, and somebody needs to head down there and bring Sam back into play.

I don't think there is enough time to blow up King's Landing and really don't imagine that happening without Jamie present.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 20, 2016, 03:29:00 PM
Jamie is at Frey's.

I don't seriously expect but would be thrilled to see Jaime go "Red Wedding" on the Freys


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 20, 2016, 03:31:05 PM
Based on previews it looked like the Freys and Lannisters are going to be teaming up to march on Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 20, 2016, 03:43:38 PM
That could be the in universe explanation, but I don't buy it as the real narrative. The next attack on Winterfell will surely be the walkers, possibly they are moving Jamie up for that attack, but I don't see what he adds, he doesn't have anything to resolve north of the twins.

The more I think of it, the more I think he must be going the Twins and referencing the wedding so that the Brotherhood can kick the crap out of the Freys, and he can finish his arc with Brienne - even if it doesn't happen next week, and even if the Brotherhood getting involved without Catelyn makes no sense.


 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 20, 2016, 04:15:20 PM
Sansa didn't tell Jon because he would have told her she was a dumb cunt for trusting the guy who betrayed their father.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 20, 2016, 04:17:47 PM

I really enjoyed the whole episode.  My biggest gripe was Sansa's smile at the end. It is either (1) way too heavy foreshadowing for Evil Sansa or (2) totally unnecessary as she already turned around and looked back to watch the dogs.  They really could've pivoted her to stoneface killer instead of sadistic.

I think they're just trying to convey character development not sadism, they make sure to beat the audience hard with it to get it across. It was to reinforce that she's a hardass now and not some little girly. She stays to watch the hounds when her first instinct is to turn away, then relishes the victory over her tormentor .


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2016, 04:21:49 PM
That could be the in universe explanation, but I don't buy it as the real narrative. The next attack on Winterfell will surely be the walkers, possibly they are moving Jamie up for that attack, but I don't see what he adds, he doesn't have anything to resolve north of the twins.

The more I think of it, the more I think he must be going the Twins and referencing the wedding so that the Brotherhood can kick the crap out of the Freys, and he can finish his arc with Brienne - even if it doesn't happen next week, and even if the Brotherhood getting involved without Catelyn makes no sense.


 
Hmm. The Brothehood ar the Twins also brings the Hound to Jamie, who can then return to Kings Landing and kill his brother while Jamie kills his sister.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 20, 2016, 04:54:45 PM
Does Jon know anything about Littlefinger? Certainly the betrayal of Ned is not something that Jon would have even the faintest knowledge of--that was only for people in King's Landing to parse out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 20, 2016, 05:45:16 PM
They didn't just let the phalanx walk up and surround them. They were engaged with the primary attacking force that Ramsay didn't give a shit about.  Bolton army basically performed a pretty textbook encirclement not dissimilar to Cannae: sucked them forward, engaged them into a slog, then surrounded them for good old fashioned slaughter. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 20, 2016, 05:52:02 PM
That was a pretty shitty phalanx (shallow with only one rank of pikes that I recall) but against undisciplined wildlings I'll buy it.

Really it only makes sense from Sansa/Littlefinger's perspective to wait for all the forces to be engaged.  As pointed out, Ramsay could have sat behind the walls of Winterfell; he needed to be baited out.  Also, cavalry is historically one of the best ways to trash a phalanx.  Onionknight leaving a few archers in reserve to hit them from the rear would have worked as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 20, 2016, 06:34:41 PM
Yeah but since when did Northmen arm & fight like hoplites?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 20, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
I think that's the part that doesn't make any sense to me if I'm going to get anal-retentive about it--I don't buy that Northern armies have a bunch of long shields and hoplite spears sitting around in the basement armory. We've *seen* the North fight, it's not their thing (or indeed anybody we've seen in Westeros so far). This is not just tactical improvisation (say, the Braveheart version of William Wallace sharpening a bunch of logs for an anti-cavalry fortification). That was forged stuff. If Northern soldiers or Westerosi armies kept that kind of gear around for the fight where it works, then Jon would have been trained on it while growing up and at least a few of his allies would know about that kind of stuff too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soln on June 20, 2016, 07:52:43 PM
So who dies next week?  Sansa or Jon?  I assume the killing-a-hero-so-you-cant-enjoy-closure-Martintrope is planned for the last episode?  Littlefinger has all the men, kills one of both of them, owns North, yes?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 20, 2016, 08:07:14 PM
So who dies next week?  Sansa or Jon?  I assume the killing-a-hero-so-you-cant-enjoy-closure-Martintrope is planned for the last episode?  Littlefinger has all the men, kills one of both of them, owns North, yes?

Haven't the big death scenes always been in Ep 9 with Ep 10 being mainly a closure/prep for the next season?

Fuck it, I don't know or really care anymore. This show has pretty much turned into another Mad Men for me, I am tired of the shitshow it has evolved into but I still can't stop myself from holding on until it is done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 20, 2016, 08:25:26 PM
There's a lot left to tie up in King's Landing, much more likely that one or more major characters gets killed off there rather than Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 21, 2016, 12:23:43 AM
That was a pretty shitty phalanx (shallow with only one rank of pikes that I recall) but against undisciplined wildlings I'll buy it.

What didn't make sense to me was that Wun Wun just allows the Bolton forces to line up right next to him, and although he looks like he could easily swat the whole line away, create a breach for his friends to run through, or even run into that breach and mow down the whole line of spearmen from their flank, he does nothing visible until the spearing starts. I think this is because in the long shots, where he's visible on one corner of the Stark forces as they're being surrounded, he is actually a motionless prop :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 21, 2016, 12:54:53 AM
So, some remarks while I am in still in GoT-Wine haze.  :grin:

1)
The Danny parts bothered me again. She is literally Visersys with tits and dragons. (Talk grand without much to back it up, but unless hims she gets dragons and fire/plot immunity).

As much as I like Cersei it's clear she does stupid things and fucks up because of them. But if Cersei had Danny's luck and deus-ex-machine saves she'd be Queen of the Andals, First Men and White Walkers by now. It sort of cheapens the moral lesson of the show. Makes sense?


2)
The Battle was shot nicely cinematographlying.

The "Trap" was the dumbest thing ever. Who falls for that? Even I, as a too-wimpy-for-Westeros person, would have said, in that situation, "Uhh, it's not like that I don't like my brother, but...eh, what can you do? *apologetic shrug*"
Again, makes sense? Or I am missing 'something' here?

And Snow is dumb, but why did experienced Davos fall for it and order a charge?

The "Rescue" wasn't Deus Ex Machina, imho. Sansa ordered an army, we knew that, and it came at it came at the appointed time.  Her not mentioning it beforehand seems iffy though, all it would have taken is "Lets have a nice pre-battle brunch" to waste an hour and let them arrive BEFORE the fight.

The "Enveloping" was a bit uneven. The speed of it was of a cavalry charge, and secondly, since when are Northerners Greek Hoplites? Performed by the Unsullied it would have "fitted"


3)
I predict we will end up missing Ramsay. Not that he isn't an asshole, but who else cuts of dicks so well, eats Bratwurst so suggestively and generally manages to be so hate-able. At least he spiced things up!



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 21, 2016, 01:27:29 AM
So who dies next week?  Sansa or Jon?  I assume the killing-a-hero-so-you-cant-enjoy-closure-Martintrope is planned for the last episode?  Littlefinger has all the men, kills one of both of them, owns North, yes?

It's obvious Maester Qyborn will die. That's not based on any inside-knowledge but due the fact that I like him. Which seems to be a bad omen for characters in that show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 21, 2016, 02:13:26 AM
Book spoiler:

Though with all the foreshadowing, that likely means she has the freedom to burn the city to the ground.  Later on, she'll tell Jaime, who murdered his own king to stop that event from happening.  At which point Jaime chokes a bitch.  Though I doubt all of that will happen next episode obviously.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on June 21, 2016, 03:59:08 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 21, 2016, 04:27:07 AM
If there are any others, they're still in the North. Which seems like an unhealthy place to be right now, giant or otherwise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 21, 2016, 04:34:34 AM
You make it sounds like a pair tits wasn't a vast improvement in almost every situation  :grin:

Seriously, they really played up the sisterhood angle with Dany and Yara. This, along with Sansas power play this episode, the Dorne Situation, the fact that the Queen of Thornes is the de-facto ruler of the Reach, and the possible roasting of most of her male relatives by Cersei next week, makes it probable that every faction south of the wall is controlled by a woman after this season.

So the tits might be the point here  :awesome_for_real:

And yes. Snow is undoubtedly his fathers son  That "Die by honor" Stark gene is as strong in him as it was in Ned and Robb. He couldn't do anything but try to save his brother. Its this hero syndrome which would make the Starks the immortal heroes in every other Fantasy world that makes them the punching bags of this one.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 21, 2016, 04:42:34 AM
You make it sounds like a pair tits wasn't a vast improvement in almost every situation  :grin:

Seriously, they really played up the sisterhood angle with Dany and Yara. This, along with Sansas power play this episode, the Dorne Situation, the fact that the Queen of Thornes is the de-facto ruler of the Reach, and the possible roasting of most of her male relatives by Cersei next week, makes it probable that every faction south of the wall is controlled by a woman after this season.

Yes, I caught myself asking during the show "What is Bob going to say about this??"  :grin:


Spoilers, please!  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on June 21, 2016, 04:45:48 AM
Oops, ok. You too, though.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 21, 2016, 05:03:23 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 21, 2016, 05:11:08 AM
Burning Kings Landing to the ground really seems like it should take more than the 3 minutes that would be available next week.

And would make an episode that also features the white raven incoherent.

And what kind of writer misses the opportunity to have Jamie in town?  Jamie doing his shit the last time Kings Landing nearly burnt down is being referenced about once every 20 minutes right now.

And what kind of writer misses the opportunity to have Sandor in town? Chekov's burn and Chekov's brother cannot possibly pass up an opportunity like this.

I really don't see it happening next week.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 21, 2016, 05:12:08 AM

White walker giants!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 21, 2016, 05:41:10 AM
The slow movement of women into power in Westeros is happening in the books, too, so in that respect they're following Martin. It's as much a result of multiple male heads of households dying, largely due to their own stupidity and greed, as it is initiative or agency by the female characters. But it may let Martin introduce some new way to organize what little is left of Westerosi society when the dust settles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 21, 2016, 06:55:55 AM
Book spoiler:

We're past that point in the show though so I don't think it matters. The books had never gotten to a point where Tommen was a true believer under the influence of the Sparrow. Cersei's power in both formats was derived from her influence over Tommen, which seems to be gone now with the trial rules modified against her, by Tommen and the Sparrow. Cersei is 100% isolated and cornered, killing some small council members won't change that. Only blowing up the High Sept with the Sparrow and Tommen in it would really.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 21, 2016, 07:16:09 AM
We were also years past the point River Run was sieged also, but they had Black Fish magically show up and take it again, just so they could do the Jaime/Siege arc as well.   :oh_i_see:

The show may change the reasons why he does it a bit, but I'm still pretty certain he's going to murder them next episode.  But I've certainly been way wrong about this show before!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 21, 2016, 07:17:37 AM
I don't think she cares about power any more. I think she cares about revenge. The small folk mocked her during her walk, well, they've got it coming. The Small Council, the High Sparrow, the Tyrells, you name it. She doesn't have anyone left besides Jamie and maybe not even him. So down it all comes!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 21, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
Yeah the small council enemies of hers probably die, but it wouldn't be for the same reasons they did it in the book (An outsider wants keep Cersei in power to keep fucking everything up), because we're past the point in the book where it mattered since Cersei has been stripped of power by Tommen going against her and it's hard to see a scenario where she regains that. So as Khaldun mentions, leaves just vengeance.

The Jamie-Brienne-Riverrun thing I think was done anyway despite being pointless, for Jamie & Brienne's character development and as someone mentioned, apparently to get Jaime in place in the North half of the continent with an army, detached from KL doom, for future big events.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 21, 2016, 09:58:56 AM
I doubt they'll vary from the outline to that degree.

Varys heading back just to negotiate allies doesn't seem like it needs to happen in episode 10, or be brought up in episode 8, so I still think a murder spree is likely, not least because Varys monologing and the raven arriving would be such a strong finish.

I'd imagine the trial ends with Cersei in crown custody in the red keep. But killing Kevan, and maybe even Tommen and Margery, would leave Cersei as either queen or regent again, and in open conflict with the Sparrow. Jamie would then be able to return in time to kill the mad queen before she sets the city on fire.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on June 21, 2016, 10:13:20 AM
Tommen is still only a child, so I doubt Varys would have him killed.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 21, 2016, 11:20:20 AM
I have no doubt book Varys would have him killed, but could imagine the TV writers having an issue. A giant statue of Baelor could fall on his head if needs be.

He has to die at some point, and it makes sense that his death it what drives Cersei over the edge leading to the fire.

I suppose it doesn't need to happen next week specifically.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 21, 2016, 12:42:57 PM
The slow movement of women into power in Westeros is happening in the books, too, so in that respect they're following Martin. It's as much a result of multiple male heads of households dying, largely due to their own stupidity and greed, as it is initiative or agency by the female characters. But it may let Martin introduce some new way to organize what little is left of Westerosi society when the dust settles.

It could also be that he's referencing history and the rise to power of Elizabeth after the slaughter that was the War of the Roses (since that was his initial inspiration for the civil war).

I loved the episode, even though you could have predicted every single event in the damn thing before it ever happened. Sometimes, doing what's expected is if fine if it's done well. And the battle as well as the dragon bonfire? They were both done VERY VERY WELL. The fucking battle scene was incredible, as incredible as the utter abject stupidity of Jon Snow. His apparent array of knowledge is the null set, to paraphrase Ygritte.

Sansa does seem to be playing the Game of Thrones and only appears stupid if you think she didn't know that Littlefinger was waiting with the Vale army. She had to have known but to not let Jon in on it is pretty damn underhanded. Maybe the writers aren't thinking of it and just missed the obvious implications of her saving the day. I hope not, because the surviving men of the North have to see her as a savior. Not to mention that legally, she is the last Lady Bolton, meaning she owns that house. There were no other heirs (since Ramsey is dead and he killed his legitimate brother and heir in the womb). So any Bolton soldiers or remaining lords who had sworn loyalty to Bolton would have oaths to that house. AND since the house of Bolton is the legit Warden of the North, that means she may actually have a legit claim to not be considered a traitor to the crown AND legit claim to Winterfell.

And I don't think she was being hunted as in league with Tyrion in the death of Joffrey but who knows?

In short, I've probably thought more about that line of succession than the writers.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 21, 2016, 01:27:51 PM
It's also not un-possible that Sansa is pregnant with Ramsay's child


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 21, 2016, 01:43:36 PM
Would Sansa not telling Jon also be linked to Jon's confusion. You can tell that Sansa is saying "treat me like an equal, I may have something useful to say and I know more than you do". Where Jon is all "hurr durr plan, I've fought white walkers and thanks for bringing back the 'know nuffin' meme that I thought I'd escaped".

I really don't see that alliance lasting and would love to see how far that could go when Sansa realises that Jon is a T.

Having said that, he is also the least fit to take the throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 21, 2016, 02:31:09 PM
My guess is that Littlefinger is going to start up the "Jon is scheming to take Winterfell away from you, but he's just a dumb boy who is in over his head...the only way you can keep Winterfell safe for the Starks is to marry me--join the Vale and Winterfell together and we will rule the galaxy as father and son, wait sorry rule Westeros as husband and wife". Jon will probably obligingly be scripted to say something roughly dumb enough to give that credibility.

But my guess is that Bran shows up and pulls the rug out from under it all. If not this week, then early next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 21, 2016, 04:27:33 PM
Sansa not telling Jon is no more complicated than the idea of trusting Littlefinger to save them would have been laughed off at best and made everyone think she was a dumb ass.  That plan is only acceptable retroactively, it would have never flown otherwise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 21, 2016, 05:02:16 PM
My guess is that Littlefinger is going to start up the "Jon is scheming to take Winterfell away from you, but he's just a dumb boy who is in over his head...the only way you can keep Winterfell safe for the Starks is to marry me--join the Vale and Winterfell together and we will rule the galaxy as father and son, wait sorry rule Westeros as husband and wife".

Anyone else read that entirely in Littlefingers voice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 21, 2016, 05:03:15 PM
Little Finger is dead this season.
Melisandra is also dead.
Od man frey probably dead.
Everyone in balors sept victims of wild fire.

Sansa or Jon snow dies very early next season. I pray its Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on June 21, 2016, 06:15:45 PM
My guess is that Littlefinger is going to start up the "Jon is scheming to take Winterfell away from you, but he's just a dumb boy who is in over his head...the only way you can keep Winterfell safe for the Starks is to marry me--join the Vale and Winterfell together and we will rule the galaxy as father and son, wait sorry rule Westeros as husband and wife". Jon will probably obligingly be scripted to say something roughly dumb enough to give that credibility.

But my guess is that Bran shows up and pulls the rug out from under it all. If not this week, then early next season.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 22, 2016, 07:18:26 AM
Any pikes in the back of that line not pointed at the enemy might as well not be there.  Look at a Macedonian phalanx to see how to run one with spears that long.  And there still aren't enough.  They have enough men for a Roman-style line but they're armed wrong.

Only Jon Snow led cavalry would charge pikes.  Smart ones would just go around the formation and murder all the support troops on the way to storming the castle.  There wouldn't have been a phalanx if Bolton had known about the Vale knights.

Wun-wun could have easily taken away one of those pikes and used it to make a hole in the line, but I give it a pass since he's always seemed more "Hulk smash" and doesn't seem to think in terms of weapons or tactics.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 22, 2016, 07:29:16 AM
They have enough men for a Roman-style line but they're armed wrong.
There is a bit where the Wildlings start to break through the shieldwall and, all of a sudden the Boltons are fighting with cestii and tower shields in that specific area.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 22, 2016, 07:38:00 AM
Well, again, you have to think on his forces. A scattering of trained Northmen, but mostly Wildlings who aren't particularly used to fighting these kinds of conflicts and whose previous experience as an army was as a mob that intended to win by force of numbers (and then as a mob that got their asses kicked in a few minutes by a trained Westerosi army). Jon Snow, Davos and Lady Mormont don't have the weeks for a training montage because of the weather and the urgency of the situation. So it's not just that Jon was dumb, but also that he really didn't have experienced soldiers on the field.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 22, 2016, 07:48:00 AM
For that matter, even the Night's Watch wouldn't be considered trained soldiers in the mode of that phalanx of Bolton footmen. They were used to fighting skirmishes against masses of untrained wildlings who didn't have cavalry, so they were likely trained to fight as skirmishers who emphasized individual combat skills over skills as a coordinated group. The guys in the shield wall were likely a small cadre of trained regular footmen that the Boltons and Umberjohns kept around.

Scottish pikemen in the War of Independence likely fought in a very similar way. That shit you see in Braveheart about "making spears twice as long as a man" was historically inaccurate bullshit. Irregular and regular armies had been fighting that way for centuries with varying degrees of efficacy. Wallace's men won at Stirling Bridge not because English Knights were suddenly surprised by hordes of stinky Scots poking them with sticks, they lost because 1) they charged across a bridge, funneling their forces into 2) very shitty, chewed up ground that slowed them down and removed their ability to crash through shield walls and 3) English knights thought they were fucking invincible and could charge a schiltron of spearmen. The English knight commanders were basically all Jon fucking Snow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 22, 2016, 08:24:19 AM
I hope that Sansa falls out with Jon and a struggle ensues in which she is eventually triumphant but in the process she becomes EVIL so that when Arya returns they have an epic sister vs sister duel in which Arya is victorious, wiping her sister's blood off her miniature sword called Needle.

Sadly then Daenerys Targaryen will arrive on her cheat code dragons and effortlessly  turn everyone into toast.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 22, 2016, 08:43:08 AM
They have enough men for a Roman-style line but they're armed wrong.
There is a bit where the Wildlings start to break through the shieldwall and, all of a sudden the Boltons are fighting with cestii and tower shields in that specific area.

I was referring more to the lack of shorter spears and javelins.  But yes, that's where the lack of discipline (literally) kills Jon's troops.  Romans had the discipline and training to break a phalanx, the wildlings most certainly do not.

Edit:  although the northern European tribesmen (sorta-wildlings) were able to overwhelm the Roman lines at times.  They had to do it quickly if it was going to happen though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 22, 2016, 10:38:39 AM
All commentary aside about questionable plot choices and military strategy, that battle was insanely well done.  I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so intense on film before.  I have no idea how they pulled all that off.  It wasn't flawless, but damn close.  Quite a feat for serial television.

When Jon was getting trampled and buried, I could feel myself physically reacting to it, and I am only mildly claustrophobic.  It looked like a real mass of bodies, and they looked like they were really getting mashed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 22, 2016, 12:16:55 PM
Also made so much stronger by the limited amount of dialog - whole episode was on 'show don't tell' mode and benefitted tremendously.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 22, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
Yes. It was terrifically filmed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ozzu on June 22, 2016, 02:46:23 PM
All commentary aside about questionable plot choices and military strategy, that battle was insanely well done.  I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so intense on film before.  I have no idea how they pulled all that off.  It wasn't flawless, but damn close.  Quite a feat for serial television.

When Jon was getting trampled and buried, I could feel myself physically reacting to it, and I am only mildly claustrophobic.  It looked like a real mass of bodies, and they looked like they were really getting mashed.

This. So much this. Even knowing that Jon Snow absolutely 100% was not going to die there, when he's getting trampled and the sad music kicks in? I felt like I was right there with him. I literally took a deep breath when he poked his head out from that mass of humanity and gasped for air.

That was just pure fucking greatness. I've already watched the episode twice and I'll probably watch it again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 22, 2016, 04:37:25 PM
I can hand wave the shield wall away by saying that Ramsay if nothing else was a pretty darn innovative commander and probably took the time to train those forces specifically in that method. Wun wun was ineffective because he was similar to a horse when presented with a big wall of spiky bits...rather skittish. (See infantry squares in Napoleanic warfare?).  Oh who the fuck cares it was awesome.

Ok one more bit, what they should've done with Rickon is have Ramsey shoot at him, Rickon zig zag and then just when Jon thinks he's going to save him have Ramsay have his entire force of archers loose a volley at him. I think that would've been more plausible.

Either way it gives us  this. Which is better than everything  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0dA9eUP85s)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 22, 2016, 07:47:23 PM
What really amazed me was that the whole trampling/fighting through the mass/coming up for air sequence (which made me feel claustrophobic as hell) was actually an audible by the director because they were running out of time to film what was scripted.

That short posted on how they put the battle together is really worth a watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 23, 2016, 03:39:08 AM
There's an unresolved issue with Sansa and the Knights that either we are going to see played out in the finale or the writers have forgotten about.

When Littlefinger returned to the Vale, Royce asked him what happened to Sansa. He told him that they were attacked by the Boltons and Sansa was captured. So, when he made Robin agree to get the Knights of the Vale to rescue Sansa, it looked as though there was something else going on. He was either not rescuing Sansa at all, he was going to murder all the lords on the way so they'd never find out about him arranging the marriage with Ramsay, or he was hoping that none of them would think to ask Sansa about the 'ambush'.

Now the KotV are with Sansa. What happens when Royce talks to her?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: disKret on June 23, 2016, 04:15:26 AM
Littlefinger showed him once how he can manipulate Arryn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 23, 2016, 06:19:33 AM
In the short term I assume neither Royce nor Robin are in the North, and Littlefinger's plan is to make nice with Sansa.

In keeping with everything TV Littlefinger has done since the purple wedding, it is a terrible plan. But not as terrible as (for instance) the meeting he had with the lords of the vale where he trusted them all with Sansa's identity at the same time as selling the lie about Lysa's death.

It is Littlefinger.  He is immune to all damage types except Sansa and/or Catelyn damage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 23, 2016, 06:55:33 AM
In the short term I assume neither Royce nor Robin are in the North, and Littlefinger's plan is to make nice with Sansa.

In keeping with everything TV Littlefinger has done since the purple wedding, it is a terrible plan. But not as terrible as (for instance) the meeting he had with the lords of the vale where he trusted them all with Sansa's identity at the same time as selling the lie about Lysa's death.

It is Littlefinger.  He is immune to all damage types except Sansa and/or Catelyn damage.
It's heavily implied that Royce is the battlefield commander of the KotV. Littlefinger orders him specifically to gather the Knights together.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 23, 2016, 02:10:41 PM
https://streamable.com/pfnz


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ozzu on June 25, 2016, 09:33:25 PM
https://streamable.com/pfnz

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 26, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
One season left.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 26, 2016, 07:16:49 PM
One season left.



News or a guess? I think you might be right though. Not enough characters left after tonight's episode. :D

"That's a pretty picture" Best line Sansa has issued in 6 seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 26, 2016, 07:22:41 PM
One season left.



News or a guess? I think you might be right though. Not enough characters left after tonight's episode. :D

"That's a pretty picture" Best line Sansa has issued in 6 seasons.

Pretty sure they announced before this season that it would be the second to last season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 26, 2016, 07:23:10 PM
Yassssssssssssssssssss!  However,



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 26, 2016, 07:25:54 PM
Amazing. I truly didn't expect the sept until next season. Fan goddamn tastic

Amusing reveal on Jon as It kept the truly earth shattering bits for people to piece together or learn next season.

Fabulous and it wrapped so much up. My only complaint it the episode felt too stuffed.

Agreed on the last scene. I used the phrase. Goddamn teleporters to my wife.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 26, 2016, 07:26:32 PM
Agreed Phil, seemed completely out of place.

But who cares beacuse


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 26, 2016, 07:44:48 PM
Varys teleporting was dumb to me too; I assumed it would have been Grey Worm standing behind her.

Pacing was great this episode; they gave each scene enough time actually live instead of cutting around a whole lot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 26, 2016, 07:48:42 PM
As I told my wife, they are really horrible at portraying time gone by. It was probably 8 months from the time Varys left to that final shot, but you'd never know it. Other than that one super glaring issue, I enjoyed this episode..



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 26, 2016, 07:52:52 PM
We were also really leaping out of our seats about Varys showing up on the ships. Why not have him meet them when they land in Dorne? Really odd choice amid an episode of good stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 26, 2016, 07:53:50 PM
Cersei certainly didn't seem surprised by Tommen taking the dive--and she certainly seemed ready to step in to the Iron Throne. So maybe, yes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 26, 2016, 08:06:22 PM
What a bloody fantastic episode. Perfectly paced from start to finish, with some absolutely stunning cinematography and direction. 10/10


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 26, 2016, 08:07:40 PM
The cinematography was SO much better than almost every episode this season (except the previous one, which was on par) that it really made me smart for how pedestrian a lot of stuff was earlier on by comparison. The set-up for Cersei's blowing-up the Sept was stunning.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 26, 2016, 08:19:20 PM
As I told my wife, they are really horrible at portraying time gone by. It was probably 8 months from the time Varys left to that final shot, but you'd never know it. Other than that one super glaring issue, I enjoyed this episode..


When they lingered on the window I suspected it. When he came back into the frame, I laughed one of the most amused, evil, baleful laughs I think I've ever given.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 26, 2016, 08:26:42 PM
The cinematography was SO much better than almost every episode this season (except the previous one, which was on par) that it really made me smart for how pedestrian a lot of stuff was earlier on by comparison. The set-up for Cersei's blowing-up the Sept was stunning.


Agreed. The whole tone, framing, pacing and music were A+.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 26, 2016, 08:33:18 PM
The cinematography was SO much better than almost every episode this season (except the previous one, which was on par) that it really made me smart for how pedestrian a lot of stuff was earlier on by comparison. The set-up for Cersei's blowing-up the Sept was stunning.


6.09 and 6.10 both has the same director (Miguel Sapochnik) and I think it really shows. 6.07 and 6.08 were probably two of the weakest episodes of GoT ever (directed by Mark Mylod), while 6.05 and 6.06 were both good episodes (Jack Bender). It's notable that Miguel Sapochnik also directed 'Hardhome' last season, which was one of the highest rated episodes ever, while Mark Mylod's previous GoT credits include that fuckawful episode (5.04) where Barristan Selmy died in an alleyway.

They just need to give that guy the rest of the episodes and let him see what he can do when he's got control of a whole season


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on June 26, 2016, 08:41:05 PM
Agreed on the fantastic episode. I'm rewatching it and the cinematography and pacing are really good.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 26, 2016, 08:41:28 PM

They just need to give that guy the rest of the episodes and let him see what he can do when he's got control of a whole season

That would be too much to ask. I only hope they give him at least the White Walker battle and the razing of Kings Landing that's sure to come.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 26, 2016, 08:50:11 PM
Post episode thoughts:

 - The whole trial scene was incredible, beautifully done and I felt true tension for the first time in ages with the cuts between Lancel and the Sept.
 - Tommen! That scene was the first time ever (as a book reader) that the show has genuinely shocked me. I expected him to die, but not like that. I was genuinely surprised, and I felt bad for the guy.
 - Watching Cersei get her revenge on the Septa was brilliant, really shows how she's gone full Mad Queen at this point.
 - Looks like we're back to Jamie's redemption arc after his brief return to being a twat in season five. I like this, Jamie as a character paying for his sins and learning from it is more interesting than just another murderous Lord. Nikolai CW really played the scene with the Freys perfectly. I'll be interested to see where he goes next season, in that scene at the end he looked genuinely heartbroken, and I suspect the loss of Tommen will break any remaining link he has to Cersei.
 - Arya baking Frey pies was fanservice done right. Glad she's out of Braavos at last! I suspect she'll be heading to King's Landing now, rather than Winterfell. I suspect Nymeria never makes another appearance on the show (Ghost was conspicuously absent tonight)
 - Lady Mormont is episode MVP for a third week in a row #kingindanorf
 - Not sure what Littlefinger's play is now, since Sansa is no longer in charge at Winterfell and the Vale nights have fallen behind Jon. But Aiden Gillan is still a great actor and I'm excited to see where this goes
 - I still have no clue where Sam's plot is going, but hey ho. Gilly gets hotter each week too
 - Dany finally left Mereen! Hoo-fucking-ray. Looking forward to the Dorne-Tyrell-Targ alliance next season.
 - Diana Rigg is such a talented actress that she can make scenes in Dorne magically non-shit.
 - The tower of joy scene was mostly done well, although I couldn't follow what Lyanna was saying (or supposed to be saying) to Ned, but the cut to Jon was just another beautiful shot.
 - Varys teleporting around the planet was really the only hole in this hole episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Selby on June 26, 2016, 08:51:36 PM
This was so well done I was wondering if they gave the flunkies earlier episodes. The entire thing was great, I forgive teleporting solely because I accept not everything is happening linearly. My wife totally called the window scene too & was giggling about it the entire time & aftermath...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 26, 2016, 09:02:59 PM
I thought the Mountain was going to snap the little fucker's neck, but the window worked just as well. Once he walked away taking off the crown, I knew what was coming next. Terrific episode from start to finish except for:

1) The whole Arya thing was only slightly less cheesy than what I predicted she'd do to Ramsay Bolton last week. Slightly.
2) The teleporting Varys was really unnecessary and totally fucks up any sense of the passage of time, something the show really needs to reign in.

Other than that, yes, they seriously need to pay this director whatever he wants to do the entire last season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 26, 2016, 09:17:24 PM
Cersei with the comeback! If they score it properly I don't see how I don't leap from the cellar to the top. She killed off half the named cast, got in sick burns, and took the fucking Iron Throne by force! Knew the ol' gal would come through.

Great fucking episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 26, 2016, 09:19:06 PM
Other than that, yes, they seriously need to pay this director whatever he wants to do the entire last season.

He did Hardhome last year too. Guy has chops.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 26, 2016, 09:23:00 PM
Other than that, yes, they seriously need to pay this director whatever he wants to do the entire last season.

He did Hardhome last year too. Guy has chops.

So basically the two best episodes the show has had.  This is not something i have ever paid attention to before in any episode of any show ever but Cersei's outfit was fanfuckingtastic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 26, 2016, 09:50:35 PM
Ya, loved her Darth Vader look and said so to my wife.

I wonder if Tommen will get points for killing a king.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 26, 2016, 11:59:42 PM
Re-watching it right now. The score work in the first 15 minutes in Kings Landing is fucking top notch. A hint of Wim Mertens there which is high praise from me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 27, 2016, 12:11:46 AM
So as someone who didn't enjoy the first season of this, but once enjoyed the books (gave up and didn't read the last one), is the series worth watching for some narrative closure?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 27, 2016, 12:15:05 AM
So as someone who didn't enjoy the first season of this, but once enjoyed the books (gave up and didn't read the last one), is the series worth watching for some narrative closure?

No. Not really.  Not now at least.  Maybe after next season, and then you might need to watch it all go get where the divergences from the books lead to.

That being said, solid episode.  Really well done. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on June 27, 2016, 12:19:45 AM
Cersei certainly didn't seem surprised by Tommen taking the dive--and she certainly seemed ready to step in to the Iron Throne. So maybe, yes.


She knew the prophecy was going to happen. She's believed it fully for a while now. She knew he was dead one way or another, so why not of his own choice?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 27, 2016, 12:40:43 AM
Also on rewatch, there are a bunch of Martell sails in that final shot so Varys didn't teleport, there is a time jump with him bringing them into the alliance/fleet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on June 27, 2016, 02:23:10 AM
One season left.



News or a guess? I think you might be right though. Not enough characters left after tonight's episode. :D

"That's a pretty picture" Best line Sansa has issued in 6 seasons.

Pretty sure they announced before this season that it would be the second to last season.

Recently they've been saying two short seasons, 13 more episodes total. As things scale up they don't think they can get 10 episodes done in a year.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 27, 2016, 03:01:36 AM
Lady fookin Mormont!!! Game saver! Whoever cast her deserves a massive pay rise - she out-acts most adults with infinitely fewer lines.

Arya was teleporting as well as Varys - and to be honest, this was the weakest scene for me. At least she's in the right spot for teaming up with the Hound again. Cersei's plot line was fantastic - Dany had better watch out. I wonder if Jamie will be come kingslayer to a second mad king.

Littlefinger looked pissed - this is the second Stark woman to screw him over. I don't think this is going to end well for Sansa seeing as Jon has better plot armor than her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 27, 2016, 05:49:18 AM
It was kind of funny to see how skilled the little kid stabbing Lancel was compared to Waif. Guess that plot armor is very powerful when it comes to GoT.  :why_so_serious:

also kind of funny how Arya had qualms about killing an innocent actor before and now she's all psycho and has no problem making a pie out of a person.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 27, 2016, 07:45:13 AM
I think Little Backstabber got him in the kidneys/spine as opposed to a harmless gutshot.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 27, 2016, 08:30:34 AM
Cersei's plot line was fantastic - Dany had better watch out.

It was pretty fantastic but it's also clear to me that Cersei isn't going to survive the month even without considering the Dany element.  Nobody looked super excited about her coronation apart from Qyburn.  Lotta people died in that explosion and even apart from the unrest caused by the death and destruction the economic impact had to be pretty huge, on a city that was already unprepared for winter (which has now officially come) and deep in debt to the Iron Bank.  People took up with the Sparrow because they were deeply dissatisfied with Lannister rule; this can't possibly have helped things.  Fear and a small handful of goons can only keep an entire city in line for so long.

Of course Dany makes the entire thing moot because there's no way Cersei has a capable army at this point, especially with basically the entire rest of the kingdoms against her, not even counting the fact that her own populace would probably love ANY change in leadership after Baelor.

Quote
I wonder if Jamie will be come kingslayer to a second mad king.

That would be pretty perfect and is heavily foreshadowed by the fact that the reason he killed the mad king in the first place was to stop him from doing exactly what Cersei just did.  On the other hand, Jaime has stated recently that his only desire is to be with Cersei, so him killing her would represent a fairly radical shift in his motivations.  Not that we haven't seen that happen before in this series.

Maybe it'll depend on whether she takes him back as her brother-consort now that she's queen and can do what she wants or if she keeps giving him the cold shoulder.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 27, 2016, 08:55:19 AM
Yeah, we should also not forget that there's going to be a famine in King's Landing almost immediately, even without winter to consider, because the food was all coming from the Tyrells. (There's a reason why the High Sparrow wanted to get Margery under his thumb while regarding Cersei as more disposable.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 27, 2016, 09:03:34 AM
Yeah, we should also not forget that there's going to be a famine in King's Landing almost immediately, even without winter to consider, because the food was all coming from the Tyrells. (There's a reason why the High Sparrow wanted to get Margery under his thumb while regarding Cersei as more disposable.)

I fully expect that by 'the time' Dany and Co. arrive in Westeros, there will be no fight anywhere.  Blood and fire but nothing to kill or burn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 27, 2016, 09:17:04 AM
I think Little Backstabber got him in the kidneys/spine as opposed to a harmless gutshot.  :why_so_serious:

I thought it was the leg, but yeah it might have been the kidney.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 27, 2016, 09:20:00 AM
Don't forget about Dany's vision a few seasons ago where she walks into the Iron Throne room and it's nothing but ash and snow. Jamie will probably end up killing Cersei and dying himself in the process (probably by way of a Mountain falling on him) but he'll do it because Cersei is going full Mad Targareyn on the entirety of Kings Landing. Likely because the Tyrell/Martell/Targareyn army is outside the city and the citizens of Kings Landing are in full "Revolt and Burn the Witch" mode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 27, 2016, 09:25:52 AM
Good point, although if the coronation was happening at the same time as Dany's fleet setting out, is there going to be enough time for that to happen?  It doesn't seem like it takes that long to cross the Narrow Sea.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 27, 2016, 09:28:17 AM
Given the way time has been fluid over the last season, there's no telling whether those events are happening at the same time or whether Dany is already landing in Westeros during the coronation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 27, 2016, 09:43:25 AM
As cheesy a tool as it is, having a datestamp on each scene would go a long way to resolving some of the shit that gets mixed-up.

Olenna knew about the Sept when in Dorne, so we've got to assume a few weeks later. Nobody knew Cersi was crowned so that must have happened around the same time. This also gave Jamie time to get back from the Twins. (SO why was the sept still burning? Barrels under the rubble still, I suppose)  Varys is there, we get a month+ trip back across the sea as they had to gather the Martell's fleet, then some weeks+ before setting-out.

Apparently crossing the narrow sea is only a few days? I don't know how accurate a source this is and don't recall dates from the books.
http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/ask-the-maester-game-of-thrones-season-4-finale/



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 27, 2016, 09:58:07 AM
Based on Tyrion's voyage in Book 4 across the Narrow Sea, it was a goddamn unbearable amount of time.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hayduke on June 27, 2016, 10:03:52 AM
I just never think about time or distance in this show, but it was super jarring this episode especially since the series has had so many storylines of arduous travel.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hutch on June 27, 2016, 10:11:35 AM
Mereen, at least on a map, is farther away from Westeros than, say, Pentos or Myr. Plus they'll have to sail (presumably) around Old Valyria.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 27, 2016, 10:20:04 AM
The Greyjoys didn't take long to make that trip, and they had to sail all the way down the west coast of Westeros and around Dorne before even crossing the Narrow Sea.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 27, 2016, 10:49:14 AM
It was kind of funny to see how skilled the little kid stabbing Lancel was compared to Waif. Guess that plot armor is very powerful when it comes to GoT.  :why_so_serious:


The one thing that bugged me about that scene was how the streets were empty outside the sept. For such a huge event, there would have been a gigantic mob but maybe they wanted to save money.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 27, 2016, 10:57:51 AM
 Fear and a small handful of goons can only keep an entire city in line for so long.

Of course Dany makes the entire thing moot because there's no way Cersei has a capable army at this point, especially with basically the entire rest of the kingdoms against her, not even counting the fact that her own populace would probably love ANY change in leadership after Baelor.

Quote
I wonder if Jamie will be come kingslayer to a second mad king.

That would be pretty perfect and is heavily foreshadowed by the fact that the reason he killed the mad king in the first place was to stop him from doing exactly what Cersei just did.  On the other hand, Jaime has stated recently that his only desire is to be with Cersei, so him killing her would represent a fairly radical shift in his motivations.  Not that we haven't seen that happen before in this series.

Maybe it'll depend on whether she takes him back as her brother-consort now that she's queen and can do what she wants or if she keeps giving him the cold shoulder.

Well she does have a bit of an army with the force Jamie is leading but I would have to assume they are more loyal to him (their general who is proven capable in the field, reasonable and charismatic character) than some mad woman like Cersei. Between not being a fan of her violence and cruelty, along with all the children now being dead which ends a connection he had to her of duty to their offspring, I'm thinking he turns on her quickly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 27, 2016, 11:54:58 AM
The one thing that bugged me about that scene was how the streets were empty outside the sept. For such a huge event, there would have been a gigantic mob but maybe they wanted to save money.

I was thinking that someone cleared everyone out. I can't imagine Cersei would have cared how many people died, but it looked like someone tried to keep it clear around the Sept.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 27, 2016, 12:00:52 PM
I can see Qyburn having the presence of mind to do that even if Cersei wouldn't.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 27, 2016, 12:14:46 PM
Just don't see how they are going to get two seasons out of what's left.

With Dany about to make Westeros her own personal Utah beach and the North being out of enemies except for the Zombies what else is there to wrap up?

I say 10 episodes with the last 2 being 2 hours long.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 27, 2016, 01:22:43 PM
I reeeeeeally hope they focus very heavily on how pointless Cersei getting the Iron Throne is.

The Throne of the 7 Kingdoms!

The North:  Independent, Stark.  Wants to kill Lannisters.
The Vale: Independent, Allied Stark (for now).  Wants to kill Lannisters for the throne.
The Iron Islands: Independent, currently helping a giant army to come over and murder everybody (including Lannisters).
The Reach:  Biggest army of all kingdoms.  Just murdered all their lords/ladies, and the last remaining one is putting all their wealth and power into killing Lannisters no matter what.
The Stormlands:  Uh, I think every lord and soldier from this region is dead at this point.  Do they belong to anybody?  Is anybody there still left alive?  They all died fighting Lannister forces/allies, so probably want to kill them.
Dorne:   Crazy sand sluts who have lost no troops at all this war, hell bent on killing all Lannisters. Now allied with the Reach and giant dragon army.

Allied with the crown:
The Westerlands:  Lannisters own kingdom.  No gold left and has been fighting non stop for the last several years.  Nice uniforms though!
The Frey's:  The Ferengi of Game of Thrones.  Also just lost all their top leadership (not that it would hurt any).

Winning odds in the GoT universe!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 27, 2016, 02:58:36 PM
I can easily see how they do 20 more episodes if they want - the war of five kings took 21 episodes just to whittle itself down to 3 kings.


Anyway, this was great - others have said it but the episode 9 and 10 guy needs to be forced to direct every remaining episode.

First shot alone immediately laid out what would happen and gave everything a beautiful inevitability, from that you just sit watching the performance.

Kings landing was one of the best sequences they've done in a long time, I honestly didn't think they could do that so well so quickly - best of all, nobody had to act like an idiot.

The North lacked the emo bullshit I was expecting, and I think there is a book spoiler there for Robb's will. Melisandre also deserves mention for the way loss of faith has been played all season. Sending her south was weird and clearly for plot convenience but I'm glad she's not dead.

I was amazed by the twins, managing to deliver a shitty plotline brilliantly. The scene reminded me of the book version of the red wedding. You knew something "bad" had to happen, something wasn't right, obviously it wasn't on the same level, but they kept the same feeling that the Twins always have that it is a shitty place where shitty things happen, Walder Frey's weird use of the 'send their regards' line was perfect. My immediate reaction to the reveal was that it was a terrible plot, but Maisie Williams turned it around by going full psycho, after Braavos I assumed they were going to kop out on that, full psycho Arya almost forgives the Braavos ending.

Tyrion getting his hand badge was pretty great.

Even Dorne wasn't terrible.

OTOH I now fully accept that Brienne and Jamie have been a waste of screen time all season which is retrospectively annoying. Jamie hasn't really grown enough to justify turning against Cersei, and Brienne achieved nothing in any episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 27, 2016, 03:18:29 PM
I imagine that one season is going to be everyone vs the Lannisters and ending with the Wall coming down. You could easily do a whole season out of that; especially if you have the Ironborn attacking Oldtown and possibly fighting the Tarley forces there. There's also Jorah's personal quest to heal himself which could be a subplot somewhere. The final season will focus on the entire population north of the Riverlands fleeing south, culminating with the battle of ice and fire between dragons and the white walkers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: apocrypha on June 27, 2016, 03:21:42 PM
Lady Mormont was great. Does the story have enough time left in it for her to grow uopto be more awesome I wonder? Probably not, hey ho.

Also, has Sansa got a bit Bolton still up her? If you get my drift.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 27, 2016, 03:26:02 PM

Quote
I wonder if Jamie will be come kingslayer to a second mad king.

That would be pretty perfect and is heavily foreshadowed by the fact that the reason he killed the mad king in the first place was to stop him from doing exactly what Cersei just did.  On the other hand, Jaime has stated recently that his only desire is to be with Cersei, so him killing her would represent a fairly radical shift in his motivations.  Not that we haven't seen that happen before in this series.

Maybe it'll depend on whether she takes him back as her brother-consort now that she's queen and can do what she wants or if she keeps giving him the cold shoulder.

It is also explictly foretold at the start of last season in the same prophecy that told her that her children would die before her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 27, 2016, 03:28:51 PM
Also, has Sansa got a bit Bolton still up her? If you get my drift.

My guess is no, partly because neither she, nor anyone notable, has had the same opportunity in the book. But also because I don't think there is enough time for a baby based plot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 27, 2016, 03:32:15 PM

Quote
I wonder if Jamie will be come kingslayer to a second mad king.

That would be pretty perfect and is heavily foreshadowed by the fact that the reason he killed the mad king in the first place was to stop him from doing exactly what Cersei just did.  On the other hand, Jaime has stated recently that his only desire is to be with Cersei, so him killing her would represent a fairly radical shift in his motivations.  Not that we haven't seen that happen before in this series.

Maybe it'll depend on whether she takes him back as her brother-consort now that she's queen and can do what she wants or if she keeps giving him the cold shoulder.

It is also explictly foretold at the start of last season in the same prophecy that told her that her children would die before her.
The prophecy isn't clear on which brother is going to kill her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on June 27, 2016, 03:41:52 PM
Or even if it's one of her brothers. The prophecy just says 'the little brother', so it could refer to someone like Sandor Clegane (or so the theory people say)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 27, 2016, 03:43:24 PM
Aw man, they split the points between Cersei and Qyburn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 27, 2016, 04:01:22 PM
And Lyanna wasn't clear on Jon's father but...

Jamie will likely become hand and in the books at least will use the chain of hands to choke Cersei to death, mirroring Tyrion/Shae and becoming a queenslayer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 27, 2016, 04:08:39 PM
Qyburn had the hand pin on his collar when he put the crown on her head.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 27, 2016, 08:39:43 PM
The results are in, top 5:

1.    Stark's Sixth Sense Mithas    628  (Jon Snow, Wildlings, Tormund, Yara)
2.    Mr Tinfoil Hat Andrew Tank    505 (Arya, Dragons, Faith Militant, Wun Wun)
3.    Kahl Drogo's Vacant Stare Joe Smith    440 (Jorah Mormont, Cersei, Roose Bolton, Tommen)
4.    Gods Perfect Hodor Teleku    421 (Jaime Lannister, Euron Greyjoy, Loras Tyrell, Qyburn)
5.    Valar Somethingsomething Rendakor    415 (The High Sparrow, White Walkers, Ramsay Bolton, Lancel Lannister)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on June 27, 2016, 08:43:51 PM
Hooray! Got almost half my points from Jon Snow alone. Good first pick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 27, 2016, 08:54:00 PM
#9, such a strong start, such a mediocre finish.  Cersi's bomb dropped me to #2 in my public league, too. Boooo. :D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 27, 2016, 10:25:49 PM
This was the best episode of the entire series.  From the opening shot I was spellbound.  If there is any justice they'll give Sapochnik every episode that follows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 27, 2016, 11:22:05 PM
Was a great episode. Also what's this fantasy league shit. I want in.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 27, 2016, 11:33:39 PM
I think Cersei got jobbed on the points (and Tommen too, should have got SOMETHING for his dive), but I'm happy she brought me up from the depths to finish a respectable third and have the #1 player for the season (my other 3 did fuckall).  That was pretty fun, we should do it again next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 28, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
Lady Mormont was great. Does the story have enough time left in it for her to grow uopto be more awesome I wonder? Probably not, hey ho.

Snow-Mormont wedding? Jon Snow may know nothing but Lady Mormont could rule the North for him without his Starkability of fucking things up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on June 28, 2016, 01:35:17 AM
Lady Mormont was great. Does the story have enough time left in it for her to grow uopto be more awesome I wonder? Probably not, hey ho.

Snow-Mormont wedding? Jon Snow may know nothing but Lady Mormont could rule the North for him without his Starkability of fucking things up.

 :pedobear:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Setanta on June 28, 2016, 02:09:05 AM
Lady Mormont was great. Does the story have enough time left in it for her to grow uopto be more awesome I wonder? Probably not, hey ho.

Snow-Mormont wedding? Jon Snow may know nothing but Lady Mormont could rule the North for him without his Starkability of fucking things up.

 :pedobear:

Dany in the books, political alliances etc etc

This had me laughing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCLLShlmmSM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ozzu on June 28, 2016, 03:55:56 AM
Greatness.

Here's another one (not sure if it's been posted):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU7ztXgS95s


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 28, 2016, 05:04:17 AM
Lady Mormont was great. Does the story have enough time left in it for her to grow uopto be more awesome I wonder? Probably not, hey ho.

Snow-Mormont wedding? Jon Snow may know nothing but Lady Mormont could rule the North for him without his Starkability of fucking things up.

 :pedobear:

Dany in the books, political alliances etc etc

This had me laughing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCLLShlmmSM

That one's stolen, here's the original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvFF2GEKAwg


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 28, 2016, 02:54:07 PM
Saw it, loved it. great, great episode. Magnifikat. Beautiful.

Can only go downhill from here

/Trump


I was actually in the process of writing a longer, serious post arguing that a) Cersei is if not a good at least a human character and very relatable. As opposed to mary sues or boring cuts outs. Everyone murders everyone, but they others are all saints because they do it for good causes, while Cersei gets painted as evil by way of slut shaming. Very hypocritical of the forum

But would just get me weird looks, so not doing it. *cheers*



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 28, 2016, 03:15:49 PM
Cersei gets painted as evil by way of slut shaming

 :roll:

Oh, was that the weird look you were talking about?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ozzu on June 28, 2016, 04:43:23 PM
I do wonder where they're going with Sansa and Jon's relationship. She seemed happy with everyone proclaiming him "King of the North" until she glanced at Littlefinger and I assume remembered what he told her about being passed over for a bastard.

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on June 28, 2016, 05:00:56 PM
I do wonder where they're going with Sansa and Jon's relationship. She seemed happy with everyone proclaiming him "King of the North" until she glanced at Littlefinger and I assume remembered what he told her about being passed over for a bastard.

 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 28, 2016, 05:23:15 PM
I felt so bad for Jon during that scene; he's trying to honor the rules of succession, because he's driven by duty more than anything, but the alliances he's built are so fragile he knows they won't survive him turning down all the people shouting his name in order to hand the reins to Sansa.

On the plus side, it didn't seem like Sansa minded (I might have missed the look she gave Littlefinger).  She was even saying Jon should take the lord's chamber after he'd had it prepared for her.  She's never seemed particularly motivated by power so much as survival, and Jon being in charge gives her a fairly comfortable position without any major responsibilities.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 28, 2016, 06:09:34 PM
I thought that scene was more Littlefinger giving Sansa a look saying, "Look what you passed up," and implying some vengeance next season. My guess would be LF kills Sansa and then she becomes LSH.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ozzu on June 28, 2016, 06:28:24 PM


That'd be interesting, but if that's the case:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 28, 2016, 06:59:19 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 28, 2016, 07:07:19 PM
Ya'll gonna tell me about that league shit? -_-


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 28, 2016, 07:15:46 PM
Ya'll gonna tell me about that league shit? -_-


Well it's over for this season. Next season we will do it again. Watch this thread ;)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 28, 2016, 07:23:10 PM


That'd be interesting, but if that's the case:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 28, 2016, 07:31:21 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 28, 2016, 07:51:08 PM
... but the alliances he's built are so fragile he knows they won't survive him turning down all the people shouting his name in order to hand the reins to Sansa.

A bunch of them cited his recent battlefield leadership & bravery too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 28, 2016, 08:23:54 PM
Rhaegar was next in line for the throne when the Mad King died, so if he had any children, they would inherit (males first).  That's why the Lannisters killed Rhaegar's children, which in turn is why Lyanna wanted Jon's parentage kept secret.

There's no such thing as "secret married," though, and bastards don't get to inherit anything.  Jon has no legal claim on anything.  Even if he had, there's a pretty strong argument that when he took the black he'd have forfeited any such claims (like Aemon Targaryen forfeited his claim to the throne by taking the black), death and resurrection notwithstanding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on June 28, 2016, 08:44:10 PM
Rhaegar was next in line for the throne when the Mad King died, so if he had any children, they would inherit (males first).  That's why the Lannisters killed Rhaegar's children, which in turn is why Lyanna wanted Jon's parentage kept secret.

There's no such thing as "secret married," though, and bastards don't get to inherit anything.  Jon has no legal claim on anything.  Even if he had, there's a pretty strong argument that when he took the black he'd have forfeited any such claims (like Aemon Targaryen forfeited his claim to the throne by taking the black), death and resurrection notwithstanding.

However there is some psuedo precedent for bastard Targaryens - there is mention of the Blackfyre rebellions a century or so ago, which is covered in more detail in the Dunk and Egg books Martin wrote when he should have been finishing A song of ice and fire.  That talks about bastard Targaryens who lead a rebellion, and ultimately fail.  So while I agree Jon has no legal claim, people have been put on thrones for shakier grounds than being a last remaining bastard of a royal line.  Particularly if you push the 'Women shouldn't be on a throne' line.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 28, 2016, 09:18:07 PM
Well sure -- Robert claimed the throne just by being the first one to park his ass in it when the previous dynasty had finished dying.  Whoever offs Cersei can pretty much do the same thing since there are no more Baratheons left alive and no Lannisters who'd even try to make a claim.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 28, 2016, 09:20:37 PM
I really, really do not think Jon's parentage is interesting because of what he stands to inherit. I think that's kind of the point of the entire series/books: by the time this is done, inheritance of aristocratic lines is a done, done, done thing in Westeros. This is the point of Varys' speech a long ways back: power is a shadow. It works only when people believe in it. The aristocracy of Westeros have thoroughly rubbished the entire idea of aristocratic power in this crisis, about as badly as the nobility of France did in the 20 years prior to the French Revolution.

So the thing about Jon is not that he's entitled to the Iron Throne, which already almost doesn't exist. It's that he can ride a dragon, perhaps, or that the magic that is surging in the world of Westeros will have a focal point in him. In that, Martin is still doing the whole "magic follows blood" trope, which is a kind of slightly too bad but ok, we're used to it, thing. But I think that's the only thing anyone's going to care about when Bran and maybe Reed show up to tell everyone the truth about Jon. I suppose Littlefinger will try to convince Sansa that it's one more kind of bullshit that Jon is pulling, assuming Littlefinger is still with us by the time we get there.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 28, 2016, 10:36:02 PM
The books and show are mostly interested in political machinations and, taken from a human historical standpoint, this feels fairly reasonable. Political power within established human states was largely confined by class in the time periods Martin apes. The magic follows blood stuff is naff, but it'd only really grate if the story was more of a history of magical revolution.

The more interesting question is how do they bring the series to an enjoyable end. I'm not as sure as you that the point of the series is the death of aristocracy, as its mostly concerned with internal power struggles and alien invasion, not a class/economic struggle. I think it would be a difficult stretch to bridge to that kind of conclusion given the tone of the series to date (magic unbound by blood would have lead to that more readily).

On the other hand making something interesting and satisfying by demystifying the magical resurgence in the world is very very hard. I can't think of too many series in any medium that have managed that; making something interesting by making it ineffable is much easier to do than by pulling off the sheet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on June 29, 2016, 12:05:45 AM
Maybe GRRM will troll everyone and the show ends with Night's King sitting on the throne of swords and then it fades to black as GRRM's laughter echoes on thru the end credits...  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2016, 12:48:08 AM
... but the alliances he's built are so fragile he knows they won't survive him turning down all the people shouting his name in order to hand the reins to Sansa.

A bunch of them cited his recent battlefield leadership & bravery too.

Events in this episode make me suspect his claim is backed by Robb's will. Jumping all the way from "sorry we didn't help with the Boltons" to "KINGINDANORF!" makes much more sense if you imagine Lady Mormont, Howland Reed, and the Blackfish produced the will and a pregnant Jeyne Stark.

Also coming back to the question of what Jon inherits, as a bastard he inherits nothing. But if Robb's will legitimises Jon, and it has been established that Kings have that in their gift, he immediately becomes the rightful king of westeros, but only from the standpoint of anyone who saw Robb as a rightful king.

Can't imagine Jon ever sitting the Iron Throne, I can't even imagine he'll ever travel South of Winterfell. But I could imagine it being a plot point, at least in the books.

As mentioned above, Dragon whispering is probably the more significant strategic value of Targ blood.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 29, 2016, 01:38:40 AM
Saw it, loved it. great, great episode. Magnifikat. Beautiful.

Can only go downhill from here

/Trump


I was actually in the process of writing a longer, serious post arguing that a) Cersei is if not a good at least a human character and very relatable. As opposed to mary sues or boring cuts outs. Everyone murders everyone, but they others are all saints because they do it for good causes, while Cersei gets painted as evil by way of slut shaming. Very hypocritical of the forum

But would just get me weird looks, so not doing it. *cheers*



Ignoring the incest
Ignoring the fact that she killed her husband
Ignoring the fact that she killed all her husbands true born and bastard born children
Ignoring the fact that she raised Joffery
Ignoring the fact that she raised Tommen
Ignoring the fact that she used a priest for the express purpose of torturing and humiliating her sons wife

And that's just the show feats not even counting episode 10, ignoring all this... yeah she is being slut shamed. I mean all she did was sleep with her cousin whats so unrelatable about that  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2016, 04:42:53 AM
Her husband had a true born child?

Or are we getting into abortion theories related to the miscarriage?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 29, 2016, 05:15:53 AM
Yes, her actual first-born was black-haired and Robert's child. Died of a fever and was only mentioned once in the series.
http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Cersei's_black-haired_son

In the books she mentions that she took great efforts not to get impregnated by Robert, but had an abortion once when she couldn't be sure it was Jamie's.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on June 29, 2016, 06:14:55 AM
I don't find the Tyrion and Daeny relationship plausible. Thankfully Cersei is there to nullify the shitness across the sea. Even Sansa is now kicking ass.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on June 29, 2016, 07:08:34 AM

Pretty tough for anybody to prove his lineage though other than bran but I saw it in a dream probably does not carry a ton of weight. Danny is pretty widely known with a clear/known lineage. Still it likely does mean that Jon could ride one of the dragons if anybody but danny can.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 29, 2016, 07:14:27 AM
Yes, her actual first-born was black-haired and Robert's child. Died of a fever and was only mentioned once in the series.
http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Cersei's_black-haired_son

In the books she mentions that she took great efforts not to get impregnated by Robert, but had an abortion once when she couldn't be sure it was Jamie's.



Considering she told this to Caitlyn, after she just ordered Jaime to kill her son 12 hours ago. I'd take her crocodile tears with a grain of salt.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 29, 2016, 08:04:13 AM
I'm not sure it matters who has any legal claim to the Iron Throne since by the time Dany gets to Westeros, there likely won't be a fucking Iron Throne left to sit upon. The only armies loyal to the crown these days are the Lannisters and the Freys. The latter have no leaders anymore unless armies take orders from pies. The Lannisters through the crown are in such dire financial straits with the Iron Bank that they are soon going to run out of gold to pay their armies, not to mention everyone fucking hates them and the only real strong ally they had was the Tullys and their great stores of grain - and that alliance is now shot to shit thanks to Cersei turning their entire line of succession into Mint Smores. And that's not even getting into what the small people are going to make of their "Queen" turning the house of worship of one of the largest religions into a goddamn campfire for gods. Oh yeah, and all the other houses/kingdoms IN the Seven Kingdoms are either in open or quiet revolt.

There is no Iron Throne, at least not without a unifying force - which won't be Jon Snow and his questionable leadership skills. Dragons, willpower and the threat of getting turned into Zombie-cicles is the only thing that will remake the Seven Kingdoms.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 29, 2016, 08:13:32 AM
Tyrells, not Tullys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 29, 2016, 08:47:42 AM
That's the ones, although the family is just about as dead as the Tullys these days so almost irrelevant.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 29, 2016, 09:16:21 AM
Funny thing in a reversal of fate with all the important freys dead Edmund Tully may just get the twins by the virtue of martiage


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 29, 2016, 09:31:59 AM
Yep. I don't think we had Lothar Frey, and little Walder is dead already, right?

Out of date, but gives a good overview: http://i.imgur.com/W1wsoGc.png


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on June 29, 2016, 10:36:00 AM
Funny thing in a reversal of fate with all the important freys dead Edmund Tully may just get the twins by the virtue of martiage
He's called Edmure.
(http://i.imgur.com/TWNx8WF.jpg)
Not Edmund.
(http://i.imgur.com/R7aLsVd.jpg)
Now I am sad because Edmund Blackadder will never be in Game of Thrones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 29, 2016, 11:10:09 AM
So I'm going to spoiler this, lord knows why.  It's HBO's blog but apparently SOME people are upset at the "revelation."




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 29, 2016, 11:20:14 AM
I am upset he doesn't have white-blong hair and purple eyes. :p


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 29, 2016, 11:44:06 AM
I am upset he doesn't have white-blong hair and purple eyes. :p

That part bothers me the most. I seem to remember that in the books all Targaeryn's had that distinctive look as it "bred true".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 29, 2016, 11:48:13 AM
I am upset he doesn't have white-blong hair and purple eyes. :p

Stark blood on the mother's side is dominant.   :awesome_for_real:

The first book had some very strong clues about Jon's parentage by way of dropping these pieces of information about how the world works:

1) Noble houses can pass very distinctive hereditary traits through one parent or the other.
2) Targaryens had to inbreed to keep their lineage "pure".  All the blond/purple Targs were Targ on both sides.
3) Children fathered by a Baratheon almost always have dark coloration like their father.  This is borne out by Robert's bastards.
4) Children fathered by a Stark do NOT typically look like their father.  Cat grieves that none of her sons look like Ned.
5) Jon looks like a Stark.  This is one reason Cat hates him; he looks more like Ned than any of his trueborn sons.

The show lost 4 and 5 because it would have been difficult to make the casting work, and without the casting it makes no sense -- they would have had to cast someone as Ned who looked more like Jon, and someone as Robb who looks more like Cat.  But since as it is Robb and Jon look very much like each other you couldn't very well have had a scene where that difference is pointed out the way they did with Cersei's children vs Gendry.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 29, 2016, 11:48:49 AM
They bred it true by fucking each other.    :oh_i_see:

So it makes sense for him not have the look.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2016, 02:21:14 PM
I am upset he doesn't have white-blong hair and purple eyes. :p

That part bothers me the most. I seem to remember that in the books all Targaeryn's had that distinctive look as it "bred true".

He's not any less a Stark.

Tyrion has blond hair rather than white too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 29, 2016, 02:26:15 PM
Ok, that theory has waaaaaay less proof/gravity than the Jon theory every did (which basically slapped you in the face in the first few books who his mother was).  

Do we still think it's true?  Not that I've seen anything to prove its false, but I haven't seen anything to hint its true in the TV show so far (unlike the Jon theory, where they hinted at it from season 1).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on June 29, 2016, 02:27:25 PM
http://io9.gizmodo.com/you-can-stop-second-guessing-that-big-jon-snow-revelati-1782810006

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yCLlvjb1--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/ns3vk1fi7pb5cu1fqglu.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hayduke on June 29, 2016, 02:49:44 PM
Isn't that what Merusk just posted?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ozzu on June 29, 2016, 03:01:39 PM
According to some skilled lip-readers, Jon's real name is:


Now, I guess we won't know if that's true til next season, but interesting nonetheless.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2016, 03:39:35 PM
Ok, that theory has waaaaaay less proof/gravity than the Jon theory every did (which basically slapped you in the face in the first few books who his mother was). 

Do we still think it's true?  No that I've seen anything to prove its false, but I haven't seen anything to hint its true unlike in the TV series (unlike the Jon theory, where they hinted at it from season 1).

We know the dragon has three heads.

The TV series kept the saddle, kept the dreams of dragons, and kept Tywin's protestations that Tyrion is no son of his.

It is in no way certain - but the Dragon has 3 heads, and we've surely met all three of them. What I find most convincing is the number of clues in book 1. GRRM isn't very subtle in book 1.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 29, 2016, 03:48:45 PM
Ok, that theory has waaaaaay less proof/gravity than the Jon theory every did (which basically slapped you in the face in the first few books who his mother was). 

Do we still think it's true?  No that I've seen anything to prove its false, but I haven't seen anything to hint its true unlike in the TV series (unlike the Jon theory, where they hinted at it from season 1).

We know the dragon has three heads.

The TV series kept the saddle, kept the dreams of dragons, and kept Tywin's protestations that Tyrion is no son of his.

It is in no way certain - but the Dragon has 3 heads, and we've surely met all three of them. What I find most convincing is the number of clues in book 1. GRRM isn't very subtle in book 1.



Surely the third head was Dany's brother who got the golden shower from Khal Drogo.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 29, 2016, 05:00:16 PM
Viserys doesn't really make sense because by the time we hear that "the dragon has three heads" prophecy he's already dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on June 29, 2016, 05:28:17 PM
Viserys doesn't really make sense because by the time we hear that "the dragon has three heads" prophecy he's already dead.

This season was a little thick with Tyrion and Dragons... they pulled forward his talk of dreams of dragons and built an episode around him personally freeing the dragons.  His relationship with Daenerys is also going in an increasingly fraternal direction - almost tender in the last scene.

Here's a link with a more thorough combing of the books for clues: http://winteriscoming.net/2016/05/06/game-of-thrones-theorycrafting-is-tyrion-lannister-actually-a-targaryen/  (http://winteriscoming.net/2016/05/06/game-of-thrones-theorycrafting-is-tyrion-lannister-actually-a-targaryen/)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2016, 10:38:26 PM
Viserys doesn't really make sense because by the time we hear that "the dragon has three heads" prophecy he's already dead.

Young Griff is a much better candidate to be Quaithe's Mummers Dragon, and Moqorro's fake dragon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 29, 2016, 11:35:45 PM
Did someone link this yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfpNoHQY3F8

Spoilers, etc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2016, 11:51:56 PM
One more point on Tyrion - we're continually told kinslayers are cursed on a level with oathbreakers, and it certainly did not work out for Robb, Ramsey, or Stannis. OTOH Tyrion hasn't suffered for killing Tywin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 30, 2016, 12:32:25 AM
Hes still related even if not the father.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 30, 2016, 04:55:05 AM
Hes still related even if not the father.

Yeah, even if Tyrion is a Targaryan, Tywin is still a closer relative to him than Rickard Karstark was to Robb.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 30, 2016, 04:58:10 AM
Fair point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 30, 2016, 09:40:32 AM
Directors for next year showing up around the web, no Sapochnik.  :(


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 30, 2016, 09:44:46 AM
If he isn't tapped to do the series finale, someone should get slapped.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 30, 2016, 09:48:11 AM
Mylod is directing more, which I think is unfortunate--he's been at the helm for some of the weakest work the series has offered.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 30, 2016, 10:10:57 AM
One more point on Tyrion - we're continually told kinslayers are cursed on a level with oathbreakers, and it certainly did not work out for Robb, Ramsey, or Stannis. OTOH Tyrion hasn't suffered for killing Tywin.

That whole "breaking oaths and kinslaying gets punished" thing is a canard. The real over arching moral premise of the series is "Everyone gets punished and everyone dies in the end".  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 30, 2016, 11:36:06 AM
One more point on Tyrion - we're continually told kinslayers are cursed on a level with oathbreakers, and it certainly did not work out for Robb, Ramsey, or Stannis. OTOH Tyrion hasn't suffered for killing Tywin.

That whole "breaking oaths and kinslaying gets punished" thing is a canard. The real over arching moral premise of the series is "Everyone gets punished and everyone dies in the end".  :why_so_serious:

The moral of the story, there is no morals. There is no karma, no greater good making people suffer for the evil shit they do. Your accountable for your own actions and equally accountable for avoiding the the consequences. And there is a 1/10000 chance you was lucky to be born instead of born lucky. You know basically like real life. We normally read stuff like game of thrones to escape from that reality, GRRM genius was not subverting that expectation which made people go "well shit this is exciting glad this ain't happening to me".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 30, 2016, 12:05:58 PM
Viserys doesn't really make sense because by the time we hear that "the dragon has three heads" prophecy he's already dead.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on June 30, 2016, 12:47:37 PM
Viserys doesn't really make sense because by the time we hear that "the dragon has three heads" prophecy he's already dead.


Dont know why this is spoilers...

Book Varys & Illyrio are half baked schemers or fumbling morons depending on whose is lamenting on their failed plots. Fake Aegon being a fake is probably not even known by either of them, considering that the plan was to have him (fake aegon) marry Dany and have Viserys lead the claim for the iron throne... well until the opportunity to get the dorthraki (an army) presented itself, well until Viserys dies for being too dumb to live, and until Dany accidentally kills her husband doesn't return to Illyrio but goes on a rampage across Essos. Their trying to engineer events they can't control and failing. Little Finger in contrast has manipulate events so far that he is basically 2 marriages away from claiming the iron throne.

Varys & Illyrio just want a Targ on the throne. Doesn't matter who. Aegon original purpose was to marry Dany (Visery will probably marry Dornish as that contract between Dorne and the Targs is still expected to be honored. When Dany conquered slavers bay we was being sent to offer a marriage proposal. Tyrion fucked that plan by whispering to the boys ear that invading westeroes is a good idea. That wasn't Varys or Illyrio idea, and ultimately it doesn't matter because they barely count as masterminds. Competent and intelligent men of great talent, yes, players of the "great game" no.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 30, 2016, 02:40:49 PM
What the fuck Varys wants remains the biggest question in asoiaf for me.

The Blackfyre thing feels like a stretch, but I don't have a better theory.

Being a Targ loyalist makes no sense. It conflicts with his anti-magic monologuing and with his behaviour under Aerys II, where he actively undermined a dynasty he is now apparently working to restore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 30, 2016, 02:49:08 PM
I thought his goals were pretty clear. He wants a ruler for Westeros that isn't a mad, murdering shitgoblin, one whose concern is as much about the safety of the people AND the continuation of the kingdom minus some of its less savory aspects. Peace in our time and all that.

He's one of the few who has always been working less for personal power in contrast to someone like Littlefinger who doesn't give a fuck about the realm, he just wants personal power.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 30, 2016, 03:21:24 PM
He was remarkably rich and powerful before he came to Westeros.

TV Varys in particular would have us believe he crossed the narrow sea and worked his way into Aerys' court purely to help the little people. Really? Really really? In Asoiaf?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 30, 2016, 04:15:17 PM
The problem is the same problem with fake Aegon; we're a bit late in the game for huge, surprising reveals. If Varys has some shady hidden agenda we ought to at least have some hint of it by now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on June 30, 2016, 04:29:51 PM
I certainly wouldn't trust that Varys in books OR series is what he appears to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hayduke on June 30, 2016, 04:38:16 PM
Maybe he's not, but it seems like all of the malevolent actors seem to be motivated by either a desire to accrue dynastic power or by revenge. He's a eunuch so the first is off the table, and who would he be getting revenge against?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 30, 2016, 04:42:53 PM
Littlefinger and Varys are two sides of the same coin.

One is all about personal power at any cost. The other is about best-serving the realm at any cost.

When Aerys was mad, serving the realm meant bringing him down. Robert was the best candidate after the rebellion and served well until he became a drunk, neglectful, and sloppy ruler. So then he had to fall.  All the high-houses in Westeros are unsuited to rule so Dany it is. For now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 30, 2016, 04:48:33 PM
Maybe he's not, but it seems like all of the malevolent actors seem to be motivated by either a desire to accrue dynastic power or by revenge. He's a eunuch so the first is off the table, and who would he be getting revenge against?

He already had that sorcerer in a box, so he's free to pursue more philanthrophic hobbies now.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 30, 2016, 05:20:10 PM
We had some foreshadowing on that, it's about whatever the voice that was summoned with his junk had to say. Presumably he wants to stop whatever it wanted.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 01, 2016, 12:37:49 AM
My feeling is the talking junk probably foretold the coming of magic and I do believe him when he says he disapproves of magic. But alternatively it isn't inconceivable whatever was said was Blackfyre related.

If Varys is as he appears I don't understand his failure to support Rhaegar, I don't understand him helping Robert's rebellion while developing fake Aegon at the same time, and I don't understand half of what was said under the red keep in GoT Arya III.

I could buy 'he just wants power', but that would make him another Littlefinger.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 01, 2016, 03:16:07 AM
He might want a ruler who is tractable to his advice, at least in the books. That's "power" but different than what Littlefinger wants (which is to be king himself).

Aerys wasn't, so out he goes.
Robert wasn't, so out he goes.
Joffrey wasn't, so out he goes.
Kevan as regent for Tommen wasn't, so out he goes. In fact, out with all Lannisters--they'll never listen to him, really.
Aegon might be, especially if he's just made up. But maybe Danerys would be too, since she wouldn't know Westeros well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 01, 2016, 04:09:10 AM
I recall in the books somebody saying that the Mad King only really started to go crazy after Varys joined the court.  Granted, this is just one line by somebody who didn’t like Varys, and I can’t really think of any other evidence or hints that exists, but it was at least hinting that Varys was the cause of all this.

Considering all his actions have seemingly been pro-Targ since, it doesn’t really make sense for him to cause the madness and downfall of the dynasty, then try to restore it (especially when the Mad Kings son by all accounts would have been a good ruler).

Or maybe he’s a closet agent of the Red God.  When that Wizard cut off his junk and summoned the voice in the Blood Magic ritual, maybe more happened than he’s been letting on.  He got converted/possessed/whatever, and has been doing the bidding of the Red God ever since.  Or maybe even the Nights King.  Either way, causing endless blood shed for years by bringing about one Usurper after another, and witling down competent people here and there.

Highly doubt it, but that would be a more ASOIA type explanation.  As it is, even in the books, he seems to be the only actual good guy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 01, 2016, 05:23:11 AM
Maybe he's actually a closet revolutionary. Meaning, when Dany says something like she's going to break the wheel, that's what makes her appealing to Varys--that he wants to completely smash the whole order of things in Westeros (and maybe Essos while he's at it). Maybe that's what the voice said to him: that if he timed it right, when this fateful winter approached, he could pull it off. Maybe that's the point of his observation about power as a shadow, a thing that works only when people believe in it--he's making sure that no one will believe in it. Which would explain his antipathy to Littlefinger--the only other person who welcomes the fall of the old order, but in this case because it's a chance for Littlefinger himself to ascend to the top, when in the old system he couldn't be more than a minor noble with influence from his money.

Might be that he's even in communication with Qyburn and told him to go ahead and blow up the Sept. I can't believe that his "little birds" would simply flock to another spymaster that easily.

After all, the problem with most revolutions is that they only partially destroy the system that they rise against, and usually find themselves recreating some part of it or dependent upon some of their past rulers. No revolution has ever really completely wiped out all traces of the old system, because that's a basically contradictory as well as apocalyptic prospect (how do you retain enough control to completely eradicate existing systems while not yet having fully created the new systems you propose to have?) But this time, well: it's actually an apocalypse, most people have died or are going to die, the nobility will not have a trace of loyalty or credibility left, women will be in charge, etc.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 01, 2016, 06:38:29 AM
Whether Varys caused the madness or caused the events that drove him mad is hard to say, but Jamie and Selmy's view that Varys was making the king paranoid re:Rhaegar is the most compelling evidence that he was certainly not an agent of stablility. It is also strongly implied in Arya III that he killed a hand before Jon Arryn was killed by Lysa.

For the Aegon plot to make sense Varys must have been planning it since the rebellion. Faegon is a couple of years younger, and he was raised from birth as Aegon. Which means it could have been an opportunist response to Aegon's death, but Vaeys and Illyrio certainly needed set that plan in motion immeadiately after the child's death; it cannot have been a response to Baratheon or Lannister misrule.

Varys and Illyrio have almost certainly been working to destroy and rebuild the Targaryean dynasty for the last 20 years. That means they started at a time when Aerys was still an effective, non-mad king.

Why spend 20 years replacing one effective Targaryean with another? Even if it is a fake Targ.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 01, 2016, 07:09:08 AM
Also, it may be that Varys in the show has been softened somewhat simply because they sent him along with Tyrion to Essos instead of plonking Tyrion on a boat full of new characters, and that in turn strengthened the existing buddy dynamic between the two characters, which in turn made them decide to send Varys to Meereen, somewhere that he is assuredly not going to be going to in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on July 01, 2016, 08:04:35 AM
You guys are way off about Varys.  Incoming book-based fan theory:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on July 01, 2016, 09:12:54 AM
I thought his goals were pretty clear. He wants a ruler for Westeros that isn't a mad, murdering shitgoblin, one whose concern is as much about the safety of the people AND the continuation of the kingdom minus some of its less savory aspects. Peace in our time and all that.

He's one of the few who has always been working less for personal power in contrast to someone like Littlefinger who doesn't give a fuck about the realm, he just wants personal power.

Varys loyalty to the Targs is pretty clear. While he might spout noble reasons like "the realm" or "for the people", he fell in love with his position under the Mad King. He was plucked from being a talented, wealthy, but ultimately petty peddler of secrets to one of the most powerful men in all of westeroes, the only master of whispers in over 100 years that truly filled the shoes of the great Blood Raven. Also hated serving Robert and was plotting his downfall since the moment he ascended the throne, he just was stupid enough to make a public point of it.

Crazy book theory is crazy but hilarious if that happens.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 01, 2016, 10:01:42 AM
I've read all the books and I do not remember shit about "merlings." ... the fuck is that?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 01, 2016, 10:12:56 AM
Heh.  I hadn't heard that one before.  Is sort of intriguing when you take a few of the quotes that don't make a lot of sense otherwise (the "You might be disappointed at the results" line).

Not totally sold, but considering my own thoughts that there is a lot of evidence that he's serving one of the crazy gods (Red God, Cold God, Dagon), I'm game.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 01, 2016, 11:13:56 AM
It does make a sort of sense, when you consider that a lot of ASOIF may be just shadows thrown on the wall of a contest between the gods and godlike powers, and we're watching the mice scrambling around the elephant herd. The human scale story is only the story of inconsequential beings too small to even see what is really happening. To the gods, the Doom of Valyria *just* happened (a mere 4 centuries ago). The Drowned God, the Lord of Light, and the Many-Faced God are all implicated in that.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 01, 2016, 11:44:53 AM
If they go that route with Varys and the story in particular, won't that be like the worst kind of Deus Ex Machina end? A literal god-level fuck you to the fans?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on July 01, 2016, 11:55:47 AM
If they go that route with Varys and the story in particular, won't that be like the worst kind of Deus Ex Machina end? A literal god-level fuck you to the fans?
Depends upon execution.  In a sense, all of King's Landing is irrelevant to the major war we expect to end the series.  Do we regret following those stories?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 01, 2016, 12:05:11 PM
At least those were stories about characters we've actually been introduced to instead of elemental forces of nature. Having it be solved by one or all of the "Old Gods" is basically equivalent to "and the hurricane killed everyone. THE END."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on July 01, 2016, 12:06:48 PM
At least those were stories about characters we've actually been introduced to instead of elemental forces of nature. Having it be solved by one or all of the "Old Gods" is basically equivalent to "and the hurricane killed everyone. THE END."
Or, it could be people realizing they are the pawns of the Gods and rebelling... or another of other options.  The equivalent of your hurricane would suck.  There are other options and I still have faith we're going somewhere.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 01, 2016, 10:42:29 PM
I've got a theory about Chekov's Sword (the one Sam stole from the wall): Based on nothing but the fact that they make a point of his taking it (putting in a homecoming that wasn't in the books for apparently no other purpose) it follows that it must be something important, and there's only two unaccounted for swords of great significance: Blackfyre (the ancestral sword of House Targaryen, Ser Barristan probably knows where that is since he killed the last known owner), and Lightbringer (Ahor Azai's sword). So my theory would be that "Heartsbane" is actually the long-lost Lightbringer.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on July 01, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
Obviously Jon Snow is going to dual wield heartsbane and long claw. Bonus points if melissandra comes back just to set heartsbane on fire with her blood. Or oh shit. Sam is going to go all Neville Longbottom on us and kill his wife and child to turn heartsbane into lightbringer. Oh god.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 02, 2016, 06:40:35 AM
I've got a theory about Chekov's Sword (the one Sam stole from the wall): Based on nothing but the fact that they make a point of his taking it (putting in a homecoming that wasn't in the books for apparently no other purpose) it follows that it must be something important, and there's only two unaccounted for swords of great significance: Blackfyre (the ancestral sword of House Targaryen, Ser Barristan probably knows where that is since he killed the last known owner), and Lightbringer (Ahor Azai's sword). So my theory would be that "Heartsbane" is actually the long-lost Lightbringer.

--Dave

What? No, Barristan never killed a Targaryen. Blackfyre was last in the hands of Bittersteel after the Blackfyre rebellion. When he left Westeros to form the Golden Company it's assumed he took the sword with him. That was a centruy before the series, so chances are one of Dany's people has it in some fashion if it's going to pop-up anywhere. Daario's daggers, maybe?
http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Blackfyre



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 02, 2016, 10:14:15 AM
Ambiguous, the last Blackfyre (the House, not the sword) was Maegar the Monstrous, killed by Barristan (in Essos). The sword went to Essos, but exactly what happened after that is never said. Anyway, Heartsbane can't be Blackfyre, since it has been in the Tarly family for 500 years (while Lightbringer is 8000 years old and been missing for nearly all of that).

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 02, 2016, 11:38:46 AM
Heartsbane as a name works for a sword forged by being plunged into the heart of a woman.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 04, 2016, 08:06:46 AM
There are a *lot* of swords that could be lightbringer at a stretch.

LB must be drawn from fire by the new AA (longclaw was in GoT, Oathkeeper easily could be given its location), needs to be reforged in water (Oathkeeper, WW were reforged from Ice), in a lion (Jamie, Quorin?) and in a loved one (Jamie, Ygritte?). Ice inexplicably turning red after being reforged is also kind of weird.

My guess had always been that the lightbringer story was really background about the discovery of Valyrian steel. Heartsbane might just be a way to help Sam figure out that valyrian steel kills walkers. Book Sam found hints of that in the Castle Black library, TV Jon discovered it at Hardhome, I don't think anyone else knows.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2016, 02:32:17 PM
So the actors have the scripts for S7 in hand now. So far Maisie Williamsy has said: "things start to get REAL," and "nothing can prepare us." Kit Harrington has said the season looks, "bleak."

So, after all the shit we've seen, from the Red Wedding to Cersi blowing-up the Sept it can get worse? Sign me up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 23, 2016, 07:03:26 PM
It's believed that the Season 7 start date has been pushed back so they could get more filming done in wintery conditions.

Make of that what you wish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 24, 2016, 04:46:44 AM
Fantasy Season 7 should be fun.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pagz on August 24, 2016, 03:16:08 PM
I have to actually remember this thread so I can sign up for that before the season starts >.<


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 AM
Out of curiosity, does canon even matter anymore? Isnt the show the new book and GRRM the new awful fat guy that will never finish his work or spend his ill gotten gains he fell backwards into?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 25, 2016, 07:14:15 AM
Out of curiosity, does canon even matter anymore? Isnt the show the new book and GRRM the new awful fat guy that will never finish his work or spend his ill gotten gains he fell backwards into?
Even though the show seemingly spoiled parts of the book, I still look forward to reading the last two books in 2028.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2016, 07:20:10 AM
I've said it before and remain convinced of it after WOW was delayed again. He's NEVER going to finish the book. Someone else started telling the story and he's even more disinterested in it than he was before. He's done.

Hell, the guy doesn't even update his site anymore. His wife does. I'm not convinced he's going to live to see the end of the HBO series, nevermind write the books.

The only good news is that he got married so his wife will likely hire a ghost writer to keep the checks coming in. /cynic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2016, 08:10:04 AM
I honestly think he's probably designated a replacement writer to finish if he croaks off. Probably Sanderson. But I suspect GRRM doesn't even have plot outlines with any detail now, and that's not just because of disinterest. I think it's because he knows full well he wrote himself into a corner in most of his plot developments, not just with Danerys (that's one plot trap he's openly acknowledged). Most of where the plot *has* to go now violates the anti-fantasy tropes spirit of the early part of the series. The show finally cut the Gordian knot on a couple of these: Arya comes back from Braavos with assassin powers and no real consequences; Jon comes back to life with no real consequences; Danerys leaves Meereen after having repeated the same plot sequence three times more or less. I think we can predict Sam will find the McGuffin of mighty whatever, probably Lord Friendzone will bring it back from wherever he's gone off to. Etc. I think that's why Martin has stopped, more than anything else: he knows the only way out is to deliver much more typical fantasy narratives. He can't just keep introducing new viewpoint characters and having a surprise kill or two every book. It's got to come together and if characters die, it's got to be in the more typical "battle-against-the-evil-forces-of-darkness" sort of death, or maybe in various plotting and maneuvering as the forces against the ice zombies come together.  Now that Martin is seeing the showrunners do it, I suspect he wants even *less* to have to do all that himself or to write contrarian dissents against it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on August 25, 2016, 10:07:00 AM
Any new books are unimportant to me at this point. The HBO show is the story now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 25, 2016, 10:48:54 AM
Any new books are unimportant to me at this point. The HBO show is the story now.
The books and show are both good.  In general, I think the books are better than the show.  The show *may* have spoiled the remaining books (we don't know the extent of the differences), but if you think the books are not going to be great and fun to read, you're risking missing out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 25, 2016, 11:14:59 AM
The show has just been getting stupider and stupider, saturated with ridiculous over the top network TV style dramatic moments especially since they have outrun their grounding in the books. So although I originally found it to be a really great edit of the increasingly plodding books, I would still like to read them to see how it goes down with a bit more subtlety, background dialogues and broader perspectives.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: shiznitz on August 25, 2016, 01:06:47 PM
I specified new books for a reason. Even after the show, 1-4 are good reads.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 25, 2016, 01:59:54 PM
Yeah the books have their problems but their mainly in slow pace in the last 2 books which makes the series less likely to end in 7 books let alone our life time.

But the show is removing all the quite subtlety and edge for something more loud, obnoxious, and  palpably for pg-13 audience with bleeding assholes on social media.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 25, 2016, 02:49:44 PM
The books stopped be subtle or clever a few ago.  I mean, it's fun to read, but its pulp over the top shit now (that meanders very needlessly).  Series sort of fucked up a number of things this last season, but still feel better overall about how they have established the plot compared to the books.  The characters are way better and less unrealistically retarded.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 25, 2016, 04:22:21 PM
The books stopped be subtle or clever a few ago.  I mean, it's fun to read, but its pulp over the top shit now (that meanders very needlessly).  Series sort of fucked up a number of things this last season, but still fill better overall about how they have established the plot compared to the books.  The characters are way better and less unrealistically retarded.

The books did Dorn better, the north better, and well i can't think of any plot line the tv show did better. Maybe they took out the meandering, plus one for accomplishing that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 25, 2016, 04:25:11 PM
People bitching about season 6 because it actually moved the plot forward.  This is why we can't have nice things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 25, 2016, 04:35:24 PM
The books stopped be subtle or clever a few ago.  I mean, it's fun to read, but its pulp over the top shit now (that meanders very needlessly).  Series sort of fucked up a number of things this last season, but still fill better overall about how they have established the plot compared to the books.  The characters are way better and less unrealistically retarded.

The books did Dorn better, the north better, and well i can't think of any plot line the tv show did better. Maybe they took out the meandering, plus one for accomplishing that.
Dorne in the books was awful, slow and pointless. Dorne in the show gave us Hypnoboobs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 25, 2016, 05:01:49 PM
The books stopped be subtle or clever a few ago.  I mean, it's fun to read, but its pulp over the top shit now (that meanders very needlessly).  Series sort of fucked up a number of things this last season, but still fill better overall about how they have established the plot compared to the books.  The characters are way better and less unrealistically retarded.

The books did Dorn better, the north better, and well i can't think of any plot line the tv show did better. Maybe they took out the meandering, plus one for accomplishing that.
Dorne in the books was awful, slow and pointless. Dorne in the show gave us Hypnoboobs.

Yes Dorne sucked. But not tv show sucked. Like say characters sucked and written to be epic failures at life. But half intentional half unintentional. TV show dorne actually wants to not suck and does. hard, in every category with Michael bay in the background shouting from a mountain of mountain dew that this shits awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on August 25, 2016, 05:42:25 PM
Dorne in the tv show was bad, but at least it was short and didn't appear in the most recent season at all but for the first episode, I think.  Dorne in the books wasn't as bad, but it droned on far too long and will continue to in the next book if it's ever written.

If you're going to give me uninteresting plot diversions that go nowhere at least make them quick, like taking off a band-aid.  I prefer the tv version.  Just like pretty much everything else over the past two seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 25, 2016, 05:51:25 PM
You think you won't see more dorne? Haha.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2016, 07:15:41 PM
No kidding; Dorne is going to be ~1/3 of the plot next season.

King's Landing/ Midlands - Jamie, Cersi, Baelish, Arya(?), The Hound

Da Norf - Sansa, Jon, Baelish, Arya

Dorne - Sneks, Dany, Tyrion, Varys, Dragons, The Greyjoys, Olenna

Oldtown - Sam. Maybe one or two episodes, maybe more.


Hell, Dorne has over half of the plot-important characters at this point. We've got to resolve the Iron Islands stuff, Dany and other fan-favorites are there. There's going to be a LOT of Dorne.

The most you can hope for is fewer Sneks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 25, 2016, 07:45:55 PM
But more HypnoBoobs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 25, 2016, 08:18:49 PM
I forgot Dany and crew are going to Dorne. Fuck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 25, 2016, 11:02:59 PM
Does it snow in Dorne in winters?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 26, 2016, 12:16:34 AM
In book lore, snows usually reach the riverlands.

Winter in Dorne is thought to involve the shitty overcast weather HBO always seem to have got when filming Dorne in s5 and 6.

But it is reasonable to expect this winter to worse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 26, 2016, 10:03:43 AM
People bitching about season 6 because it actually moved the plot forward.  This is why we can't have nice things.

I like the overall plot edit. I just don't like the way the show has become way too Hollywood in its direction and screenplay (I guess this comes with success).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 26, 2016, 06:37:03 PM
I forgot Dany and crew are going to Dorne. Fuck.

Based on the last shot I think they already swung by and picked everyone up. I think there will be Dorne characters but nothing in actual Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 26, 2016, 07:06:27 PM


Da Norf - Sansa, Jon, Baelish, Arya



You forgot a holy $#%$#% @#$!! ton of zombies


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: K9 on August 29, 2016, 01:50:29 PM
Assuming the books do end up going to a ghost writer I'd be amazed if it was Sanderson. Firstly he's got more than enough on his plate with his Cosmere series, he's a different author now to when he took over the Wheel of Time. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he is pretty much the polar opposite of GRRM as an author. His stories feature little or no sex, no swearing, and they de-emphasise gore in violence. He also tends far closer to traditional high fantasy tropes. Trying to imagine Sanderson writing a character like the Hound is pretty challenging. I've been watching his BYU Writing Lectures recently (worth a watch for an interesting look behind the scenes of the fantasy writing business) and he rarely uses Game of Thrones as a reference, and the comments I recall him making on the series were generally polite but implying that he doesn't see much in common between them as authors. I like them both, but they are about as different as it comes.

I think a historical fiction author like Conn Iggulden would arguably be a better fit. Since those guys have to immerse themselves in a predefined canon (history) any time they write adopting the ASOIAF canon might not be the biggest stretch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 29, 2016, 04:20:05 PM
Meanwhile in the real world, Melisandre had a real baby with Guy Pearce.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/29/16/37AFB23900000578-3763652-image-a-152_1472483435286.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 30, 2016, 03:41:33 AM
Who is the guy who wrote the recent Cicero trilogy? If we're doing fantasy authors who aren't GRRM I'd have him do it.

Iggulden is a little too hollywood for my taste. My suspension of disbelief didn't survive the first of his Julius Caesar books.

All that said, I have a very strong suspicion the book is more or less written, but Martin is trying to edit his own work. This is never wise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 30, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
Martin might finish Winds of Winter but I'd bet against him finishing whatever book 7's called.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on August 30, 2016, 10:38:23 PM
I'm not sure I even see the point of him finishing, honestly.  GoT is now a ingrained part of pop culture, almost entirely because of the TV show.  If he deviates at all, he'll get crucified.  It seems like a no-win situation to me.  He should just sit back on his huge ass and keep eating all the trans-fatty foodstuffs while collecting the sweet, sweet royalties.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 31, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
I'm not sure I even see the point of him finishing, honestly.  GoT is now a ingrained part of pop culture, almost entirely because of the TV show.  If he deviates at all, he'll get crucified.  It seems like a no-win situation to me.  He should just sit back on his huge ass and keep eating all the trans-fatty foodstuffs while collecting the sweet, sweet royalties.
No offense, but that is idiotic claptrap unworthy of even F13.  That is like saying Marvel should stop writing comics. 

The books are different.  Both the show and the books are great in their own way, but I am eagerly looking forward to seeing how the books unfold, enjoying his writing and seeing how the story differs from the screen.  The next GoT book may or may not sell as well as prior books, but it will still sell an insane number of copies and be a huge best seller. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on September 01, 2016, 12:45:11 AM
You just compared GoT to comic books.  Um, okay bro.

I am saying there is no huge upside for him.  It will sell tons and he'll get money (does he need it?  No idea.) and he will be utterly crucified by the legions of dorks who will cry foul if he does not follow the script.  GoT is one of the rare exceptions to the rule where the screen version is generally superior to the written material.  This all started with him providing the outline for the show to follow, and the show proved they could do it faster and better, for the most part.  Now it is the TV show that dictates the course.  It is his own damn fault for being a giant slug.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 01, 2016, 01:19:13 AM
GoT is entirely comparable to comic books, and the rest of your post is so wrong that you have me posting that I agree with jgsugden.

It is more far more likely that the internet will complain that  the books follow the show too closely, and anyway GRRM has no reason to care because for anyone to make that complaint they will already have to have bought the damn book.

You can of course choose either version for your own personal head canon. But the idea that nerds will choose show over book en masse and then be offended that they continue to be different is so insane that you are probably trolling.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 01, 2016, 05:55:03 AM
No, there will be enough people who choose the show over the book and get bitchy about it. It's the internet and it's just what people on it do. The internet is a generic outrage machine, after all.

People on the internet, by and large, put too much emphasis on what the internet thinks at all. Nobody in meatspace really gives a fuck. We've seen it time and again, lots of internet froth and fervor.. nothing in meatspace. The same will happen with book vs. show when the next book releases in 2019.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on September 01, 2016, 11:00:18 AM
My theory of life: 'the Internet makes everything better and everything worse'

Looking forward to reading the books once the TV show finishes. Here's hoping his heart lasts that long. Anyone else hoping that he's actually writing both book 6 and 7 and they'll be released after each of the next seasons?

On another note, especially for non book readers, I highly recommend Earworm's Hardcore Game of Thrones podcast series. Basically a history of Westeros done in Dan Carlin's Hardcore History style from the first men to present times.  Certainly increases your understanding of what's going on 200 percent.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mac on September 01, 2016, 12:15:24 PM
Dorne sucks yes, but if you are ever near Seville, go visit the Alcázar where they filmed the palace scenes. It's amazing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on September 01, 2016, 01:52:55 PM
Yeah I was there 2 years ago, really something. The rest of the city too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on September 02, 2016, 04:04:32 PM
The books are going to sell by the boatload - why should he care what neckbearded nerds say on fucking reddit?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on September 08, 2016, 02:26:16 PM
Because my opinions matter, dammit!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on September 08, 2016, 07:16:35 PM
I think the TV show without the books will be a different experience. Previously you had people who had read the books chattering away on the internet to explain what the fuck was actually going on, so lots of back story was constantly being filled in, and people were able to extend their watching experiences into interesting discussions online. Now the TV series will have to stand alone. It probably has the legs to do that at this point, but it will be somewhat different.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 09, 2016, 10:24:17 AM
What, you mean like almost this entire last season?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on September 10, 2016, 08:18:51 AM
Pretty much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on September 10, 2016, 09:32:03 AM
This series is the first that I can remember where I liked the adaption better than the book series. Usually, a lot is lost in that process but what is lost here is nothing but useless filler than never goes anywhere. I'd say the worst parts of the show have always been the worst parts of the books too. (Dorne!)

I guess that's a long winded way to say that if he finishes the last two books I'll still buy and read them but if he doesn't I won't cry.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on September 10, 2016, 10:29:27 AM
I actually think that the first 3 books were better than the TV adaptation, but the seasons after that have all been better than the last two books. That's because the last two books were aimless, plodding bits of fuckawful.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on September 10, 2016, 04:33:10 PM
Yep. He should've just skipped forward 5 years and got to the zombies vs dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on September 10, 2016, 10:15:41 PM
I actually think that the first 3 books were better than the TV adaptation, but the seasons after that have all been better than the last two books. That's because the last two books were aimless, plodding bits of fuckawful.

That's fair. The first 3 books are great but 4 and 5 just wander aimlessly and don't seem to get much done. They made me feel like I'd found another series by Robert Jordan and that's not a good thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on September 13, 2016, 05:55:31 AM
I remember the first 3 in WoT being good...but its been decades. I think I made it through 5.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on September 13, 2016, 09:22:21 AM
I remember the first 3 in WoT being good...but its been decades. I think I made it through 5.

Completely off topic, they're good until the fallout from Dumai's Wells (end of 6).  By that time Rand is going bonkers, Perrin is back into the fold of things (and getting progressively more useless), and they just start to stall out a lot of major plot points.  7 is OK. 8-10 are complete and total garbage. They're long, they meander, and they just don't resolve anything in any decent time frame. This is where you start seeing 60 pages of uninterrupted nothing regularly.  11 seems like Jordan was starting to turn it back around. From then on, it's Sanderson and they're pretty decent in light of what came before.

I'm doing a current reread, and I've just finished Dumai's Wells. This is where rereads go to die.  I've only made it through the 8+ once and that's when I finished due to Sanderson completing it. I suppose I could just read summaries, but that feels like cheating, and you miss anything worthwhile interactions and nuance along the way (sparse as it is).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 13, 2016, 10:22:54 AM
I never finished 8-11, I skimmed them even on the first read. I'd go to characters I wanted to read, run through their chapters then back-fill if there was a particular, "WTF are they talking about?" moment.

I think after 6 the only one I read fully was the very last one. Even then it was only because I found I was backfilling so much that I should read the whole thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on September 13, 2016, 01:20:44 PM
I read WoT through book 8 and regretted it.  At some point I'll fill in the rest of the story via Wikipedia. 

GoT, however, is no where near as off track as WoT was. Got was designed as a trilogy and they expanded it by replacing a time gap with a few extra books.  WoT was a trilogy that was expanded pointlessly by 8 additional books that added nothing but repetition.  Nothing but repetition.  But you should ask Mat about that... he always knows what to say to the girls.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on September 13, 2016, 11:41:38 PM
It got good again once Sanderson took over, but I will admit that I still have not read the final book...something about Jordan's widow charging 40 bucks for both paper and electronic versions when it came out, so I voted with my wallet.  I can see now that book 14 has a more sane price, but I think I would want to re-read it all before reading the last one and I don't think I have the stamina to get through all that again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 14, 2016, 03:43:11 AM
You can alway do used too, and continue to deny her a share.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on September 14, 2016, 07:02:45 AM
I read WoT through book 8 and regretted it.  At some point I'll fill in the rest of the story via Wikipedia. 

GoT, however, is no where near as off track as WoT was. Got was designed as a trilogy and they expanded it by replacing a time gap with a few extra books.  WoT was a trilogy that was expanded pointlessly by 8 additional books that added nothing but repetition.  Nothing but repetition.  But you should ask Mat about that... he always knows what to say to the girls.
That's only because the TV show forced (or, will force) GRRM to end the books in a timely manner. If there hadn't been a show (or it had flopped after 1 season or whatever) who knows if he would ever have gotten back on track?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 14, 2016, 08:48:54 AM
GRRM has only published one book since GoT aired. 2 months after the first season.

And half of that book was written 6 years earlier.

Whatever GoT has done, it certainly hasn't accelerated ASoIaF.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on September 14, 2016, 09:25:47 AM
Yeah, if anything the show has given him the excuse to never finish it. He can point at season 7/7.5 and say, "There you go!" Then go back to eating deep-fried cheeseburgers at the VIP lounges of the fantasy convention circuit forever.

Annoyingly, he seems to have passed that particular trait on to Patrick Rothfuss who also needs to learn to say no to Guest of Honour invites so that he can finish the Name of the Wind series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on September 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM
I think it's the same problem. People keep interpreting it as a work-discipline thing but it's not. It's that great writers can set a story in motion and have some 'rules' for unfolding it where they get themselves into a SERIOUS trap that they know can't be resolve satisfactorily. Rothfuss cannot satisfy everyone (or probably himself) if he collapses the uncertainty wave-front and tells us whether Kvothe is fully unreliable or not. If he's absolutely not, then all sorts of shit becomes deeply confusing--who is present Kvothe, why is he in the inn, who is Bast *really*, etc.  If he's totally reliable or mostly so, then Kvothe is really Mary Sue. If it's split down the middle, what's the principle of his unreliability? It can't be random.

I honestly think Rothfuss didn't have this all thought through, just like I think Martin didn't know what the "middle" of GoT was. He knew the shocking shit that happened in the rising action and he knew what the end result of the falling action was. He had no idea I think what the genuine no-fooling climax was and what the falling action looked like in plot terms. Plus both of them have gotten way way distracted by the fan reaction to their writing, which makes it way worse. (Saladin Ahmed is a thousand times worse still.) The days when authors could safely hear about sales and reactions from editors and then suddenly hear at the occasional convention from actual readers are long gone, and it's hurt guys like this the most. You need to either have enormous discipline about not reading stuff while you're writing or you need to have an iron will/iron ego that lets you override what you're hearing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 16, 2016, 05:37:32 AM
Also he refuses to let things go unseen.

I have no problem with Feast and Dance, but completely accept that most of it could be skipped and the reader left to fill in the gaps.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 16, 2016, 08:02:46 AM
If they had released on the same schedule as the first three books there would be like 1/10th the bitching about the last two.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 18, 2016, 09:19:54 AM
Also true, I'm fairly certain that a big part of why I enjpyed the last two books is that I was able to read them immeadiately after the first three.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on September 19, 2016, 07:43:31 AM
Yeah, if anything the show has given him the excuse to never finish it. He can point at season 7/7.5 and say, "There you go!" Then go back to eating deep-fried cheeseburgers at the VIP lounges of the fantasy convention circuit forever.

Annoyingly, he seems to have passed that particular trait on to Patrick Rothfuss who also needs to learn to say no to Guest of Honour invites so that he can finish the Name of the Wind series.

I think it is a combination of he wrote himself into a hole he pretty much needs to just time jump his way out of at some point which the TV show basically did and he is enjoying running all over being a celebrity he just does not care if he finishes it any more. People will get an ending he gets his money and fame no real downside.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 19, 2016, 09:38:21 AM
Yeah, that's my take, too. I didn't see anyone near as happy as Martin to be marching down that aisle last night. They were all happy, yes, but he was the giggling school-girl as they crowded the stage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on September 19, 2016, 09:43:06 AM
If you've read his not a blog, you should know that he cares very deeply about the books and the delays are his struggles to get it right.  He has a plan.  He is a perfectionist.  He was not happy about that last book (or the response to the last book), so he is working hard to make sure the current book meets his expectations.  He also has a lot of other works on his plate.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on September 19, 2016, 11:17:49 AM
It's certainly easier to whine about writing a book on a blog than it is to write one. I'm not sure why he would begin/take on other projects either, when he's clearly having a rough time finishing this one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 19, 2016, 02:16:33 PM
I'd guess just because the other projects are fun and much easier.

In his place I suspect I'd be the same.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on September 19, 2016, 02:27:26 PM
Creative people are bored easily once they work-out the itch that motivated them in the first place. You might want to revisit the idea down the line to refine it, but you don't want to make it the focus of all your endeavors. He's been working on this for 20 years now, having to go back to the well constantly at other people's schedules. He's probably really over it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on September 19, 2016, 03:41:18 PM
... and some of these other projects are things that he has been doing *longer* than GoT.  And things where he is part of a team of artists working on it and he *must* complete steps on schedule or he disrupts a lot of people.

Regardless, it'll be done when it is done, and there is a good chance HBO will show the final episode before we see the next book, no matter how much we wish we had it. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on May 04, 2017, 04:18:29 PM
Anything up to four different spin-offs being considered (http://junkee.com/hbo-considering-four-separate-game-thrones-spinoffs/104485) for Game of Thrones.

I linked that article for its suggestions of Cooking With Hot Pie or a rom-com with Tormund and Brienne, but if you need one, here's a real article (http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/game-of-thrones-spinoff-hbo-1202409434/).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on May 04, 2017, 05:09:15 PM
They have to do Arya and The Hound, Murdering Across Westeros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on May 04, 2017, 05:10:35 PM
or don't do any because the idea is stupid


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 04, 2017, 07:19:02 PM
A prequel might make sense. I don't think I want it, but it might make sense. Anything else is just... meh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 04, 2017, 07:32:44 PM
There's already prequels, the Dunk and Egg stories and the Dance of Dragons.  Both would make amazing series.  Part of the beauty of the world GRRM created is that the stuff that happened before his main story was just as or more interesting than the main story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 04, 2017, 08:20:00 PM
Cooking With Hot Pie

Fucking Be There.   :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on May 05, 2017, 06:35:34 AM
There's already prequels, the Dunk and Egg stories and the Dance of Dragons.  Both would make amazing series.  Part of the beauty of the world GRRM created is that the stuff that happened before his main story was just as or more interesting than the main story.

Yeah, even in the main books there's a ton of world-building and backstory that wouldn't really fit into the Game of Thrones. I don't need four spin-off shows, although I get the impression they just want to have a bunch of different options to choose from rather than wanting to make all four.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on May 05, 2017, 11:48:48 AM
I loved the books (well, the first 3 anyway). And while the world building is neat, it doesn't always make a compelling story to tell, much less base 4 series on. See the expanded bits of the Hobbit movies for proof.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on May 05, 2017, 12:57:54 PM
Dunk and Egg will be fine, though I'm not sure fans of the series would accept the relatively softer or more gentle tone it needs to work. Still bad stuff going on there, but it's pushed back several levels and has to be for Dunk to work as a character.

I actually think they could do a pretty great series if they wanted to that was centered in Asshai and the Shadow Lands and Sothoyros--essentially places so far off the map that they can make up anything they want. Melisandre is from the Shadow Lands...I suppose you could do the Fire part of the Song, e.g., let's assume Westeros is left standing and Sam finds the McGuffin and somehow the White Walkers get killed and then some Westerosi survive the Winter. Well, maybe the next Summer is the sequel to it all and whatever thing people have going in the Summer Lands and Sothoyros will be threatened by fire and dragons etc.

I know the one thing I don't want to see is Robert's Rebellion. There's nothing interesting in that story that we haven't already seen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on May 05, 2017, 08:50:24 PM

I know the one thing I don't want to see is Robert's Rebellion. There's nothing interesting in that story that we haven't already seen.


...and yet, I would have guessed this would be one of the ones we'd get.  Simply because the masses kinda know what this is, so it's probably an easier sell.

Personally, I am fine with anything.  Top quality fantasy show wants to do more top quality fantasy shows?  Fine by me, keep it coming.  It isn't like there is much else like this on TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on May 06, 2017, 12:48:20 PM
I'm with Cyrrex; I'll watch whatever as long as the sex and violence production values stay high.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on May 08, 2017, 07:12:38 AM
When they say they have four in development, it tells me they do not have one solid idea and are searching to find something they think works.  Let it die.  They'd be better off finding a new property and leaving this one going out 'on top'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on May 08, 2017, 07:23:48 AM
There are plenty of solid ideas, since they are not ideas but actual already written stories.  What I got from it is that they are seeing who can do the best job at it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: taolurker on May 24, 2017, 01:23:19 PM
Trailer for season 7 released today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giYeaKsXnsI



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on May 24, 2017, 02:04:43 PM
I'm trying to temper my excitement, because there's been a lot of dumb stuff in the last season or two.

But motherfuckin DRAGONS!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 21, 2017, 11:59:23 AM
New Trailer! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mlhnt0jMlg)

Warning...Quite Spoiler Heavy


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on June 21, 2017, 12:40:50 PM
Let's gooooooooo


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on June 22, 2017, 03:50:45 AM
Prediction; the scene with the Dragon smiling will be the last scene in the season finale.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 22, 2017, 05:28:31 AM
Woo!

We doing a league again this year?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 22, 2017, 05:14:47 PM
We better!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on June 22, 2017, 06:29:07 PM
New Trailer! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mlhnt0jMlg)

Warning...Quite Spoiler Heavy

What are the spoilers in the trailer? There are so many scenes and so much going on, I can't connect the dots.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 22, 2017, 07:07:18 PM
Woo!

We doing a league again this year?

Are there even enough characters left alive to do a draft?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on June 23, 2017, 03:57:09 AM
Whoever gets the white walkers is going to clean up.

Dragons too probably.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 23, 2017, 05:00:54 AM
White walkers aren't a pick this year, only the Night King. The dragons are, however.

I set-up a league. We'll draft on the 8th.
http://www.fantasizr.com/joinleaguelink?league=5808430008762368&key=fFd0a4D7BadaDDaDCf951c49EBbDeA

Rules changed a bit, too. This year the 5th category is eating/ drinking. If a character is showing doing either they get points for the scene.

Quote
Violence:
10 Kill Random Character
15 Kill White Walker
25 Kill Known or Drafted Character
100 Kill Sitting King
150 Kill Dragon
5 K.O./Incapacitate Random Character
15 K.O./Incapacitate Known or Drafted Character
50 Exit Bonus for Dying Memorably

Sex/Nudity:
5 Bold Come-ons
10 Have Sex with a Random
15 Have Sex with Known or Drafted Character
25 Have Sex with Blood Relative
10 Watch People Have Sex
5 Getting Naked (PG-13)
15 Getting Naked (Butt/Boobs)
25 Getting Naked (The Whole Shebang)

Wits/Schemes:
5 Funny One-Liner
10 Brutal One-Liner
5 Speech About Winter/Violence/The Past

Status/Power:
200 Take the Iron Throne
60 Sack a City
25 Get a Seat on the High Council
50 Magic Use
50 Acquire Some Valyrian Steel
20 Have a Vision/Prophecy
15 Take up a Weird/New Religion
10 Get Engaged
15 Get Pregnant/Get Someone Pregnant
-20 Lose a Baby
25 Promotions
-25 Demotions
50 Come Back from the Dead

Drinking/Eating:
5 Each Time a Drafted Player has a Drinking/Eating Scene

Character has to be seen taking at least ONE drink or bite during the scene
The Drink does NOT have to be alcoholic
Character will NOT be awarded for each individual drink or bite
Points do not stack if a character eats and drinks in the same scene
Points will NOT be awarded for presumed consumption

New Trailer! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mlhnt0jMlg)

Warning...Quite Spoiler Heavy

What are the spoilers in the trailer? There are so many scenes and so much going on, I can't connect the dots.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2017, 06:16:50 AM
Valar Somethingsomething is signed up once more. I don't see the dragons on the list though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 23, 2017, 06:27:11 AM
I thought they were there.. hm. I must have made that assumption after I saw the wolves & Night King. I could have sworn I saw Visreys and Rhaegar on there, but nope.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2017, 06:28:50 AM
They should at least be on there individually; getting 3 for one is probably going to be too much but they should be an option.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 23, 2017, 02:43:17 PM
House Gregory confirmed for brawl.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 23, 2017, 06:17:30 PM
A Feast of Chimps is ready to rumble!

My Tits and Ass drafting plan from last year ain't gonna cut it this year, going to have to figure out a new plan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 23, 2017, 06:43:17 PM
In as Hipster Jon Snow

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d0/d0e77b6d3f2494c947684b2411b228c85e2bb38dfad3481ed8c5cb595b0450d8.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 23, 2017, 07:20:15 PM
Ok fine, I'm in as Kilt Wavers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 23, 2017, 07:31:01 PM
I'm in as the Valyrian Steelers.   :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 23, 2017, 08:23:36 PM
I think I roughly counted around 57 draftable characters, so we should get around 5-4 characters per team depending on how many more sign up.

Wish they would open up the draft rankings early.  I need to start playing with this shit and thinking about it.  I'm fairly sure Cersei must count as the sitting king at this point, and I know who's going to kill her (though I suppose it might not be this season).  However the person probably wont pull much points beyond that 150 point payday.  And then you know mountain is going to rack up a massive body count.

HMMMMMMM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 23, 2017, 08:38:17 PM
We should get enough people so that everyone only has like 2 people. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 24, 2017, 01:51:14 AM
The King in the Norf! The King in the Norf!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on June 24, 2017, 08:12:41 AM
Joffrey's Purpleheaded Monster signing in. Hopefully I don't draft as horribly as last year.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 24, 2017, 01:54:14 PM
Atlanta Direwolves here


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: cironian on June 25, 2017, 12:10:40 AM
Ok, let's try this. Signed up as The Mountain That Fails.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Mithas on June 25, 2017, 06:05:27 AM
In as Let Me Hodor M'lady. My Jon Snow pick last year carried me to victory. I think the draft is deeper this year.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 25, 2017, 12:19:37 PM
In as Valar Posteris


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 25, 2017, 07:18:44 PM
We should get enough people so that everyone only has like 2 people. :why_so_serious:
Christ, we are at 18 teams now!  That's 3 per team, and if we get 2 more, it will be 2 per team.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 25, 2017, 07:34:23 PM
What is this should I sign up


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 25, 2017, 07:39:31 PM
Fuckit. Wife wanted me to play. In as Peter's Tiny Dinklage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 25, 2017, 07:47:30 PM
We should get enough people so that everyone only has like 2 people. :why_so_serious:
Christ, we are at 18 teams now!  That's 3 per team, and if we get 2 more, it will be 2 per team.

Should seriously contemplate splitting this into two leagues (last year's and new league for new people).  With only 2 or 3 characters on a team, becomes not as fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 25, 2017, 08:26:09 PM
Hmm, not a bad idea.  Or can even just start another two leagues for those interested in the smaller format, and still maintain the all in league.  I mean, its not like a normal fantasy team that you have to manage.  You just draft and go.

Not to mention there is the funny mental image of everybody creating a buddy cop team duo, and I actually am interested in seeing who can come up with the best 2 person team.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 25, 2017, 08:35:16 PM
We should get enough people so that everyone only has like 2 people. :why_so_serious:
Christ, we are at 18 teams now!  That's 3 per team, and if we get 2 more, it will be 2 per team.
Should seriously contemplate splitting this into two leagues (last year's and new league for new people).  With only 2 or 3 characters on a team, becomes not as fun.
High stakes. Bro. I thought you gambled.

Should we up the ante with some sort of f13 stakes?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 25, 2017, 08:36:29 PM
I'd be down for a small power players league with actual stakes.   But as you are well aware, I like throwing my money away at things.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 25, 2017, 08:42:39 PM
I'm sad there aren't "bullshit character that becomes awesome" and "b-string that becomes a-string" stats.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on June 26, 2017, 04:54:57 AM
Start another league like a few days before the first episode, that should make the 2nd league numbers decent.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 26, 2017, 06:25:04 AM
Yeah, I didn't expect this many folks to jump on and I've been away from the computer all weekend. Definitely want to split things up into a few leagues as well as the "all in" league, IMO.  We had 4 per team last year and ONE player created a win-condition.

I didn't learn until late Sunday that I could have set a cap on teams via setting a team-size. Whoops.

I created a 2nd League and modified the rules so there's 8 players/ team; weekly teams of 6 so you can swap players if you desire. That makes it 3 fairly evenly-sized  leagues with the 19 teams we currently have.

Got Thrones? league here:
http://www.fantasizr.com/joinleaguelink?league=5814583648321536&key=D5EEe4b8e5fC34bE2Dca0E1D4eAF89

If someone wants to set-up the other two, you go into "edit league info" under settings and can set and turn on Autodraft, then Manage lineups. This will then let you set players/ episode.  Farther down the page is the players/ team that will set team # cap.  You set leagues here by clicking "play now" http://www.fantasizr.com/sport/fantasy-game-of-thrones-season-7

Again, I'll start the draft on the 8th, even if the league gets full, so people have time to set their rankings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 26, 2017, 08:39:20 AM
Question: who keeps track of these stats and why are so many favoring tyrion


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on June 26, 2017, 08:47:35 AM
Team Gendry Still Rowing has jumped in on the big league, cause why not see if I can dilute the pool even further.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on June 26, 2017, 09:03:57 AM
I'm in both on team That Bastard is a Bastard.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on June 26, 2017, 09:12:28 AM
Question: who keeps track of these stats and why are so many favoring tyrion

There is some online entertainment magazine or something that goes through after each episode and scores it per character and then it filters down to all the leagues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 26, 2017, 09:33:46 AM
Question: who keeps track of these stats and why are so many favoring tyrion
There is some online entertainment magazine or something that goes through after each episode and scores it per character and then it filters down to all the leagues.
Is it called Aspberger Weekly?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 27, 2017, 04:14:59 AM
Question: who keeps track of these stats and why are so many favoring tyrion

Most efficient ways to get points appear to be eating, sex, and snide comments. So...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 27, 2017, 02:49:17 PM
Jumped into the smaller league with the same name.

The food thing is a new stat this year.  The person who judges is some millennial chick who writes for the online magazine that puts this on.  I didn't agree with how she awarded a lot of points last year, but oh well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: grebo on June 27, 2017, 03:11:42 PM
In the bigger one as Vargo Belwas


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soln on June 27, 2017, 03:32:14 PM
In as Tits&Dragons


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 27, 2017, 06:14:24 PM
SECOND 8 MAN LEAGUE HERE (F13 GoT More Thrones?):

http://www.fantasizr.com/joinleaguelink?league=6142128323297280&key=9Ff8EeC82BDbb9985BC4F2710c9C44

We are at 22 players on the big league.  So looks like that is the buddy copy team up.  I encourage all of you who are interested to join a smaller league, as this game has a number of characters who may not even be involved in anything this season, so many peoples enjoyement of this will be limited with just two.  I copied the settings Merusk mentioned in his post.

Looks like I took the final spot in the league Merusk made.  I had to make a new team to make a new league, so I'll do this third league I created instead.  Can somebody tell me how to delete my team from a league?  Or can Merusk boot me from his league?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 27, 2017, 06:18:48 PM
Jon Snow's Nose, checking in.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 27, 2017, 08:18:53 PM
I hope we get to 1 man per team. Battle to the death, possibly literally.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 27, 2017, 08:22:21 PM
I booted you Tel, so there's one spot in my smaller league left.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 27, 2017, 08:54:45 PM
I'll join the league. Won't watch the show, but that doesn't matter, right?

In as Obvious Foreshadow Rewrites.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 27, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
The more the merrier!

Edit:  Hey Merusk, do we have to start the draft manually, or can we set an exact time for it to kick off?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 28, 2017, 01:48:04 AM
Have to start it off manually as I recall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on June 28, 2017, 09:11:30 AM
I joined the Got Thrones? one so I reckon that one's full now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 28, 2017, 10:33:09 AM
Yeah, so far just Dave and I in the 2nd 8 man.

Should we perhaps temporarily sticky a thread in this forum with the info for all those who are interested, so they don't have to dig through this thread for links?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 28, 2017, 11:02:12 AM
I'll have to sign up when I get home. Someone remind me on discord.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 28, 2017, 11:13:18 AM
I went ahead and joined Teleku's smaller league as Kilt Waving Karstarks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 28, 2017, 11:34:23 AM
sure, fuckit, I'll do two leagues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 28, 2017, 11:43:03 AM
In Teleku's as: P.T. Anderson Presents Way South of the Wall


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 28, 2017, 12:04:39 PM
Can we nail down some hard dates and times for all these drafts?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ruvaldt on June 28, 2017, 12:30:30 PM
In Teleku's league as Girls Gone Wildling.   :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 28, 2017, 01:23:12 PM
Well, I'm getting on a plane and flying to Asia July 5th, and hanging out in Korea till the afternoon of July 7th, when I fly to Laos.  Not sure what my internet situation will be there, but can always take my iPad over to the nearest hut and use their wifi I guess.  But my hours will be weird.

I'm just going to set my draft order and let it auto draft unless I can magically line things up, but I can make sure to start the draft any time its convienent for everybody.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 28, 2017, 02:21:23 PM
I'm doing autodraft. I'll start them around Noon EDT on the 8th and walk away. I don't have time to sit and do a real draft experience.  I'll check it again when I get home Sat evening and do whatever forcing I may need to do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 28, 2017, 02:42:46 PM
Also in teleku's small league


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 28, 2017, 08:12:43 PM
I'm in both as Tommen Window Sports.

Shit I'm in 3 now. How do I leave a league'? I meant to join the big one and teluku s


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 28, 2017, 09:20:31 PM
Only way I saw was to have the commissioner kick you.  But uh, the only other league is the small one Merusk started, and I thought that was full...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 28, 2017, 09:21:26 PM
Incidentally, that brings the awesome league (mine) up to 7, so room for one more!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 28, 2017, 11:08:11 PM
No more!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on June 29, 2017, 05:37:58 AM
Merusk, kick me from your smaller league pls.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on June 29, 2017, 05:56:24 AM
Done!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 29, 2017, 02:04:22 PM
So for my league, we have the following:

Teleku - Ranking Done
Schild - Ranking Done
Ruvaldt
Marhin
Haemish
Lamaros - Ranking Done
Draegan - Ranking Done
Eldaec - Ranking Done

I can start the draft when ever.  I'm just going to set my rankings, hit the button, and walk away.  If anybody wants to live draft through the whole damn thing let me know since time/date will matter for you, but otherwise everybody just tell me when you have your rankings finished.  When everybody is done, I will push button.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 29, 2017, 02:13:42 PM
Auto draft definitely sounds more practical - will set rankings this weekend.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on June 29, 2017, 08:29:50 PM
So for my league, we have the following:

Teleku
Schild
Ruvaldt
Marhin
Haemish
Lamaros
Draegan
Eldaec

I can start the draft when ever.  I'm just going to set my rankings, hit the button, and walk away.  If anybody wants to live draft through the whole damn thing let me know since time/date will matter for you, but otherwise everybody just tell me when you have your rankings finished.  When everybody is done, I will push button.



I've done rankings and good to go. I don't know who half the minor/new characters are so apologies if I do some bad picks and someone else gets a steal!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on June 29, 2017, 09:51:30 PM
ok fine my rankings are done autodraft it is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on June 29, 2017, 10:00:08 PM
Cool, I'll keep updating my original post with everybodies status.

Again, nothing stops any of you from live drafting.  But its likely going to be painful as the majority will autodraft, meaning it will wait the full time limit for every single persons draft pick before selecting.  Which means hours of time.

Don't worry Lameros, I have no idea who several of the people are for this seasons list, and I watch the episodes as soon as they come out.......


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on July 01, 2017, 11:58:35 AM
My first go at ranking is set.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on July 01, 2017, 06:08:14 PM
Auto drafted.  My money is on Littlefinger taking the whole thing!

You bitches going DOWN.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 01, 2017, 09:39:10 PM
Not a bad bet.  My guess is either this season closes with Littlefinger on the throne (with the kingdom burned to the ground around him, as Vary's said) or dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on July 02, 2017, 06:16:54 AM
You won't get a lot of killing bonus or sex bonus with Littlefinger now.

The winner will have a good combo of politics, killing, and fucking.

I think that may be Arya. Arya may start killing peeps while their having a bit too much fun.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 02, 2017, 03:01:22 PM
ok - autodraft set


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 02, 2017, 03:24:42 PM
I'll still be autodrafting next Saturday unless everyone's set.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 02, 2017, 06:34:30 PM
I'll still be autodrafting next Saturday unless everyone's set.

In the main league wasn't able to set a ranking order when I tried a few days ago, did you have to turn it on?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 03, 2017, 06:24:42 AM
The one where everyone's in? I just tried and was able to, I haven't changed anything.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 03, 2017, 07:13:15 AM
The one where everyone's in? I just tried and was able to, I haven't changed anything.

Yeah, I only got the ranking page on the smaller league.

I will try again when I get home from work I guess.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 06, 2017, 07:51:23 PM
Ok got my damn auto-draft list set on both leagues. Mostly winging it but whatevs!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 06, 2017, 08:44:45 PM
Bloody GoT fantasy leaguers need your own thread.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on July 07, 2017, 12:13:24 AM
Nah.  It's a welcome change from the usual "we hate everything about everything, and even if we don't hate it, it's only so we can backhanded hate it" wankery.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on July 07, 2017, 01:04:13 AM
You know, I've seen this sentiment across a couple of threads and it's just not fair.  Chaps here love lots of things.  What we do do is talk louder about things that aren't quite right or bug us.

heheheh.  do do.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 07, 2017, 04:29:16 PM
The leagues are set and forget, so once we are done with all the setup, there isn't near as much to talk about.

Incidentally, the embassy was nice enough to provide me with a wireless hot spot till I get internet setup at my house, so I still have easy access, and can start when ever.  Just need the last few people to finish up ranking.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 07, 2017, 04:31:42 PM
The leagues are set and forget, so once we are done with all the setup, there isn't near as much to talk about.

Last season it was basically the only thing that got discussed here :P


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 08, 2017, 03:09:37 PM
Set my draft order for both leagues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 08, 2017, 06:40:53 PM
Draft is running, but many folks haven't turned-on autodraft. I sent e-mails to each league about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 08, 2017, 06:47:21 PM
is lamaros gonna fuck this up for all of us

also holy shit i'm gonna be left with hot garbage


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 08, 2017, 06:56:19 PM
Uh, shouldn't the stupid thing auto draft for him after he doesn't respond for a minute or two?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: taolurker on July 08, 2017, 07:00:29 PM
The leagues are set and forget, so once we are done with all the setup, there isn't near as much to talk about.

Last season it was basically the only thing that got discussed here :P
Also were quite a few spoilers openly discussed immediately following airings, which made me not visit the thread until I'd finally watched the recent episode(s) fully.

I'll just ignore this thread, starting today, although there should be a separate thread for fantasy wankage, similar to NFL.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 08, 2017, 07:02:37 PM
Uh, shouldn't the stupid thing auto draft for him after he doesn't respond for a minute or two?

What I did it. Will try look on mobile now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 08, 2017, 07:05:20 PM
Mobile thing is balls. I did something but I can't seem to find how to make it actually register my settings.

Edit: Ah looks like that was because I only put it in the small league. Looks like my next pi K in this is the last tho so shouldn't hold anyone up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 08, 2017, 07:36:02 PM
Iain and Haemish holding shit up. Jeez.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 08, 2017, 08:24:10 PM
these fuckin assholes

i wanna see what garbage I end up with in slots 15 and "this slot doesn't matter"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 08, 2017, 09:50:11 PM
Sorry guys, I was out all day and didn't see any of this until now. I think I've set the autodraft correctly on all 3 leagues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 08, 2017, 11:31:40 PM
Fucking brienne of tarth

Doesn't drink
Doesn't eat
Probably won't die
Might get valerian
Absolutely will not have sex or get naked

It's been real everyone


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 08, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
I feel like Cersei was a stupid fucking first pick though, so there's that.

Edit: and Tyrion goes 9th? This must be data based on previous fantasy leagues because I can't remember a scene with Tyrion without food, death, tits, or sick burns.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 09, 2017, 12:09:37 AM
We still have my small league to play Schild!   :awesome_for_real:

And hey, she at least has a good chance of killing lots of people.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 09, 2017, 12:47:30 AM
Varys, Tormund, and littlefinger all good value for picks 21 to 23.

Edit: and Bronn at 24!

At the halfway point Missandei, Ser Friendzone, Sam, and lyanna Mormont still available.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on July 09, 2017, 03:26:17 AM
I'm feeling pretty good about my picks for the small league. Jon Snow, Bran Stark, Yara Greyjoy, Ellaria Sand and Qyburn so far. Ok, so Qyburn is obviously going to die messily in the first couple of episodes but I have hopes he'll take someone important with him. In the big league, I only have a random Baelish prostitute so far. I'm going to get some nudity points at least and with luck she'll stab someone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 09, 2017, 03:59:42 AM
Sansa and Meera in the big league.

I guess Meera is going to have to stab a lot of things.

I don't know why I didn't rate Sam higher. Narratively he must either die or turn into a badass at this point.

Plus he just arrived in a place with food.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 09, 2017, 05:15:07 AM
I am pretty happy with my Hound pick up for the second.  He murders lots of dudes and has great lines while he does it.  Also likes to eat chicken.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 09, 2017, 07:33:48 AM
The Mountain wheeled! Ok, I'm fine with Brienne and The Mountain. My unofficial team name is "Cersei's Dirty Work and a Giant Angry 90s Lesbian."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 09, 2017, 07:35:20 AM
Somehow I got Ghost in both leagues.

That dog better fucking represent!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on July 09, 2017, 07:49:49 AM
I got Obara Sand as my second pick in the main league. Now I'm torn because I really don't want the series to get bogged down in Dorne, but I would kind of like to have at least one of my picks get some screen time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 09, 2017, 11:10:58 AM
Meh, you win either way.

Obara Sand on screen - > POINTS

Obara Sand not on screen - > Obara Sand not on screen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 09, 2017, 12:42:38 PM
My big league pairup is Jaime and the Queen of Thorns.   :drill: :drillf:

For the smaller league I got Dany and both Cleganes.  Fuck yeah.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on July 09, 2017, 02:04:33 PM
Lucked out with Arya on the big league. Small league lineup looks good too!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 09, 2017, 02:09:37 PM
Still waiting for Teleku to fire off his league. Jerk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on July 09, 2017, 02:39:21 PM
Mine are serious wildcards.  Benjamin Stark and the red priest dude down near Riverland :o.

No middle ground with this pair. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on July 09, 2017, 03:32:01 PM
Gilly is going to win this thing for me. You just watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 09, 2017, 05:48:20 PM
Gilly is going to win this thing for me. You just watch.
I considered placing her pretty high in my draft ranking actually, but I erred on the side of her continuing to suck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 09, 2017, 05:51:05 PM
Do not read the episode synopses that were released. They ruin everything.

Also, Cersei was probably the correct first pick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 09, 2017, 06:38:46 PM
Wife and I are pissed Zombie Cat isn't a draft option.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetleft on July 09, 2017, 06:43:10 PM
I feel like Cersei was a stupid fucking first pick though, so there's that.

Edit: and Tyrion goes 9th? This must be data based on previous fantasy leagues because I can't remember a scene with Tyrion without food, death, tits, or sick burns.

I'm glad he fell to me at least, especially since not sure how much we really are gonna see Jaqen anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 09, 2017, 06:46:57 PM
Mine are serious wildcards.  Benjamin Stark and the red priest dude down near Riverland :o.

No middle ground with this pair.  

You have Beric. See Beric roar.

(http://i.imgur.com/m0PcSjO.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 09, 2017, 07:41:03 PM
I feel like Cersei was a stupid fucking first pick though, so there's that.

Edit: and Tyrion goes 9th? This must be data based on previous fantasy leagues because I can't remember a scene with Tyrion without food, death, tits, or sick burns.

Do not read the episode synopses that were released. They ruin everything.

Also, Cersei was probably the correct first pick.

What a rollcoaster of emotion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 09, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
that's what you get for not watching a trailer and then watching a trailer


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on July 09, 2017, 10:56:48 PM
Well, that's what I get for not coming here on weekends I guess. Sorry if my lack of autodraft held things up. As a result of not setting an order, I got Theon "I'm afraid of my own shadow, hardly speak, and don't have a dick to fuck with anymore" Greyjoy.

Amusingly though, I got Sam with my second pick, who was someone I would have picked well ahead of Theon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 10, 2017, 04:24:09 AM
I feel like Cersei was a stupid fucking first pick though, so there's that.

Edit: and Tyrion goes 9th? This must be data based on previous fantasy leagues because I can't remember a scene with Tyrion without food, death, tits, or sick burns.

Do not read the episode synopses that were released. They ruin everything.

Also, Cersei was probably the correct first pick.

What a rollcoaster of emotion.

She is an alcoholic, she fucks anything that moves - but especially family, she just exploded the sept, she hates everyone and murders people for fun. Plus it would make sense for her to die in the last episode of this season. Its only a shame her coronation snuck in at the end of last season. 

But these are good fundamentals to work with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 10, 2017, 04:45:27 AM
Still waiting for Teleku to fire off his league. Jerk.
Sorry, was waiting for everybody to confirm they had set their autodraft.  Also been busy trying to figure out how to survive in Laos on a day to day basis.

Since people probably should set their stuff by now, I'll try to launch the auto draft when I get up tomorrow morning.  Should be about 6-7 PM'ish for people in the US.  So yell at me soon, or forever hold your peace.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 10, 2017, 06:39:41 AM
I got Grey Worm and Daario.  Grey should work out for me but, damn, I'd have taken Lyanna Mormont over a guy who I don't believe is even in this season.

Wife and I are pissed Zombie Cat isn't a draft option.

Zombie Cat isn't coming into the TV show. Beric died so she could be rezzed, and Beric is clearly a figure this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 10, 2017, 06:45:04 AM
Wife and I are pissed Zombie Cat isn't a draft option.

Zombie Cat isn't coming into the TV show. Beric died so she could be rezzed, and Beric is clearly a figure this season.
Well that would certainly make it the gambler's draft choice then, now wouldn't it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 10, 2017, 07:11:34 AM
Also Berric being active and the viewer being made to give a shit about him is a prerequisite for zombie Cat.

But honestly I'm pretty sceptical about them doing this unless there is a really fucking awesome plot twist it is necessary for. In the books the only apparent reason she exists is to make Brienne break her oath - and although that seems like an important character thing, I'm not sure it warrants the logistics needed to support it. On TV Jamie is back in KL already and I can't imagine a sensible reason for Brienne or Catelyn to end up there, or for Jamie to head North while Dany's army attacks from the south.

Berric is clearly not in a convenient location for Stoneheart. And the  simplest explanation is that he's up north to deliver his sword in place of Brienne/Jamie/Cat/Pod/Whoever.

It is not impossible but they'd have to move a lot of pieces around.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 10, 2017, 07:13:33 AM
They show him surrounded by white walkers wielding lightbringer fighting next to jon snow in trailer 2.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 10, 2017, 09:55:34 AM
You mean Berric right?

If so - yes that's my point.

zCat has to get from the riverlands to the North (while being dead) then get rezzed when berric dies, then she'd have to leave the wall to reunite Brienne and Jamie.

Stoneheart trutherism died when Jamie returned to KL.

If zCat has any really critical plot my guess is either Brienne or Arya could pick it up. Both are aimlessly wandering in Stoneheart country. Brienne has the sense of duty to her oath, Arya has the sense of being a crazy vengeance demon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 10, 2017, 10:14:25 AM
Unless the Brotherhood packed her body in ice to keep it from decomposing over the last three seasons, I don't think there's enough left of Cat to turn her into Stoneheart at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 10, 2017, 11:04:00 AM
If they wanted to do it they'd surely have to just go 'BAM - zombie cat doing shit - no explanation - deal with it' but that isn't really how GoT (or even aSoIaF) rolls.

Even the Hound got 10  minutes of unnecessary exposition - he didn't even die.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on July 10, 2017, 03:55:52 PM
They show him surrounded by white walkers wielding lightbringer fighting next to jon snow in trailer 2.


YESSSS THERE IS HOPE FOR MY DRAFT!!!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 10, 2017, 04:17:46 PM
The big thing is you have to figure they're gonna fuck with us all at some point and do something no one expects. So the victory will probably go to whomever has the particular unlikely event in their draft.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 10, 2017, 04:22:03 PM
Draft started!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 10, 2017, 04:42:13 PM
Haemish has the worst team in the history of teams.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 10, 2017, 05:08:26 PM
Hmmm my team.

Dany and Littlefinger better come through.

Edit: My team is likely to be set and forget. Who to leave out.... I expect Robin to get killed at some point..


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 10, 2017, 05:30:25 PM
Hmmm my team.

Dany and Littlefinger better come through.

Edit: My team is likely to be set and forget. Who to leave out.... I expect Robin to get killed at some point..
Dying memorably is worth points, and I expect his future contains a very long and ironic fall. I've got one I expect to die, but it probably won't be special when she does.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 10, 2017, 11:16:36 PM
The 8 man seems to suggest we have to pick all bar one of the drafted characters as an ep1 lineup?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 11, 2017, 01:18:41 AM
Yeah.  That is what Merusk said he did, so I mirrored.  Gives you a little room to play with your team, especially if somebody checks out early.

Edit:  Also, dang, I thought I'd set my draft rankings better than that.....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 11, 2017, 05:54:58 AM
Yeah.  That is what Merusk said he did, so I mirrored.  Gives you a little room to play with your team, especially if somebody checks out early.

Edit:  Also, dang, I thought I'd set my draft rankings better than that.....
Your team has Ch'ildish Gambino, you'll be fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 11, 2017, 06:45:31 AM
Yep that's the case. There was going to be at least one extra character (my small league is Royce) and being able to swap a dead player for someone who might still earn points gives a little more game to things.

I wound-up with Brienne, Podrick, Olenna, Baelish and Tyrion. Realizing I lucked into the #2 draft spot was going to get me Tyrion but it seems odd I got Petyr and Brienne as well. Olenna and Podrick will be wildcards at best.  I'm ignoring the 'recurring whore #2' and Sandsnake characters. They're dead picks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 13, 2017, 07:52:07 AM
 Let's talk GoT's dragon problem  (https://theringer.com/tv-game-of-thrones-season-7-daenerys-targaryen-dragons-8b84d44bf77c). I'm all for ice dragons fighting Dany's.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 13, 2017, 08:30:12 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/OHRSQfm.png)

what the fuck


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 13, 2017, 08:53:11 AM
That fat fucker is just trolling now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 13, 2017, 09:30:07 AM
I bet he's telling the truth.

Because with winter here, everyone who dies is going to rise again as an ice zombie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: naum on July 13, 2017, 04:11:39 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/OHRSQfm.png)

what the fuck

I think that's a parody account, & not real GRRM. (There are a bunch of fake GRRM accounts).

I don't think he does Twitter & reserve publishing his musings on his livejournal blog.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 13, 2017, 07:51:54 PM
I don't think he even does his livejournal, but his wife does. It used to say the name of whichever of them was actually posting, but it doesn't anymore.  His posts were always 2-3 months between, and when I just looked there's been at least 2-3 posts a week.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on July 16, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Sorry guys, Arya is gonna clean up this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 16, 2017, 07:26:25 PM
DAT Opening Scene


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on July 16, 2017, 07:35:29 PM
The North Remembers!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on July 16, 2017, 07:56:41 PM
Do I get points for every bowl of sludge that appeared in each of those repeating Sam scenes?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on July 16, 2017, 08:33:30 PM
I guess we're not getting any boobs this season :heartbreak:

I like how Jaime is all like "welp its game over man" and Cersei is like "nah fam we empire!!!"

Boy came a long way from season 1.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 16, 2017, 08:58:44 PM
did what the mountain did count as a witty one-liner? asking for a friend


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 16, 2017, 11:19:30 PM
I called the opening scene as soon as Frey opened his mouth.  Up till then I thought maybe it was a flashback, but somehow the way he spoke gave the game away.  Brilliant acting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2017, 03:15:19 AM
Yah, as soon as I realized it wasn't a flashback I knew it was Arya. Watched with friends and one of them almost vomited during that Oldtown scene. I wasn't far behind in terms of just being unable to watch.

As for scoring, it depends on the whims of the person who created the game. We're all tied to the points she allocates. Last season had some questionable scores at times.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 17, 2017, 06:09:06 AM
Do you get points for best one liner? Sansa wins this episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2017, 06:24:59 AM
Did she? It was a great shut-down but Eurion had several very good lines as he was cutting Jamie down. *TWO* good hands; Consider killing your brother; It was getting crowded.

Fortunately, everyone gets points for those. I think Eurion gets Brutal for the good hand comment and two funny. Sansa definitely should get a brutal. There was a lot of exposition this episode, so lots of wit points to be had.
Quote
Wits/Schemes:
5 Funny One-Liner

10 Brutal One-Liner

5 Speech About Winter/Violence/The Past



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 17, 2017, 07:04:25 AM
In the league where I have 5 characters (Night King is barely a "character"), I got ZERO points that episode.

Zero.

Saw it coming a mile away too, lol.

(http://i.imgur.com/vxGX12C.png)

First time in GOT history that neither Varys nor Tyrion opened their GODDAMN MOUTHS.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 17, 2017, 07:11:10 AM
I don't even know who the fuck koner is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 17, 2017, 07:40:41 AM
I don't even know who the fuck koner is.
New character. I've considered replacing Yohn with him. Probably won't though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 17, 2017, 07:57:09 AM
My team is entirely carried by Arya, but she's cleaning up: 50 for the massacre, 50 for wearing Walter's face (magic), 10 for one liners and 5 for food. The rest of my team didn't even show in the episode.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 17, 2017, 08:03:19 AM
I assume the one liners were "The North Remembers" and "I'm going to kill the queen."

I wish they'd break down some of the points that aren't obvious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on July 17, 2017, 08:03:41 AM


First time in GOT history that neither Varys nor Tyrion opened their GODDAMN MOUTHS.

Its almost as if they've run out of material.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2017, 08:06:15 AM
I assume the one liners were "The North Remembers" and "I'm going to kill the queen."

I wish they'd break down some of the points that aren't obvious.

She usually does a blog update that explains the scoring if you want to go hunting for it.  The Arya lines were probably The North Remembers/ Winter came, and the one about making sure to kill all the wolves.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 17, 2017, 09:08:19 AM
I am crushing all you mothafuckas after episode 1 in Merusk's small league.

And only two of my peeps even shows up on screen apparently.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2017, 09:41:38 AM
Yah, anyone who had Arya took this week by far. I have her and Eurion in my public league. I'm at 130 points, 3x higher than the next closest person.

No action at all this week in the small league. Boo.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 17, 2017, 10:25:35 AM
Pity she didn't kill that red-headed Lannister soldier. I would've fucking stood up and clapped at that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on July 17, 2017, 10:30:47 AM
 :awesome_for_real:    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Sheeran)

Bummer about the -25 for Samwell!

Sooo, who's ready to put some money in for the big league?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 17, 2017, 10:37:19 AM
The fuck? Alys Karstark got me more points than anyone in the main league and I'm 2nd. That won't last.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on July 17, 2017, 10:40:55 AM
Btw, here's the recap with point allocation: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/17/15979110/game-of-thrones-season-7-episode-1-dragonstone-recap-fantasy-league


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 17, 2017, 11:49:55 AM
:awesome_for_real:    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Sheeran)


spoilers man, spoliers


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ceryse on July 17, 2017, 12:28:42 PM
Really enjoyed the episode, despite some parts veering heavily into yawn territory. That opening. Arya remains my favourite character; how can you hate such a cute sociopath gleefully ridding the show of such shit?

The Jon/Sansa stuff; god damn. Jon Snow actually had two moments of utter intelligence for once. I like the character, but.. 'smart' isn't generally something you can accuse him of being, yet here he made two smart calls. Surprised by the number of people online (such as in the points rewarded break-down article) shitting on Jon for his calls.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 17, 2017, 01:46:29 PM
Best first episode I can remember.

Proper level of urgency and wasn't just "hey remember this guy? He's still alive too".

Felt low scoring for anyone who didn't grab Arya though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2017, 02:06:51 PM
I like the character, but.. 'smart' isn't generally something you can accuse him of being, yet here he made two smart calls. Surprised by the number of people online (such as in the points rewarded break-down article) shitting on Jon for his calls.

I'm not. There's a lot of authoritarian tendencies in people, and Sana's route plays into those. Punish the betrayers, they are a unit not individuals. Granted, hers comes from a concern about seeing her lose the last bits of her family and being super paranoid. (The subtext of all she's learned from Cersi)

I was on board with her at first, until Jon made his argument about punishing sons for father's sins. Some people lack introspection or the ability to walk-back a first instinct.

The Hound's redemption arc is getting epic. It's going to suck when he dies, because he's almost to the point he has to.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 17, 2017, 02:27:38 PM
The Hound's redemption arc is getting epic. It's going to suck when he dies, because he's almost to the point he has to.

Very likely, but I expect it to be an expect death surrounded by hordes of zombies clinging to his body as he wields like a burning goddamn mace or some equally epic shit, or like swinging a dragon by its tail.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 17, 2017, 03:07:09 PM
Jon welcoming Alys Karstark back into the fold is a really interesting echo of Robb executing Rickard Karstark.  In both cases, not a popular decision (and made over the objections of a family member). 

I suspect Littlefinger is going to try to use it to sow dissension in the Northern ranks or something similarly ratfucky, and I hope what ends up happening instead is Alys saving Jon's life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 17, 2017, 03:10:25 PM
Jon Snow is going to die and get turned.

(or he'll get lightbringer off Beric's corpse, kill reanimated Beric and the night king)

there is no middle ground


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 17, 2017, 06:14:16 PM
Points detail  (https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/17/15979110/game-of-thrones-season-7-episode-1-dragonstone-recap-fantasy-league) at The Verge.

Viin already got there. Teach me for not checking to see if I am on the last page.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 17, 2017, 07:57:58 PM
Jon and Dany are the whole point of the series. It'll be a very brave choice to alter that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on July 17, 2017, 08:12:21 PM
Quote
“I’ll tell you what doesn’t scare me: Bald cocksuckers like you. You think you’re fooling anyone with that ‘top knot?’ Bald cunt.”

Dear God I've missed The Hound.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 18, 2017, 01:46:50 AM
An episode where Jon Snow scores 10 points for wit, but Littlefinger scores zero on anything.  We're through the looking glass people!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on July 18, 2017, 02:03:36 AM
Quote
“I’ll tell you what doesn’t scare me: Bald cocksuckers like you. You think you’re fooling anyone with that ‘top knot?’ Bald cunt.”

Dear God I've missed The Hound.

Yuuup.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 18, 2017, 05:30:17 AM
Jon welcoming Alys Karstark back into the fold is a really interesting echo of Robb executing Rickard Karstark.  In both cases, not a popular decision (and made over the objections of a family member).  

I suspect Littlefinger is going to try to use it to sow dissension in the Northern ranks or something similarly ratfucky, and I hope what ends up happening instead is Alys saving Jon's life.

Less interesting than you might think.

Book Alys explictly remained loyal to the Starks and ran off to the wall. A Karstark cousin who had effectively taken over the house wanted to marry her to legitimise his claim on the Karhold iirc.

Jon accepting her is just a reset to book status.

That said, TV Jon bothering to do this implies she has plot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pants on July 18, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
Jon welcoming Alys Karstark back into the fold is a really interesting echo of Robb executing Rickard Karstark.  In both cases, not a popular decision (and made over the objections of a family member). 

I suspect Littlefinger is going to try to use it to sow dissension in the Northern ranks or something similarly ratfucky, and I hope what ends up happening instead is Alys saving Jon's life.

Less interesting than you might think.

Book Alys explictly remained loyal to the Starks and ran off to the wall. A Karstark cousin who had effectively taken over the housewanted to marry her to legitimise his claim on the Karhold iirc.

Jon accepting her is just a reset to book status.

That said, TV Jon bothering to do this implies she has plot.


The actors for Alys Karstark and whatisname Umber have a combined age of about 20.  So I sat there thinking "What is Littlefinger going to do to them?"...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 18, 2017, 06:27:25 AM
Maybe, but who would you back in a Littlefinger vs Lady Mormont smackdown?

I actually found the growing number of child lords less annoying than I thought I would. It feels like a fairly natural impact of the wars and has been handled well by various directors.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on July 18, 2017, 08:00:46 AM
Maybe, but who would you back in a Littlefinger vs Lady Mormont smackdown?

I actually found the growing number of child lords less annoying than I thought I would. It feels like a fairly natural impact of the wars and has been handled well by various directors.



That and it helps that the actress playing lady mormont is doing a good job of giving a fierce gives no fucks spin on job. It is pretty accurate historically though too after major wars you wound up with some really young people "in charge" sometimes it was more defacto figure head sometimes they took the job and ran with it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 18, 2017, 08:03:22 AM
It's another place where the War of the Roses/100 Years War template is valuable, because there were points where that happened in those too--dynastic wars where members of the noble/royal line are actually getting killed rather than just captured and ransomed generally always drive dynastic houses towards one of four states: lots of children with regents; really obscure third-cousin-once-removed heirs; usurpations by lesser lineages; destruction of the fiefdom through absorption into a larger principality in part due to the lack of surviving heirs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 18, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
The stuff at Winterfell was the best, all in all good ep. I almost ran straight to CK2 afterward. If anything it felt rushed compared to past seasons, I mean in a good way I guess but it felt very "dive right in, we have lots of people to kill and not a lot of time to do it". 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 23, 2017, 07:15:22 PM
That was a pretty shitty episode.

Honestly, I was already annoyed with Euron magically building a huge deathfleet from stones and nothing, but



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 23, 2017, 07:32:36 PM
I disagree with pretty much everything you said.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 23, 2017, 07:41:13 PM
The time compression between things that happen in the series without any indication that time has passed is definitely one of my big annoyances. I just have to assume that any time there is some kind of inexplicable change in the resources available to someone that it is because months or years have passed.

And one thing we will learn in the fantasy league points tally is something I am sure we were all dying to know:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2017, 08:00:31 PM
 :grin:  :ye_gods:

Was expecting that ending later in the season. Whelp, ok then!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 23, 2017, 08:08:16 PM
I didn't really like the whole episode, but man that was just

"go get the iron throne"

*immediately fails and dies and 3 main characters are just you know gone now*

edit: I'm aware they didn't show an actual death but like, comeon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 23, 2017, 08:09:48 PM
They did show one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 23, 2017, 08:13:16 PM
Theon isn't a character. He's a cockless worm.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 23, 2017, 08:27:10 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on July 23, 2017, 10:02:38 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on July 23, 2017, 10:03:28 PM

Not a main character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 23, 2017, 10:04:01 PM
Yea that's my feeling, 2 of the sand snakes weren't even draftable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 23, 2017, 10:56:25 PM
Yea that's my feeling, 2 of the sand snakes weren't even draftable.

They all were.

Nymeria, Obara, Tyene, and Ellaria Sand were all draftable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 23, 2017, 11:05:28 PM
til I don't know the names of half of the characters on this show


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on July 24, 2017, 04:32:34 AM
Jon is starting to irritate me as he seems like a really bad leader; whether it's fighting or talking he seems to do whatever he feels like and has no thought to the ramifications beyond what he thinks is "right" (you'd think dying once due to it would be enough).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on July 24, 2017, 04:37:52 AM
Rough episode. Missandre though........Mmmmmmm


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2017, 04:53:36 AM
So about the ending:


ed: Shit used quote not spoiler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on July 24, 2017, 06:56:23 AM
Yeah, I mean, they played it up with his facial expressions and the way it zoomed in on the grisly things his opponents were doing, to make it look like he broke.  But it was honestly the only thing he could do to keep her alive.  They may still say it was because he was a coward, but that would be pretty shitty since it was the right move.

And Hypno-tits is still hypothetically alive, so I'm happy.   :awesome_for_real:

Though I think the line about the mountain crushing her with his fist was foretelling.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on July 24, 2017, 07:55:53 AM
That was a pretty shitty episode.

Honestly, I was already annoyed with Euron magically building a huge deathfleet from stones and nothing, but


Yeah that was pretty disappointing because Euron was a really interesting character in the books, a violently insane genius who may or may not know all kinds of ancient secrets & dark magic and who is immensely respected as a leader of men through his charisma and proven success. He is one of the top 5 most dangerous/capable characters still alive at this point. In the show so far has been portrayed to be mostly some kind pirate caricature who basically acts like a monkey with his intelligence limited to clever banter. Then also it's kind of weird why they decided to give Yara so much screentime and pump her up to be a significant character when she never did half as much in the books. A lot of effort to all to set up this dramatic moment and give Euron a huge victory (although one of their weaker battle scenes so far) in the central events of the story whereas in the book his build up is more in the periphery.  I'll give them a chance to roll with it as we're only 2 episodes deep and now he's made a splash with this big victory and killing off major lords, but if his character was going to go as deep in the show as was we were led to believe in the books he should be dominating Cersei by the end of the season since he is much smarter and more cunning than her (they've hinted at a big conflict with Jaimie already).

I guess this means in the books that


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on July 24, 2017, 08:03:06 AM
Yeah, I mean, they played it up with his facial expressions and the way it zoomed in on the grisly things his opponents were doing, to make it look like he broke.  But it was honestly the only thing he could do to keep her alive.  They may still say it was because he was a coward, but that would be pretty shitty since it was the right move.

And Hypno-tits is still hypothetically alive, so I'm happy.   :awesome_for_real:

Though I think the line about the mountain crushing her with his fist was foretelling.

Yeah, there wasn't much else he could have done except nope the fuck out of there.  Not a really great episode overall and we only have five more to go this season.  I hope things pick up a bit next episode and we see the Unsullied invade Casterly Rock.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 24, 2017, 09:50:54 AM
The Unsullied and Dothraki have been kind of Worfed at this point--it would be nice to just see Dany give them permission to kill the fuck out of everything within thirty miles of Casterly Rock and then have the dragons do a Harrenhall on it afterwards. Sure, that'll feed into Cersei's "oh noes foreigners" narrative, but at this point anything will.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on July 24, 2017, 09:55:03 AM
Ironbornbowl just doesn't roll off the tongue, but I enjoyed the episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 24, 2017, 10:16:18 AM
I was a little annoyed by the naval incompetence as well.  Tyrion needs to learn how to ride dragons already -- Dany can't be everywhere at once, but having a dragon escorting all her troop movements would eliminate fuckups like what we saw this episode.

We already know Tyrion can design saddles and befriend dragons, so even if you don't buy the theory that he's a Targaryen bastard, the writing is on the wall.   :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2017, 10:26:00 AM
We already know Tyrion can design saddles and befriend dragons, so even if you don't buy the theory that he's a Targaryen bastard, the writing is on the wall.   :drill:

Let's not forget his story about his, what, 10th birthday.

"It can only be a *little* dragon."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 24, 2017, 11:04:12 AM
Seriously, one dragon not only could fuck up all those ships, it's also a supremely good scout. Air power in a world with no other air power.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on July 24, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
Euron would have had something ready and the dragon would be dead/captured. Euron and Cersei seem to have some sort of ability that entails everyone opposed to them falling into their traps, so they can consistently win every time. I'm sure the Unsullied are going to be routed, because Cersei knew that was going to happen for REASONS. They've probably got some sort of anti-Dothraki device as well to go along with the eventual Tarly betrayal for REAAAAAASSSSOONNNNNS (Billy Bones is going to kill daddy or something).

I had high hopes after that first episode, but we're already going back to "evil will always triumph because good is dumb (or lacks the proper amount of ESP)".



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on July 24, 2017, 12:56:15 PM
After the dickless sex scene, I think Greyworm gets killed in the Rock and they burn that bitch down.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 24, 2017, 01:52:44 PM
Honestly I was fine with "Yara is good, Euron is better", together with "the storm was bad and everyone was in a hurry".

I also had no issue with Theon, who took the only option not guaranteed to lead to Yara's death and almost certainly his own. Frankly it is character growth over pre-Reek Theon. On reflection I can't think of another way to set up a reasonable redemption. I took the facial expression to mean he was remembering what happens when he pulls a Winterfell.

From some comments here I expecting a season 5 level mess.

Maybe my expectations were set extra low here, but everything with Dany, Arya, Jamie, and Jon was good. The battle was ok. And Sam left me wondering why Greyscale is so damn important.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 24, 2017, 02:02:40 PM
Jorah is going to turn out to be a good pickup for any time by the end of the season.

Samwell too, possibly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 24, 2017, 03:03:07 PM
Not to spoil the books too much but in the books, Euron had a goddamn magic horn that drove the Iron Islands batshit crazy but which was strongly hinted to be capable of hurting/incapacitating/controlling dragons. I took the overtly "ghost ship" entrance of Euron's vessel complete with lightning backdrop to hint that Euron quite possibly has some kind of magical aid which allowed him to sneak up on Yara.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 24, 2017, 03:08:13 PM
if they start including magical items that can like change the entire tide of the story, this show will go to total shit in .2 seconds.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 24, 2017, 03:36:19 PM
Not to burst anyone's bubble on the whole "Theon did the only thing he could possibly do to save his sister" or whatever ploy, I happened to not turn off the stream after the episode and heard the show creator dudes talk about how it was specifically a "Theon is not over the Reek stuff, this was showing him realizing he is still a broken coward and not some fearless warrior".



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 24, 2017, 03:44:57 PM
While that would be dumb and unsurprising it happily coincides with the competent course of action. So I am choosing to interpret it in a superior way to author intent.

I'm ok with Theon struggling with what to do next. But I'm only joining the "this is season 5 all over again" camp if he continues to do nothing interesting but take up screen time for the rest of the season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 24, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
if they start including magical items that can like change the entire tide of the story, this show will go to total shit in .2 seconds.

The strong implication is that the dragon horn burns your insides out if you blow it. Book Euron doesn't seem keen. It was being sold as a device for Dany to tame the dragons. Also it might be the horn that can destroy the wall.

Whatever happened here, I doubt it was that.

Also this entire sequence is written for TV - everyone involved should almost certainly be over a thousand miles away in different directions.

The horn could I suppose be the "priceless gift". But even in that case, not showing it this week then next week saying "hey remember that thing, it wasn't me being awesome, it was a magic trumpet" all seems unlikely.

AND if they were doing the horn, why not mention it at that pisspoor approximation of a kingsmoot last year.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 24, 2017, 04:40:15 PM
I have been sick and so caught up watching season 2. Don't know how it goes later on, but whenever they make big changes to the books there for real imagined reasons the quality of the writing and plotting is dire. I can only imagine as they go even further and further off Martin's writing they continued to struggle?

Chances of the last two season being pretty average would have to be quite high.

Also I need some fantasy points, damnit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on July 24, 2017, 05:12:01 PM
I did enjoy that episode, 'prepare for a foreign invasion'.

Wasn't as good as episode 1, needs more of the Hound.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 24, 2017, 07:14:03 PM
The foreign invasion line was so cringe-worthy that I thought maybe Euron was summoned by it.

I am ok with Theon being permanently damaged right up to the moment that he does something insane for redemption.

But fuck, if Sansa ends up Littlefinger's dumb pawn and getting raped or assaulted again, that will make me stabby. That gun on the mantlepiece they had better well fire at last--she needs to out Littlefinger him and have a secret plan that has her laughing in his face whenever he pulls what he thinks is a masterstroke.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 24, 2017, 07:30:13 PM
They have underplayed why Euron is dangerous and special since he arrived so the whole thing felt a bit out of left field. A reason for him to crush them like that was needed and instead we're back to everyone is just super dumb whenever they need to lose in GoT.

Snow/Sansa/Littlefinger seems like its generally going to be annoying, Sansa's ideas are mainly better than his and he has learned nothing at all from being betrayed for stubbornly doing the righteous thing and dying for it. I mean people literally pointed out that his dad and brother went south and died. The Stark girls have the right of it looking up to Cersei because the bitch gets things done.

Oh Jorah/Sam/Samdad is also zzzzzzz material. At least finally we've had multiple people pointing out when others are treacherous cunts but so far they all point it out then trust them anyways. Fuck me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 25, 2017, 12:07:26 AM
I have been sick and so caught up watching season 2. Don't know how it goes later on, but whenever they make big changes to the books there for real imagined reasons the quality of the writing and plotting is dire. I can only imagine as they go even further and further off Martin's writing they continued to struggle?

I think they do ok when they are choosing what to skip, but whenever they have to invent new stuff to paper over a gap, it is pretty bad.

I suspect part of why people disliked the sea battle so much is that it had people from Dorne in it. D&D have treated the Dornish about as well as Peter Jackson treated Faramir.

If the 'foreign invasion' Dornish  bit had been replaced with someone shouting about another fleet intercepting and everyone messing about with ropes for a few minutes I'm sure it would have been better. Honestly I don't think Missandei and Grey Worm needed their porn scene to be quite that long either. But Brian Cogman was responsible for the Sansa rape episode while Mark Mylod directed the majority of Jamie & Bronn's ridiculous Dornish vacation. By comparison this was fine.

And I really liked the Vays/Dany, Dany/Olenna, Arya/HotPie, and Arya/Nymeria bits.


On another tack entirely, interesting to me how many people seem to be arguing Sansa is talking sense. Personally I think she has been demonstrably wrong about everything she has said since killing Ramsey. But probably a good sign she can divide an audience. I assume she is going to finally deal with Littlefinger (giant in a castle of snow etc) but utterly dreading how badly written she will be, especially without Jon to humanise her. Jon and Sansa talking to each other in private has been a good device to allow both actors to talk like normal relaxed people. I don't really see Captain Phasma being able to take that role.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on July 25, 2017, 12:59:51 AM
The foreign invasion line was so cringe-worthy that I thought maybe Euron was summoned by it.

I enjoyed it, and found myself slightly aroused.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 25, 2017, 06:02:22 AM
Yeah, I don't find Yara's actress particularly attractive but I was there thinking, "Yes, please..."

Sansa is talking purely practical political sense in the old game. She's right by all the old rules of the world, which is why people feel she's making sense.

None of those rules apply anymore. Jon is the representative of the new rules; Humanity bands together or dies. This is something not a lot of people have wrapped their mind around yet. They still think it's not as big a threat as losing power or prestige.  That being in charge and in control of your destiny matters more than being alive at all.

Jon fully understands the real threat, more than anyone else except perhaps Melisandre & the red priests. Jon knows that dead is dead; King, Peasant, Wildling. He's not doing what he's doing out of some "greater noble code" like his Uncle and Cousins. Things he's doing are it because it's practical with that understanding and directed at the REAL threat. Nothing else matters. If Dany says "bend knee for the Dragonglas" he will without hesitation, because the Dragonglass is the important part, not who's fucking in charge.

That's the great part of the split. Most of the audience will assume Sansa is correct because they, too, are working under the old mindset without realizing it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on July 25, 2017, 06:10:07 AM
Jon is a living example of how dead isn't dead and seems to repeat the same mistake that led to his previous demise. As for Jon being practical the whole battle of the bastards showed that he is being led by emotions rather than anything else (and only the deus ex valemen saved him that time).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 25, 2017, 06:44:29 AM
I'm with Merusk; Jon cares about Team People vs Team White Walkers, while everyone else still cares about Team Stark vs Team Lannister etc. I'd like to see Sansa (with Littlefinger's meddling) declare herself Queen in the North after Jon swears fealty to Dany, only to get murdered by Jon/Dany or White Walkers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on July 25, 2017, 06:45:58 AM
I'd just like to see Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 25, 2017, 06:56:38 AM
Not to burst anyone's bubble on the whole "Theon did the only thing he could possibly do to save his sister" or whatever ploy, I happened to not turn off the stream after the episode and heard the show creator dudes talk about how it was specifically a "Theon is not over the Reek stuff, this was showing him realizing he is still a broken coward and not some fearless warrior".



Then they did a horrible job of showing it. If Theon went to fight Euron step one of that fight was opening Yara's throat ear to ear.  What else was he going to do? toss her aside like the standard woman hostage? SHE'S the dangerous one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on July 25, 2017, 07:14:05 AM
Jon is a living example of how dead isn't dead and seems to repeat the same mistake that led to his previous demise. As for Jon being practical the whole battle of the bastards showed that he is being led by emotions rather than anything else (and only the deus ex valemen saved him that time).

But Jon is correct that they REALLY need dragonglass more than anything else and also a squadron of dragons wouldn't hurt either. Otherwise they are dead dead dead. The king - and first hand witness to the undead hordes - going to personally entreat with Daenarys for the help would be most likely to positive results. Maybe he will even get laid, Dany could use the vitamin D too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 25, 2017, 07:30:41 AM
Targaryens did wed brother to sister for centuries.  And he's only her... nephew?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on July 25, 2017, 09:18:42 AM
Not to burst anyone's bubble on the whole "Theon did the only thing he could possibly do to save his sister" or whatever ploy, I happened to not turn off the stream after the episode and heard the show creator dudes talk about how it was specifically a "Theon is not over the Reek stuff, this was showing him realizing he is still a broken coward and not some fearless warrior".



Although even broken and a coward it was still unfortunately the right call. He could do nothing to save his sister his best hope is slink away and hope for some later vengeance.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 25, 2017, 01:00:49 PM
I will apparently be riding Euron Greyjoy to victory.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on July 25, 2017, 02:21:51 PM

Sansa is talking purely practical political sense in the old game. She's right by all the old rules of the world, which is why people feel she's making sense.

None of those rules apply anymore. Jon is the representative of the new rules; Humanity bands together or dies. This is something not a lot of people have wrapped their mind around yet. They still think it's not as big a threat as losing power or prestige.  That being in charge and in control of your destiny matters more than being alive at all.

Jon fully understands the real threat, more than anyone else except perhaps Melisandre & the red priests. Jon knows that dead is dead; King, Peasant, Wildling. He's not doing what he's doing out of some "greater noble code" like his Uncle and Cousins. Things he's doing are it because it's practical with that understanding and directed at the REAL threat. Nothing else matters. If Dany says "bend knee for the Dragonglas" he will without hesitation, because the Dragonglass is the important part, not who's fucking in charge.

That's the great part of the split. Most of the audience will assume Sansa is correct because they, too, are working under the old mindset without realizing it.

Yeah, I think the show is doing a great job of setting people up to go "There goes Jon being stubborn and too noble for his own good. Just like Ned and (arguably) Rob." I think they're setting Sansa up to look like she's going to betray him and she might even consider it. Sansa and the other Northern Lords don't really understand the threat yet. They still think Cersei is the true danger. They hear Jon but they don't really believe it deep down. Only the Wildlings and the Night's Watch believe him.

But when that first wave of Undead hits the wall and (presumably) breaks through they're going to shit themselves and be like "What do we do now Jon?" Sansa will, if she hasn't been killed for being a traitor, be going "Ok, um...so...uh...Starks gotta stick together right?"

I also don't think any of them believe him when he says he doesn't want to be King of the North. He really doesn't. He only cares about stopping the White Walkers before they kill everyone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 25, 2017, 02:38:16 PM
I will apparently be riding Euron Greyjoy to victory.  :why_so_serious:

You didn't even get enough points to pass me in this episode, son!

And Iain got most of his points from "memorable deaths" so I think his stay at the top will be short lived.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on July 25, 2017, 03:07:39 PM
For those interested...

 Kickstarter for GoT game by company that does solid games and amazing minis (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cmon/a-song-of-ice-and-fire-tabletop-miniatures-game?ref=user_menu)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on July 25, 2017, 05:53:35 PM
I will apparently be riding Euron Greyjoy to victory.  :why_so_serious:

You didn't even get enough points to pass me in this episode, son!

And Iain got most of his points from "memorable deaths" so I think his stay at the top will be short lived.
Yeah I get to replace chunks of my teams with free agents. Go Hot Pie! i took him for the big league because I'm pretty fucked in that one anyway and Yohn Royce in the other league (that I'm currently winning).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 27, 2017, 05:14:57 PM
re: is jon making good calls.

Its not that he should ignore the summons, its that he doesn't need to go personally. He could send a few black brothers who have seen the army of the dead with Sansa or with ol fingerpouch onion knight (forgot his name). Alternatively he could try to get word to Sam to go handle it, what with it being omega urgent and Sam being so close to Dragonstone.

Why shouldn't he go himself? Because shit is still very fragile in the north and him being there keeps everyone on track and things from falling apart. Leaving Littlefinger creeping around Winterfell after doing the dumbest shit you could possibly do to Littlefinger is a fucking bad plan. Full stop.

If he had someone manipulated Lfinger into being forced to go with him to Dragonstone and he was taking a few top northern lords' sons (whoever still has sons left alive) with him or doing some other kind of moves that seem like he's operating on anything other than Jon Snow does the right shit time I'd buy all this sudden faith in him not being a total numbnuts. But no he's a total numbnuts, the only smart anything he showed in that episode is "Tyrion isn't a total cunt" which is something he does know.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 28, 2017, 03:12:30 AM
Hi,

Jon can't be arsed coming down but I'm some random no name who hasn't met any of you before or seen the army of the dead. I'm going to convince you to abandon your goals and lend us your dragons. Oh, I also want you to turn the seat of your house into a mine because a friend of a friend told me it would help us fight some zombies that you are unaware of.

Where is Jon? Oh he's sitting in his castle doing politics less well than his sister and waiting for dragons and zombies.

Yes, I know about the very obvious war raging 50 miles outside your door.

Yes, I am also aware that if what I say is true then the North has a zero percent survival chance if you do not agree - yet I attempting this without any realistic autonomy to negotiate military command structures or post-conflict constitutional arrangements, which are clearly your overriding goals.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on July 28, 2017, 06:10:49 AM
It's going to take Jon months to do the trip so it's a pretty big deal to leave the north to Littlefinger's scheming.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on July 28, 2017, 06:17:39 AM
The whole map only takes 1 episode interstitial to cross! Jon will be there half-way through next episode, right before word of Iron Fleet 1.0's destruction gets there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 28, 2017, 06:19:47 AM
Yeah, despite the arrival of winter, Westeros in the show is about as difficult to cross as a large shopping mall would be. Except for the Walkers, who seem to be getting lost or are waiting for the plot appropriate point for the Wall to fall.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on July 28, 2017, 07:00:49 AM
Yeah, if I followed the discussion in the last episode correctly:

- Army of the Dead was at one end of the was at one of the Castles at the wall at the same time Jon was there.
- Jon left that battle, returned to Castle Black, then went to Winterfell, and is now sending Wildling Man back to the Wall to defend the next castle over?

Most maps drawn show the distance from Castle Black to Winterfell to be at least twice the length of the Wall.

I won't even get in to how long it must have taken both Iron Fleets to sail around the entire continent.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on July 28, 2017, 11:29:49 AM
- Army of the Dead was at one end of the was at one of the Castles at the wall at the same time Jon was there.\

No, the army of the dead was at Hardhome which is a wildling settlement a ways north of the wall. He was extrapolating that they would hit the closest Nightswatch castle to that which is why he sent Tormund there.

Your point still stands though. Hardhome to the wall is 1/3 of the distance from Castle Black to Winterfell. Those zombies walk slow I guess.

Also, traveling at the speed of plot and all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 28, 2017, 11:43:44 AM
Remember in the first season how it took someone like two episodes to get from Winterfell to King's Landing?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2017, 11:48:00 AM
Ain't nobody got time for that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 28, 2017, 12:04:53 PM
Remember in the first season how it took someone like two episodes to get from Winterfell to King's Landing?

Baratheon's wagon train took 3 months to make the trip. Now, that's an informal court with hundreds of not thousands of soldiers, retainers, horses, servants, tents, etc that travels maybe 4-5 hours a day.

Everything I've researched says that Winterfell to King's Landing is approx. 1k miles (500 leagues)  Well-trained and ridden-hard horses can travel 40-50 miles in a day. So the MINIMUM that trip should ever take is 20 days.

So. Yeah. Teleportation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 28, 2017, 12:32:37 PM
And for comparison, castle black is 600 miles north of winterfell. Given that the wall is 300 miles across, eastwatch is roughly 750-800 miles. Hardhome is a few hundred more, and Night King has been walking for 13 episodes.

In those 13 episodes Sam has travelled the length of Westeros - roughly 3000 miles. But Tyrion has covered 5000 returning from Mereen. Dany's Vaes Dothrak diversion and the trip home is maybe 8000? Jorah Mormont has probably clocked up about 12000 (mereen - volantis - mereen - vaes dothrak - oldtown)

But I think the winner is Theon Greyjoy. Since escaping at around the time of hardhome, he's travelled to the iron islands (1500 miles) then by sea to Meereen (6000 miles) back to Dragonstone (another 5000) then south as far as the battle with Euron. That's 14000 miles in the time its taken the Night King to not reach Eastwatch.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 28, 2017, 12:33:59 PM
Of course, Gendry probably has them all beat in that damn rowing boat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 28, 2017, 12:44:44 PM
Alternatively he could try to get word to Sam to go handle it, what with it being omega urgent and Sam being so close to Dragonstone.

While we're discussing distance, Sam is roughly 2000 miles from Dragonstone. In fact, while his father and brother are in Kings Landing, he is over 1500 miles from any named character except Jorah and Gilly.

So about half a day's ride.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on July 28, 2017, 12:50:51 PM
Their secret?

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--wMKfhJvb--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_450,q_80,w_800/zxcypaptrrk2pucyxyky.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 28, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
But winter is coming.  Where'd they get the coconuts?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on July 28, 2017, 03:31:28 PM
Dorne, duh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on July 29, 2017, 04:07:55 PM
Carried by an Essosi or Westerosi swallow?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 30, 2017, 02:31:41 PM
More distance facts...


The internet tells me 16th century ships could consistently cover 50 miles per day, but crazy fast ships with good wind could reach 100 miles.

So our lower bound for time since hardhome is 140 days, based on Theon's remarkable achievements.

Eastwatch is 120 miles from Hardhome according to the internet, so the Night King is making progress at a rate of less than one mile per day.

Winter is coming, but it would appear that Kings Landing and Dragonstone are safe for at least another 3 years.

Logically, Dany's best course would be to ignore Jon, conquer the 6 kingdoms south of the Neck and give everyone a couple of years to chill out while the peasants mine dragonglass. She can summon the whole gang to a reunion gig at a natural choke point somewhere somewhere around Moat Callin and finish off the white walkers to celebrate her first 1000 days.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 30, 2017, 05:41:18 PM
It honestly would be awesome if that's what Tyrion said and everyone overrode him. Dude has lived through at least two winters, it should be old hat for people in Westeros.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 30, 2017, 07:14:13 PM
So are they going to re-score last week's episode?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 30, 2017, 07:18:56 PM
Fucking a, finally someone mentioned that stockpiling food for three or four years of winter might be a meaningful strategic concern that civil war kind of interfered with.

They are determined to fully Worf poor Tyrion, though. Now Dany is gonna just send the dragons to burn Lannister armies and get at least one of them killed. Cersei has acquired fearsome new plot armor because they've decided she is the ultimate bad guy.

Euron's lightspeed equipped ships are pretty amazing too though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 30, 2017, 07:39:15 PM
Euron is the one with plot armor. I could tell the minute I read his character in the books that he was going to have an impact entirely overshadowing what he should because he's exactly the kind of Mary Sue villain character that writer's fall in love with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 30, 2017, 07:46:25 PM
It is a problem with falling action in general, but especially when you're obligated to pretend that anything at all could happen, which is what Martin set in motion.

Let's just suppose that they've actually decided that no, no one gets the girl or boy, there are no happy endings, the Iron Throne will be irrelevant, everyone or almost in Westeros will die. That's cool--I'm totally down with that. But then you really really want at this point in the story--as it nears its end--for that to be thematically evident everywhere. For people to be starving, for zombies to be storming defenseless castles in the north, for fancy lords and ladies to be wearing jeans and t-shirts because there's no fancy shit left, etc.--you want everything to be grinding down because it's too late and everyone's missed the chance to turn it around. That is not a message you want to cram into the last two episodes next year.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on July 30, 2017, 08:23:37 PM
i'm just gonna say it

this season kinda sucks


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on July 30, 2017, 11:04:49 PM
i'm just gonna say it

this season kinda sucks

It's like Lannister wish fulfillment. At the end of the season we're going to find out Rosanne didn't actually win the lottery and Dan died of his heart attack.

Like do Danny's allies just not like scouts or something? I mean, it must be hard to keep up with the teleporting armies and ships, but hell.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on July 30, 2017, 11:44:46 PM
Ok... let's see here: Casterly Rock is on the West Coast and Dragonstone is on the East. So they sent Greyworm's army and Yara's ship off at the same time. Both would have had to go south. Euron sails out from somewhere and hits just Yara's ship, which for some reason wasn't sailing with all the other ships that had left at the same time in the same direction.

So Euron sails back to King's Landing, parades the prisoners around, gets back on his boat, and sails his whole fleet back around to the other side of the continent to arrive a few hours after Greyworm. I'd like to believe that Martin would have at least tried to make all the sea travel be physically possible in the books.

Just to add, I just looked at the map again. Dragonstone sits dead center in the narrowest part of the exit to Blackwater Bay. Any fleet sailing out of King's Landing had to sail right past it. In this case, twice...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 31, 2017, 03:54:29 AM
I doubt he put the fleet at Kings Landing.  It's not off the charts as a season goes but I enjoyed a healthy does of Tyrion being Tyrion this episode (his observations about Snow brooding were hilarious), we got Danymeeting Snow for the first time! Cersei being Cersei, and Ollena using the c word. 'twas a good time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on July 31, 2017, 05:06:36 AM
Much as I hate the damn Euron teleportation ships the "Olenna gets her last stab at the Lannisters" was great.  As was the Melisandre/ Varys conversation, and the timing of Rhegar buzzing Jon while they were talking about his father.

The whole conversation with Jon and Dany went about as well as could be expected and predicted. I enjoyed the scene but it really was just more window dressing rather than plot advancement.

At this point if we don't find out Euron has some sort of actual sea magic I'm going to get pissed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on July 31, 2017, 05:08:35 AM
Arya must be taking the scenic route since everyone else managed to travel huge distances in the meantime.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 31, 2017, 05:32:51 AM
Almost forgot, Euron Greyjoy with the best line of the damn night.  :drill: Nikolaj really had to master his pained expressions in that episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 31, 2017, 05:40:49 AM
Almost forgot, Euron Greyjoy with the best line of the damn night.  :drill: Nikolaj really had to master his pained expressions in that episode.

"This is Jon Snow....he's king in the north"

That was my favorite line.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on July 31, 2017, 08:42:06 AM
It's exactly what I expected.  GRRM couldn't get off his fat lazy ass to create new source material the past few years so the show dragged out what they had.  Now at the end the show has to crazily careen around hitting all the the plot points they can.  Expect this to be the norm.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 31, 2017, 09:00:13 AM
I have zero problems with all the magically teleporting ships and armies. I just put it down to "It's television, you have to move the plot somehow." Otherwise we're going to get a lot of scenes of people fucking for no reason, eating lots of various shit while talking about fuckall, and entire seasons worth of braid-tugging. Martin took a long time to tell his story and with only 13 episodes left, there's got to be some speed up just to get the damn thing done. I'm not going to hammer a show with dragons, ice zombies and people coming back from the dead too hard on its ability to move pieces around on a chess board at speeds that would be impossible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 31, 2017, 09:06:55 AM
Agreed. It's never taken me out of the show once where I've sat there thinking 'oh wait how the fuck did they get there so fast?'.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on July 31, 2017, 09:17:30 AM
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20294386_10154970474338137_5417243149917784690_n.jpg?oh=db7566ea5841171101821321423ebf9a&oe=5A38CEEB)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on July 31, 2017, 11:52:47 AM
Wooo I'm number 1!   :drill:  Time to trade off the one who died, though.   :heartbreak:  I took Alys in the hopes she does something cool later.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 31, 2017, 12:34:58 PM
Agreed. It's never taken me out of the show once where I've sat there thinking 'oh wait how the fuck did they get there so fast?'.


Are you a book reader?

If I wasn't, I think I'd have a general sense that travel time used to be a thing but now isn't but it wouldn't jar the way it does when people do impossible things. I'd also be assuming westeros was no larger than Wales.

On tv the locations and the map have never really been fleshed out or made real.

The books often explicitly use geography to limit options and give people specific problems to solve. Distances get mentioned often and the westerosi wars in particular feel like they being won on logistics. Dany's challenges moving the unsullied and dothraki get discussed. A lot. Fleets being in the wrong place become a material plot point.

Travel plots in the book have much more weight because they respect the map and explain goals a bit better. Wheras on tv they never really give you a sense that progress is being made, how far anyone has travelled,  or how far they have to go. Arya and the Hound was one of the best travel plots on the show - but it never really felt like they were going anywhere - it was just character scenes reminding you they  were in and around some hills.

Season 1 and 2 were a bit better (hi there, "episodes which paid attention to the source material"). Robb's march, Jamie and Brienne's journey, and Tyrion's mystery tour all felt like they had geography.

I guess its ok that geography is no longer a thing. Just makes it a simpler world. But it also means there is less to write around. Given that the bits the tv writers have had to create have generally been shit - you'd think they'd want more to work with.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 31, 2017, 12:49:14 PM
It does jar me out of the plot when material constraints are said by the characters themselves to be important in what they're deciding to do, when they shape or ought to shape the dramatic situation.

So for example:

1) Cersei hates the Starks and Sansa Stark in particular. She even sent them a note. So why hasn't she just sent troops to sack Winterfell and kill everyone?

A: Because we're told she doesn't have very many troops, she doesn't have enough food, she is short on funds, and Winterfell is a long ways away. So wait, distance and constraints do matter?

2) The Tyrells have an army and have agreed to beseige King's Landing--that was a plot point in Episode 2. So where was that army when Jaime Lannister and Randyll Tarly marched their army on Highgarden, thus solving the no-food and no-funds problem?

A: Oh, who cares, because who doesn't want to see Oleanna Tyrell deliver some great lines and exit the stage? Maybe Jaime just marched way way around the Tyrell army, or met them on the road from Casterly Rock?

3) But wait, how come Euron and Jaime know where all of Danerys' ships and troops are and they don't know where any of the Lannisters or Tarlys or anybody else is?

A: Um, Varys doesn't have any more spies? Or nobody in Dany's forces knows about scouts and intelligence and spies and stuff? (that's almost believable, if you think about how she's operated until now).



The part I don't mind is ok, when Jon Snow decides to go to Dragonstone, he can get there in a hurry, or Oleanna can get back to Highgarden in ten minutes, and all that. That's fine. But the troop stuff matters because it's important to the plot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on July 31, 2017, 01:31:35 PM
I think the Tyrell army was traveling with the Dornish army to siege King's Landing, or was traveling to King's Landing to siege it by land. It definitely wasn't meant to be protecting Highgarden because everyone on Dany's side seemed to believe Cersei didn't have enough troops to do anything but protect King's Landing. They also assumed she'd try to hold Casterly Rock instead of abandoning the place to whoever wanted to take it. Cersei was banking on them not using the Dothraki and Unsullied to take King's Landing because of the political aspect of it.

I'm not saying that Cersei suddenly being the greatest strategic thinker left in the game is entirely believable, mind you, just that's how the showrunners are writing it. Euron being fucking everywhere though... yeah I got nothing except magic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 31, 2017, 01:47:44 PM
My only real issue with that episode is that the rock/highgarden section felt like a trailer and once again made me wonder my they are racing to the finish. 

That and fleet teleportation.

I haven't checked but I'm expecting sansa and cersei to have turned in some decent points.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on July 31, 2017, 01:56:15 PM
They have 10 episodes left. They ARE racing to the finish. Glad I'm not a book reader in this regards.

There's a number of reasons you can explain most of this shit. Maybe Euron wasn't with the fleet at Casterly Rock. Again, I'm enjoying the show and not playing map nerd.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 31, 2017, 01:58:47 PM
I think the Tyrell army was traveling with the Dornish army to siege King's Landing, or was traveling to King's Landing to siege it by land. It definitely wasn't meant to be protecting Highgarden because everyone on Dany's side seemed to believe Cersei didn't have enough troops to do anything but protect King's Landing.

Also the loyalist army was led by the Tarlys, so I would assume some portion of the Reach was with them. But apparently the whole conflict only warrants a 20 second montage so whatevs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 31, 2017, 02:07:48 PM
They have 10 episodes left. They ARE racing to the finish. Glad I'm not a book reader in this regards.

There's a number of reasons you can explain most of this shit. Maybe Euron wasn't with the fleet at Casterly Rock. Again, I'm enjoying the show and not playing map nerd.

Well yes, but the showrunners made the choice to do it in 10 episodes. That is the decision I find bizarre. 10 episodes is how long it took to start the first war - and then they needed 25 ish episodes to finish it. 

Its not like HBO are demanding this shit get wrapped up and off their precious air.

I can't buy "Euron wasn't at the rock" btw. No way he lets that awesome flagship sail without him, the one where they put sails on their sales and extra rams on their rams. I don't like it, but at least we now have a ruleset - ships can travel anywhere in 1 turn, deal with it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 31, 2017, 02:16:12 PM
They aren't doing enough of a job explaining the military situation not that I disliked the episode but like the entire season it could be much better.

Let's just run down the 7 kingdoms real fast maybe I've forgotten stuff:

North, decimated by the war with the young wolf and the bolton shit. United for now, training everybody for the night king and sitting in their holdfasts preparing for winter/dead.

Iron Islands, split by the kings moot yet somehow turned out two large fleets. One of which is now destroyed with "a few escaping and some captured" per the show. Except is the explanation of Euron's complete victory that he set upon only part of the Yara loyalist fleet while the rest was transporting the unsullied? Doesn't matter now because he fixed that by accomplishing complete naval control in ep3.

Riverlands, a non-factor now. Tully and Fray have both been crushed. The riverlands hosted a lot of the raiding and fighting in the early going and were never a super strong region to begin with. They can be basically written off for the rest of the story. Some lords might be for Stark or for the Crown by default but it shouldn't be enough to swing any major engagement.

Vale, the knights of the Vale are somewhere? Who knows. They don't seem to be hosted at Winterfell but they might be? At this point they should be considered a pretty major power that could definitely change the course of any war just in comparison to everyone else.

West, the Lannister Army has been active. They've fought a lot but mostly done a lot of winning. Some garrison was just sacrificed at The Rock but they are definitely a major military power still. Some of them are attempting to maintain the crown's authority in the Riverlands perhaps? Most are with Jaime or protecting King's Landing.

Reach, welp Highgarden just got sacked. Who was there is mega unclear. How much defection was there with Tarly? How many knights of the reach were in Dorne awaiting pickup? Presumably the death of all the Tyrells (the crippled brother doesn't seem to exist in the show?) creates a major power vacuum and means no matter what anyone who might be inclined to be anti-Lannister/Tarly is also worrying about their own position in the new post-Tyrell order. So let's count them out as well.

Stormlands, I'm going to just say that Stannis' long march and defeat was the end of the Storm Lords as a military power of note.

Dorne, this is one of the toughest calls. Since the killing of their king and prince was such an afterthought we don't even know anything about the political situation in Dorne. Let's assume though that basically everyone rallied to the Sand Snakes and then to the idea of supporting Dany. The armies of Dorne are completely intact but who is leading them and what level of loyalty can be expected is completely unknown. With the Snakes decapitated and the Martells wiped out its possible that Dorne, like the Reach is going to be left too concerned with who will fill that power vacuum to be expected to contest foreign wars.

So its conceivable in 3 episodes the show has gotten us to where the remnants of the north plus the wildlings, Dany's dothraki/unsullied/dragons and the Lannister army plus Tarly and other lords of the Reach siding with him are the only three viable major military powers left besides Littlefinger and the Vale who can play king maker for the 20th time.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on July 31, 2017, 02:49:00 PM
More importantly Theon is now the only named Westerosi character who exists on TV, is still alive, uncaptured, and opposes Cersei in Westeros beyond the North, the Vale, and Dragonstone. I assume that next episode will be written as organised opposition to Cersei being over.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on July 31, 2017, 03:54:40 PM

Vale, the knights of the Vale are somewhere? Who knows. They don't seem to be hosted at Winterfell but they might be? At this point they should be considered a pretty major power that could definitely change the course of any war just in comparison to everyone else.


The Vale is with Jon, or Little finger i guess? Bronze Yohn Royce has been featured prominently in all Winterfell scenes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on July 31, 2017, 06:24:25 PM
They have 10 episodes left. They ARE racing to the finish. Glad I'm not a book reader in this regards.

There's a number of reasons you can explain most of this shit. Maybe Euron wasn't with the fleet at Casterly Rock. Again, I'm enjoying the show and not playing map nerd.

Well yes, but the showrunners made the choice to do it in 10 episodes. That is the decision I find bizarre. 10 episodes is how long it took to start the first war - and then they needed 25 ish episodes to finish it. 

Its not like HBO are demanding this shit get wrapped up and off their precious air.

I can't buy "Euron wasn't at the rock" btw. No way he lets that awesome flagship sail without him, the one where they put sails on their sales and extra rams on their rams. I don't like it, but at least we now have a ruleset - ships can travel anywhere in 1 turn, deal with it.

They're down to a handful of interesting characters left alive. Doing more long travel times and having a bunch of armies moving around the board while the white walkers slowly inch closer would just be a long rehash of seasons 2-6. I can't really fault them for wanting to take Emma Peel and the sand snakes off the board quickly and start moving things along to a climax. It's a little sloppy but I think It's for the best.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on July 31, 2017, 06:59:30 PM
When does Jon learn about his real dad?

Brann is set up to do so.

Does Jon walk up and touch a dragon soon and the dragon doesn't do anything but purr like a kitten and everyone good OH EM GEe??


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on July 31, 2017, 07:05:57 PM
I assume everyone's going to need some kind of proof besides a dude on a sled saying, "You are a Targaryen".

Options:

1) Doesn't burn.
2) Dragons love him.
3) Howland Reed shows up. (But seriously, how could anyone give a fuck about that? No one in the present show knows who he is, as far as we know)
4) Varys or someone other person known to the major characters confirms it.
5) Bran has some kind of magic shit that lets everyone see what he's seen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on July 31, 2017, 07:46:33 PM
Honestly, I am watching the show for fantasy league points and to just get the shit over with.

The story in the TV show that is past the books is, if anything, even more ham-handed than Martin's writing in the last 2-3 books. The few parts that were well written in the books have been either discarded or closed out in a quick and uninspiring fashion.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on July 31, 2017, 07:53:49 PM
Bronze Yohn Royce has been featured prominently in all Winterfell scenes.

Ah I'd def lost track of that, thank you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on July 31, 2017, 08:07:53 PM
I assume everyone's going to need some kind of proof besides a dude on a sled saying, "You are a Targaryen".

Options:

1) Doesn't burn.
2) Dragons love him.
3) Howland Reed shows up. (But seriously, how could anyone give a fuck about that? No one in the present show knows who he is, as far as we know)
4) Varys or someone other person known to the major characters confirms it.
5) Bran has some kind of magic shit that lets everyone see what he's seen.


How at least one person with half a clue hasn't worked out that Jon is who is pretty silly at this point. The whole thing has been silly from halfway through book 2. Eh. I don't even know why I'm posting here, I don't watch the TV show and just want some Fantasy points...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 01, 2017, 03:51:04 AM
Imigur comedy summary. 

https://m.imgur.com/a/CrxVK

The smashmouth reference got me for some reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on August 01, 2017, 06:45:13 AM


How at least one person with half a clue hasn't worked out that Jon is who is pretty silly at this point. The whole thing has been silly from halfway through book 2. Eh. I don't even know why I'm posting here, I don't watch the TV show and just want some Fantasy points...

You forget (or don't watch to know) that most people south of Winterfell have the opinion of "Jon Snow, who the fuck is that?" He's a bastard son that was sent to the Wall. No one in the south gives a shit who the current High Commander of the Nights Watch is. You think any of them know who Ed is?

Dany didn't even know who the hell Jon was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 01, 2017, 07:08:15 AM
Yeah, you'd have to be thinking about Jon to realize who he was and until recently he just Ned's bastard and there was zero reason not to take Ned at his word.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 01, 2017, 07:37:04 AM
Imigur comedy summary. 

https://m.imgur.com/a/CrxVK

The smashmouth reference got me for some reason.

Did this guy do these for every episode?

The Drake joke was positively stellar. Top marks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 01, 2017, 07:57:15 AM
Imigur comedy summary. 

https://m.imgur.com/a/CrxVK

The smashmouth reference got me for some reason.

Im dying. Thats gold.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 01, 2017, 08:06:09 AM
http://chrysreviews.com/index.php/game-of-thrones/

He's done a decent number, but not all of the episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 01, 2017, 08:31:47 AM
Yeah, I saw it on Reddit this morning and shared, I hadn't gone looking for others yet. Thanks for finding them, because he's stellar.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 01, 2017, 10:41:27 AM
He does  Westworld as well (http://chrysreviews.com/)  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 01, 2017, 10:58:10 AM

Yeah, you'd have to be thinking about Jon to realize who he was and until recently he just Ned's bastard and there was zero reason not to take Ned at his word.

Also I'm not aware of any practical in universe evidence in the current period.

It is all either symbolic allusions to history, dreams, visions, or prophecy.

As to why nobody worked out the knight of the laughing tree and Rhaegar's dalliance at the time, that is tougher.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on August 01, 2017, 05:25:37 PM
There are enough people who were alive when R and L were obviously connected to know that them having a kid was a possibility.

People know of their history. People know that R kidnapped her. People know Ned went to find her.

And in the books particularly Jon's parentage was often depicted as a topic of noble gossip, fuelled by Neds silence on the topic.

Put the two together and you only reason no one might have even considered it is because all the old people are dead. Which they're not.

No of course no one has proof, but that's a different thing alltogether.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 01, 2017, 05:48:40 PM
Correctly guessing that Jon's a Targaryen requires you to first discard the premise that he's Ned's son.  Which is a pretty huge leap (because nobody lies about having a bastard unless it's to deny having one), even if a bunch of clever nerds were able to figure it out.  Most people are dumb and most people in Westeros wouldn't have all the information that people reading the books have.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 01, 2017, 05:55:47 PM
Yup.

Let's not forget we live in a world where answers are easily summoned but people still believe stupid shit like nobody lived past 40 in the middle-ages, and jumping up and down after sex can prevent pregnancy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on August 01, 2017, 06:00:56 PM
Correctly guessing that Jon's a Targaryen requires you to first discard the premise that he's Ned's son.  Which is a pretty huge leap (because nobody lies about having a bastard unless it's to deny having one), even if a bunch of clever nerds were able to figure it out.  Most people are dumb and most people in Westeros wouldn't have all the information that people reading the books have.

I really don't think it is. The would have had more information than readers as they would have been alive during the period that R was obsessed with L, and had countless other incidents and court gossip to go off.

That no one would have at the very least speculated about it at some point is based solely on the contention that Ned would never lie and no one would ever pretend to have a bastard son.

Counter to that is that everyone knows Robert would kill any Targaryen kid, that many of the characters are meant to be very clever, have many spies and informants, and spend most of their waking lives wondering about lineages, marriages, unions etc. Anything R ever did with anyone would have been the obsession of half the noble realm.

There is no realistic way that at least a few people didn't put these things together. Readers of the book we're proposing R+L=J long before Martin started spelling it out with his unsubtle dreams and prophecies.

Maybe they've been quiet as Jon has been kept away and hidden and they saw no value or ability to prove the notion, but the idea that Bran is the only one who has any suggestion about it is absurd.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on August 01, 2017, 06:30:52 PM
I mean, literally the reason Ned sends him to the wall is because he doesn't believe he is safe without him there to protect him, and is in no fucking way taking him south where people can go, "oh, who is he again.. oh.. ohhhh".

The entire premise of his thinking is that Jon is not safe anywhere people have cause to think about who he might be, or what they might claim him to be and use him for. Ned didn't think everyone else was so stupid he could fool them on 'oh yeah I got a bastard' alone, and I don't see why we should either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 01, 2017, 07:02:35 PM
Look, if you're going to argue "back when this was" and forget this a fantasy series, e.g., that you're focused on the Hundred Years' War template set in Western Europe for Westeros and ignoring the different dynastic systems elsewhere in *both* the real world AND in the world of Game of Thrones, then:

a) Fake heirs were an extremely common thing in late medieval and early modern Europe. As were frantic debates about whether someone was a fake heir or not. (Fans of Crusader Kings 2 are familiar in a pretty real way with exactly how this goes).
b) There were people whose heritage was contested their whole damn lives because it was alleged that their parents were not their parents, or vice-versa, that they had a parent they weren't acknowledging.
c) There were actually some cases of dynastic heirs where their heritage was kept secret to protect them for part of their lives, or who were at least sent to fosterage very far away from home and not much discussed until the time came to summon them home.
d) There were cases of exceptionally unlikely successions because everybody with a close claim to a territory died, naturally or in war or under somewhat suspicious circumstances. Not just a movie plot!
e) There were possible heirs who were in fact held prisoner or hidden and likely murdered. The various later popular stories are not entirely made up or wildly out of line with reality.
f) But, and relevant to this, there were people who were fairly obscure that no one really cared about who were sent into holy orders, etc., who in fact eventually got recalled to their families and where there was some suspicion about whether they were who they were said to be.

Most of the templates for stories about dynastic systems that we commonly tell have some basis in reality.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on August 01, 2017, 08:22:28 PM
Look, if you're going to argue "back when this was" and forget this a fantasy series, e.g., that you're focused on the Hundred Years' War template set in Western Europe for Westeros and ignoring the different dynastic systems elsewhere in *both* the real world AND in the world of Game of Thrones, then:

a) Fake heirs were an extremely common thing in late medieval and early modern Europe. As were frantic debates about whether someone was a fake heir or not. (Fans of Crusader Kings 2 are familiar in a pretty real way with exactly how this goes).
b) There were people whose heritage was contested their whole damn lives because it was alleged that their parents were not their parents, or vice-versa, that they had a parent they weren't acknowledging.
c) There were actually some cases of dynastic heirs where their heritage was kept secret to protect them for part of their lives, or who were at least sent to fosterage very far away from home and not much discussed until the time came to summon them home.
d) There were cases of exceptionally unlikely successions because everybody with a close claim to a territory died, naturally or in war or under somewhat suspicious circumstances. Not just a movie plot!
e) There were possible heirs who were in fact held prisoner or hidden and likely murdered. The various later popular stories are not entirely made up or wildly out of line with reality.
f) But, and relevant to this, there were people who were fairly obscure that no one really cared about who were sent into holy orders, etc., who in fact eventually got recalled to their families and where there was some suspicion about whether they were who they were said to be.

Most of the templates for stories about dynastic systems that we commonly tell have some basis in reality.

Absolutely, and by this basis I would suggest that there would be some people in the realm that, knowing of Jon Snow, would have theories or ideas about him that they would either believe or could use to their advantage if others believed, and that him being the son of R & L would be one of those things, and in fact pretty high up the list.

I'm not saying there should be some cabal of people that know Jon is who he is, but that his parentage should be much more contested and wrangled over instead of everyone just accepting that he is Ned's bastard son. Jon is certainly not category F, and has not been but perhaps for a small window in his life after first joining the Night's Watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 02, 2017, 01:05:32 AM
It does jar me out of the plot when material constraints are said by the characters themselves to be important in what they're deciding to do, when they shape or ought to shape the dramatic situation.

So for example:

1) Cersei hates the Starks and Sansa Stark in particular. She even sent them a note. So why hasn't she just sent troops to sack Winterfell and kill everyone?

A: Because we're told she doesn't have very many troops, she doesn't have enough food, she is short on funds, and Winterfell is a long ways away. So wait, distance and constraints do matter?

2) The Tyrells have an army and have agreed to beseige King's Landing--that was a plot point in Episode 2. So where was that army when Jaime Lannister and Randyll Tarly marched their army on Highgarden, thus solving the no-food and no-funds problem?

A: Oh, who cares, because who doesn't want to see Oleanna Tyrell deliver some great lines and exit the stage? Maybe Jaime just marched way way around the Tyrell army, or met them on the road from Casterly Rock?

3) But wait, how come Euron and Jaime know where all of Danerys' ships and troops are and they don't know where any of the Lannisters or Tarlys or anybody else is?

A: Um, Varys doesn't have any more spies? Or nobody in Dany's forces knows about scouts and intelligence and spies and stuff? (that's almost believable, if you think about how she's operated until now).



The part I don't mind is ok, when Jon Snow decides to go to Dragonstone, he can get there in a hurry, or Oleanna can get back to Highgarden in ten minutes, and all that. That's fine. But the troop stuff matters because it's important to the plot.


Cracks knuckles

A lot of these constraints are explain in the book, which makes it odd when the show parrots it despite internally people just teleport.

For example.

1. Cersei can't march a lannister army up north because cost wise they'll never get past the Neck.
2. The Tyrell doesn't have a huge army. The Reach has a huge army. The Tyrells don't have 100,000+ soldiers camping outside highgarden (even though they should being in open rebellion and all).
3. Dragonstone and Kinglanding and Dorne are not that far from each other. In fact Euron capture of the dornish bitches makes sense because, assuming Euron fleet is at blackwater, intercepting a convoy that passes king landings on the way to dorne is easy. Predicting that tyrion lannister would capture castle rock is also not particularly hard especially when the other side is Jaime (who knows how his brother thinks). Euron fleet being right behind unsullied is a big stretch, but not particularly impossible, Euron could have sent his fleet toward castle rock, trailing after Dany''s fleet with a little insight from Jaime Lannistar. However the sense of time is extremely disjointed in this show as a trip to castle rock should take several days not a few hours.  also when would jaime have time to send Euron marching orders despite "just now" winning some confidence is also questionable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 02, 2017, 01:32:25 AM
I mean, literally the reason Ned sends him to the wall is because he doesn't believe he is safe without him there to protect him, and is in no fucking way taking him south where people can go, "oh, who is he again.. oh.. ohhhh".

The entire premise of his thinking is that Jon is not safe anywhere people have cause to think about who he might be, or what they might claim him to be and use him for. Ned didn't think everyone else was so stupid he could fool them on 'oh yeah I got a bastard' alone, and I don't see why we should either.

Ned didn't send him to the wall.

Jon decides he wants to go to the wall, Ben says "hmmm, talk to your dad" and Ned doesn't seem over the moon but Cat and Luwin convince him. He hints at another plan but doesn't explain it ("I was hoping...." then gets cut off - though it might have been "I was hoping you (cat) would have accepted him by now")

Agree it is weird that nobody figured it out at the time - and even weirder that at least Ned didn't consider the possibility before his brother and father stormed off to KL and then he started a war. But willing to suspend disbelief because we only have unreliable reports of the tourney and the rebellion so I'm ok assuming it makes sense in context.


Without the ToJ dream it would be much less obvious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 02, 2017, 05:51:46 AM
The tyre
2) The Tyrells have an army and have agreed to beseige King's Landing--that was a plot point in Episode 2. So where was that army when Jaime Lannister and Randyll Tarly marched their army on Highgarden, thus solving the no-food and no-funds problem?

A: Oh, who cares, because who doesn't want to see Oleanna Tyrell deliver some great lines and exit the stage? Maybe Jaime just marched way way around the Tyrell army, or met them on the road from Casterly Rock?

The Tyrells were overthrown by their own bannermen. So whatever Tyrell forces there were all wound-up under Lannister/ Tarly. Highgarden being in the Southwest of Westeros, this also resolves issue #1, not having the forces to storm Winterfell in the right area.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 02, 2017, 06:02:52 AM
The books are a different matter in this respect, though. I assume if Martin ever *does* make it to this point in his story that armies are going to be much more bound to the actual material conditions because he actually is pretty invested in that.

I mean, we're not getting that attention in the series not just because they really want to move the story to the climax quickly but because they can't afford to shoot everything in a snowy location or make locations like Casterly and King's Landing appear to be in winter. So they can't have characters doing exposition about how cold it is and how food is in short supply and how limited their choices are and all that because the moment they do an exterior location shot, it's going to look warm. I assume that the only time it's going to seem genuinely cold and miserable everywhere is going to be at the very very end when the Walkers are south of the Wall and then south of the Neck (something I assume is going to happen). Whereas Martin doesn't have to worry about any of that when he writes.

But even in these terms, if the Tyrells don't have a big army, the Tarlys shouldn't either; there's no reason that the entire possible military force of the Reach should be with the Lannisters under Tarly rather than rallying to the Tyrells. We don't have any reason to think that the houses in the Reach dislike either the Tyrells or Oleanna Tyrell, and they have every reason to hate Cersei, since she outright murdered most of the Tyrell family under deeply awful circumstances. I don't remember the Tyrells being overthrown by their own bannermen in the show--when did that happen? Not before the destruction of the Great Sept. Oleanna didn't seem to doubt that she could put a large enough force into the field to beseige King's Landing with the help of Dorne. Jamie warns Cersei that the bannermen will likely side with the Tyrells unless they feel that Cersei will win, which really I don't see how anyone could think that *within* the show's world *until* the end of last episode. Randyll Tarly seems pretty certain in his meeting with Cersei that Danerys' forces are unbeatable because of dragons. On the flip side, we even have previous exposition that indicated that the Lannister forces in toto are tapped out wherever they are. (The notion that Highgarden has enough gold in the basement to pay off everything the Lannisters owe the Iron Bank seems pretty wacky too--medieval finance doesn't work like that.)

I will say that there's actually a reasonable explanation for part of Euron's fleet being able to attack the Unsullied at Casterly, and that would be if he left some of them at Pyke and sent orders via raven. But then that means Euron has a fucking huge fleet and we're back to "magic". I really wish when Euron came back, it was with a bunch of reaver ships that he took with him on his fun adventures elsewhere--that would pretty much solve everything and have him absorb some of Victarion's plot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 02, 2017, 06:12:11 AM
I get why we aren't seeing mass armies maneuvering.

Season 1 - 3 had to make the same compromises. They did it better on a lower budget and with bad cgi. In the process the early episodes did not do the equivalent of trivialising Jamie learning from the whispering wood and outthinking Tyrion. For obvious reasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 02, 2017, 07:08:07 AM


But even in these terms, if the Tyrells don't have a big army, the Tarlys shouldn't either; there's no reason that the entire possible military force of the Reach should be with the Lannisters under Tarly rather than rallying to the Tyrells. We don't have any reason to think that the houses in the Reach dislike either the Tyrells or Oleanna Tyrell, and they have every reason to hate Cersei, since she outright murdered most of the Tyrell family under deeply awful circumstances. I don't remember the Tyrells being overthrown by their own bannermen in the show--when did that happen? Not before the destruction of the Great Sept. Oleanna didn't seem to doubt that she could put a large enough force into the field to beseige King's Landing with the help of Dorne. Jamie warns Cersei that the bannermen will likely side with the Tyrells unless they feel that Cersei will win, which really I don't see how anyone could think that *within* the show's world *until* the end of last episode. Randyll Tarly seems pretty certain in his meeting with Cersei that Danerys' forces are unbeatable because of dragons. On the flip side, we even have previous exposition that indicated that the Lannister forces in toto are tapped out wherever they are. (The notion that Highgarden has enough gold in the basement to pay off everything the Lannisters owe the Iron Bank seems pretty wacky too--medieval finance doesn't work like that.)

I will say that there's actually a reasonable explanation for part of Euron's fleet being able to attack the Unsullied at Casterly, and that would be if he left some of them at Pyke and sent orders via raven. But then that means Euron has a fucking huge fleet and we're back to "magic". I really wish when Euron came back, it was with a bunch of reaver ships that he took with him on his fun adventures elsewhere--that would pretty much solve everything and have him absorb some of Victarion's plot.

The Tyrells weren't ancient kings of the Reach though. They were only appointed by the Targaryans after the conquerors wiped out the existing ancient family who resisted them. Their appointment was kind of a controversial and still a point of contention, they didn't have full loyalty of all their bannermen although nobody was going to do much during good times. I'm looking at a wiki right now and the main culprit is "House Florent" which was a cadet branch to the original kings. A bunch of them went over to Stannis after Renly was killed but they must have had friends & allies amongst the highgarden nobility including Randyll Tarly himself who is married to a Florent so the remaining Florents faction probably looks to him to rally around and you have that Tarly-Florent axis to build an anti-Tyrell rebellion around.

I am sure GRMM will connect the dots much better in the book, probably with 400 pages from a new POV character who goes into excruciating detail about the history of it all, but it seems to me the events would be Florent faction + Tarlys + some other friends/relations figure now's a good time as any for treason season with the whole Tyrell senior family wiped out besides one old lady (some minor cousin now probably the heir) and them having no respected leaders. Then there's probably also more background to the Lannister backing/coordination on their move (more than one cheesy 30 second speech by Jaimie at any rate). I am sure some sophisticated, well planned maneuvers and well timed betrayals will be elaborated on. Also GRMM has been pretty consistent in his story showing how excellent leadership and quality troops can overcome numerical superiority. The Highgarden army has always been considered to have relatively weak leadership, and dubious fighting qualities (effete "knights of summer"). Strip away their best and only respected general (and one assumes his house's higher quality troops) and they take a big hit. It's too bad the TV show has to reduce this all to a 30 second montage but such are the limits of the medium and its writers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 02, 2017, 08:16:41 AM
Ok, but look, what we have in the show is Oleanna saying the following: Ok, I will send my troops to besiege King's Landing. She doesn't hedge or say, "Well, see, the thing is, I don't have any troops" or "Well, Randyll Tarly is in King's Landing and he's married to a Florent and so really all I have is my arch dialogue and mad poison skillz to offer, let me know if you need me to cast shade on someone at a party and I'm there". She says, "Yup, I can do that, though I think you ought to just burn the fucking thing to the ground." Then Ellaria says, "Yeah, ok, we can do that too". We don't really know yet if Yara's ships had the Dorne forces on board--I'm not sure that would make much sense to put them all on ships, take them to Dragonstone, then put them all on ships again and go all the way back to Dorne or somewhere near King's Landing--a march from Dorne would be unopposed and it's close to King's Landing in relative terms. But there's zero reason in the context of the show to think that Oleanna has no troops at all or that most of them are with Tarly instead. Now I could see whatever Oleanna had in the field *defecting* to Tarly in the coming week, so that they're backing a winner. But I can't see just waving them away and saying, "She was just sitting Highgarden doing crossword puzzles because she didn't actually have troops left".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 02, 2017, 09:02:22 AM
When they were making big plans on Dragonstone I doubt either Dorne or the Reach had their full levy armies fully mustered and ready to campaign especially since so many Tyrell bannermen were still hanging out in King's Landing and nominal Lannister allies although both Cersei and Oleanna knew that was a sham and daggers were coming out. Oleanna would have been at Dragonstone in secret. Both the Snakes and Oleanna would have left to go put these plans in motion from scratch, calling in banners, and beginning large scale campaign/siege preparations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 02, 2017, 09:44:49 AM
There was a battle in the show. There was a Tyrell army.

It was a shit battle that was not adequately explained and was shown in just a few seconds. But it did happen.

I'm pretty sure we're expected to understand that army is now dead or absorbed into the Lannister / Tarly group. I guess they will now march east in a perfunctory campaign to pacify Dorne and the Stormlands (which contain zero named tv characters but in book terms are controlled by Fake Aegon and the Golden Company).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 02, 2017, 09:52:25 AM
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." That about sums up this season so far. :facepalm:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on August 02, 2017, 10:09:36 AM
Calling it now, the whole White walkers thing ends with the walkers breaking through/Walking round/just reaching the wall, and bran or John running up to the Night king and pulling out the Dragonglass shard in his heart (which is what created him in the first place.) King drops dead, all the zombies and walkers fall apart, and everyone says "well... happy ending I guess!" *credits* *sounds of TV screens getting smashed*

And everyone goes "Fuck that." I cant see them actually doing any kind of real invasion with the amount of episodes they have left, no matter how much they teleport things around. Plus the early seasons had people who had read the books to help fill in the blanks, wheras now here they have even less episodes to tell the story, without the "people who have read the books" to help.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 02, 2017, 11:21:45 AM
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." That about sums up this season so far. :facepalm:

More like, we have to balance up Khaleesi's OPness so let's do it a little clumsily. But has also given us a great Queen of Thorns scene and the fun that is Euron Greyjoy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 02, 2017, 12:58:09 PM
This season ends with Cersei dying and the white walkers arriving. Last season will be humanity vs undead and who sits on the throne when it's over.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on August 02, 2017, 01:00:14 PM
I think they should have Cersei mop up in a completely ruthless way(s) only to have the white walkers show up and turn her into a zombie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 02, 2017, 01:02:36 PM
I think they should have Cersei mop up in a completely ruthless way(s) only to have the white walkers show up and turn her into a zombie.
Agreed. At this point I want Cersei to win only to die to white walkers. If Dany had gone down to hang out with Aegon (or whatever his name was, Sir Not Appearing In This Show), she could have just waited them out then marched north to kill Zombie Cersei.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 02, 2017, 06:54:29 PM
I would put good odds on the show ending with almost everyone dead and King's Landing a frozen ruin, with Danerys sitting in the Iron Throne and vowing to rebuild or something. I am certain that the following characters will be dead before it's done:

Cersei
Jamie
Jon Snow
Arya
Brienne
Tormund
Varys
Melisandre
Davos
The Zombie Mountain
The Hound
99% of the Stark bannermen
Euron
Yara
Ellaria Sand
Littlefinger
Grey Worm
Translator Lady
2 out of 3 dragons
The Night King
Lots of ice zombies
Everyone remaining in the Night's Watch
Randyll Tarly
Qyburn
Lord Friendzone Mormont
Maester Jim Broadbent
Gilly
Ghost
Girl who pulls Bran's sled
Shitty Vale of Arryn kid
Beric Dendarrion
Manbun Friend of Beric Dendarrion
Ed Sherran
Theon Greyjoy

I am certain that Danerys survives.

Probably survivals:

Sansa
Tyrion
Gendry
The Iron Bank guy
Sam
Hot Pie
Li'l Mormont
Gilly's baby
The bearded dude from Essos who pimped Danerys
Some random Dothraki and Unsullied, they're gonna be like Ewoks in the ruins singing some kind of song
3 random Wildlings
2 random Northlings
Brandon Stark aka Three-Eyed Raven
Nymeria
Bronn
At least two whores from Littlefinger's brothel
One lost Iron Islands pirate


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 02, 2017, 07:20:08 PM
I mean, you could just go on Reddit, some guy already spoiled the entire season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 02, 2017, 07:28:27 PM
Not looking!

Plus: come on, I specialize in being wrong when I guess like this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 02, 2017, 09:38:08 PM
Its like you guys don't know what the concept of bannermen are.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 02, 2017, 11:06:37 PM
It would be funny (but cringe worthy) if the Night King was defeated at or near the wall without any significant advance south of the wall by the white walkers. Then you'd have the northeners talking about zombies etc and no one in the south believing any of it (just some concocted story to justify letting the wildlings in by the rebellious ex-commander of the night watch)  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 04, 2017, 12:08:47 PM
I just watched the leaked next episode.  MUCH fucking better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on August 04, 2017, 12:53:36 PM
Watching The DOTA2 International and people are spoiling (or false spoiling) future episodes in chat.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 04, 2017, 12:58:33 PM
Watching The DOTA2 International and people are spoiling (or false spoiling) future episodes in chat.  :oh_i_see:

I'm not going to do that but I will say it's much better than the previous episodes this season and to NOT miss the last 10-15 mins.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on August 04, 2017, 01:48:17 PM
Is walking away from an episode for the last 10-15 minutes a thing people do?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 04, 2017, 01:52:34 PM
I'm just surprised at the number of people not predicting "Jon and Dany get married and rule over the seven kingdoms together after they and Tyrion overthrow Cersei and defeat the White Walkers in a heroic last stand".  I mean, I'll be pleasantly surprised if that isn't the case, but my next-most-likely scenario is "Jon and Dany face certain defeat in a heroic last stand against the White Walkers when Cersei suddenly arrives with the Lannister army at the last minute and turns the tide".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 04, 2017, 03:08:03 PM
I'm just surprised at the number of people not predicting "Jon and Dany get married and rule over the seven kingdoms together after they and Tyrion overthrow Cersei and defeat the White Walkers in a heroic last stand".  I mean, I'll be pleasantly surprised if that isn't the case, but my next-most-likely scenario is "Jon and Dany face certain defeat in a heroic last stand against the White Walkers when Cersei suddenly arrives with the Lannister army at the last minute and turns the tide".

My guess, based on the first couple of episodes in this season is that the Archmaester never gets to write his 'History of the Wars Following the Death of Robert Baratheon'. Instead Sam will write it and call it 'A Song of Ice and Fire'. Where Ice is Jon Snow and Fire is Dany. Luckily the Targaeryans are cool with incest so Jon shacking up with Aunt Dany won't be an issue.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on August 04, 2017, 03:15:04 PM
I'm just surprised at the number of people not predicting "Jon and Dany get married and rule over the seven kingdoms together after they and Tyrion overthrow Cersei and defeat the White Walkers in a heroic last stand".  I mean, I'll be pleasantly surprised if that isn't the case, but my next-most-likely scenario is "Jon and Dany face certain defeat in a heroic last stand against the White Walkers when Cersei suddenly arrives with the Lannister army at the last minute and turns the tide".

My guess, based on the first couple of episodes in this season is that the Archmaester never gets to write his 'History of the Wars Following the Death of Robert Baratheon'. Instead Sam will write it and call it 'A Song of Ice and Fire'. Where Ice is Jon Snow and Fire is Dany. Luckily the Targaeryans are cool with incest so Jon shacking up with Aunt Dany won't be an issue.

My money is on the hound being fire. 

I don't do well in casino's.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 04, 2017, 09:21:44 PM
My guess, based on the first couple of episodes in this season is that the Archmaester never gets to write his 'History of the Wars Following the Death of Robert Baratheon'. Instead Sam will write it and call it 'A Song of Ice and Fire'.

And then Tales of Dunk and Egg is massively padded for a prequel lasting another eight seasons, starring a very tall dwarf hunted by a newly invented mini-boss who is an extra-white white walker.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 06, 2017, 07:06:53 PM
That was a very good episode. One of the best.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 06, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
That was a very good episode. One of the best.

I liked that the big battle had stakes as there were people on both sides I didn't want to see die. Also...



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 06, 2017, 07:24:48 PM
Get that man a fucking castle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 06, 2017, 07:32:22 PM
That was a good one. I dunno why Bronn hasn't buggered off by this point, though. It's not like the Lannisters have paid their debts with him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 06, 2017, 07:37:48 PM
That was a good one. I dunno why Bronn hasn't buggered off by this point, though. It's not like the Lannisters have paid their debts with him.


It's a literary truth that seems a bit cheesy when it's not stretched out among an entire series of books but "A Lannister always pays their debts" has been proven true in every single instance thus far.  So I'm guessing Bronn really does get a castle by the end of the show, authors tend to slip these non-magic universal rules into their books in different ways.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 06, 2017, 07:45:51 PM
Air power bitches!

That was fun. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 06, 2017, 07:48:56 PM
Yeah parts of the episode were fun. Show isn't getting better though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 06, 2017, 07:50:12 PM
That was fucking great. Arya vs. Brienne was good enough, then they had to add one of the most visually impressive battles they've done. That was movie level battle. I don't know how they did it on a TV budget but they need to keep it up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 06, 2017, 07:53:36 PM
My biggest complaint about the battle:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 06, 2017, 08:00:35 PM
TBF, how many battles has she been in where there has actually been ANY counter to her dragons at all?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 06, 2017, 08:05:33 PM
Fantastic episode and Arya, holy shit.  She doesn't seem to need any training.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 06, 2017, 08:06:07 PM
That was fucking great. Arya vs. Brienne was good enough, then they had to add one of the most visually impressive battles they've done. That was movie level battle. I don't know how they did it on a TV budget but they need to keep it up.

They don't have traditional TV budgets anymore. They are spending tens of millions per episode now since the show pretty much is what drives HBOs revenue right now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 06, 2017, 08:44:54 PM
What a cheesy TV ending

Littlefinger was pretty funny, must've made at least a half dozen creepy sideways glances.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 06, 2017, 08:51:50 PM
Awwwww yessss. That's the good stuff. 

Better not rob me of eleventy billion points either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 07, 2017, 03:31:45 AM
My biggest complaint about the battle:



ed: Using quotes instead of spoilers is why you shouldn't post from your phone before you're fully awake.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 07, 2017, 06:48:28 AM
Assuming Drogon is only lightly injured as the end seemed to imply and Qyburn didn't poison the ballista bolt or anything of that sort, I think Dany is now forewarned and won't come at one of those directly like that again. I also assume it will be a battlefield priority for Dothraki or other troops to take out any ballistas if they spot them.

But also, you gotta hand it to Qyburn for design genius--a ballista that shoots a bolt of that size that a single man can hand-crank in seconds *and* that has a quick swivel for targetting. They say Westeros is technologically stagnant, but how about that? 21st Century humanity couldn't make anything like that, there must be more magic in Westeros than just ice and fire these days.

The more interesting question at this point is how the hell the White Walkers will counter dragons, because otherwise this is going to end pretty quick once Ice and Fire meet up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 07, 2017, 06:51:23 AM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 07, 2017, 06:55:30 AM
Thinking about it some more, how is he sinking in 50+ feet of water when he goes in 3 feet from the shore? That's some kind of pond.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 07, 2017, 06:57:47 AM
Yeah, like it's a bizarre glacial water pit or something. It's not even necessary for dramatic effect--if you're in armor, 3 feet of water is enough to fuck you, especially if you have to stay at the bottom because of dragon fire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 07, 2017, 07:11:34 AM
It was a river or canal, not a pond, wasn't it?  I assumed it was a canal and had been dredged to allow commerce ships to King's Landing from the Midlands.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on August 07, 2017, 07:52:04 AM
My GF said last night...'so wtf is taking the whitewalkers so long up there? I mean, I've seen them move fast as hell....'  .... Indeed! I guess living armies are the only ones that can teleport. Or move faster than a snail's pace.  I really do miss travel time in this show. Feels like I'm watching a DVR recording at x4 for them to fit it all in before the show is done.

Good episode, though. Lefty Jamie should have been long dead in that battle though. As much as I like Bronn, he should have died too. I guess he didn't go for the gold, so that buys him a life.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 07, 2017, 07:55:37 AM
Looked pretty damn blue for a canal! But maybe Westeros has magic water purifier or something.

Maybe the walkers are stopped at the Wall to slowly crumble its foundations or something like that. Though judging from a few words in next week's preview, maybe they're waiting for the ice to freeze at Eastwatch. Which feels a bit like a cheat, if they can just go around the Wall in a really cold winter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 07, 2017, 08:02:38 AM
I bet that Tyrion will ride down, they'll pull Jamie out of the canal/River/glacial lake and make him a prisoner. That way they'd have a huge bargaining chip over Cersei (maybe). Plus we'll get some fun Lannister sibling banter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 07, 2017, 08:11:38 AM
I think if he has to wait for Tyrion to get there on a horse, he's got a helluva set of lungs.

Re-watching, I also think maybe that was Dickon who tackled Jamie, not Bronn?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 07, 2017, 08:20:09 AM
Dickon...*snicker*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 07, 2017, 08:20:43 AM
I think if he has to wait for Tyrion to get there on a horse, he's got a helluva set of lungs.

Re-watching, I also think maybe that was Dickon who tackled Jamie, not Bronn?


No it was Bronn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 07, 2017, 08:23:15 AM
Jaime really should've fucking died.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 07, 2017, 08:46:59 AM
Dickon...*snicker*

Best part of the episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 07, 2017, 08:47:21 AM
Jaime really should've fucking died.
Yeah.....I've loved his character for the first half of the series, but then the last two seasons they didn't know what to do with him, and now he's literally going backwards in character development this season.  Dying in a gloriously stupid attempt at heroics on the battlefield would be so him, and might have actually punched some character development into the other faltering Lannister on the show.  Actually, this episode missed out on a lot of main or not so main characters dying, and they all magically lived like normal TV characters.  Killing Sand Snakes (the most hated characters on the show) does not get you past your edgy death quotient for the season HBO!

Also, I literally just watched it on my PC.  Its not a canal, its a god damn pond they were fighting around.  Jaime was actually riding his horse way into it (thus implying it was pretty shallow) when he got tackled.  I literally stood and threw my hands up when they showed him sinking down to the abyss.  Also, Khaldun is totally right about the magic spear gun.  That thing was massive and made out of wood, yet he swiveled it around like it weighed 5 pounds (not to mention something like that normally takes a god damn team of men to wind up).  I love Bronn, but he should have comically said something about wishing he'd grabbed the gold instead, right before getting roasted after fucking up that last shot.

Also also, who knew that House Tyrell had enough gold laying around to pay off the debts of a massive kingdom that had been racking up massive kingdom sized debts year after year for the last 20 years.  Hopefully Cersei acts in character and does something stupid with the gold, yet still gets the Iron Bank to enlist the Golden Company to help her.  Which, true to the iron banks word, they use to extract debts from people.  Who then proceed to sack Kingslanding and rape Cersei to death.

Other than all of that, I actually enjoyed the episode!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 07, 2017, 08:52:49 AM
Dickon...*snicker*

Best part of the episode.

Really? Not Arya saying "no one" told her to fight like that? Your favorite part was the dick joke?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 07, 2017, 10:15:33 AM

I thought of that too.  It would be epic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 07, 2017, 10:17:47 AM
Hopefully Cersei acts in character and does something stupid with the gold

What gold?   :drill:

Liked this episode quite a bit.  

I was glad that Arya heading back to Winterfell wasn't a tease.  Her sparring with Brienne was  :drillf: :drillf:.  Really curious what's going through Littlefinger's head -- I imagine he's thinking that she'll be a useful tool, but it seems to me he should be a little more worried about ending up on her list.

When we first saw the scorpion my thought was "man, that's gonna be useless given how hard they'd be to reload and re-aim after a missed shot," so I guess they had to make them a little unrealistic in order to have one of them pose a credible threat.  As always, I'm curious to see how that stuff gets handled in the books (someday) since GRRM seems the type to nerd out about the actual feasibility of stuff like that.

I like that we'll probably get some Jaime/Tyrion banter out of this latest development, but am bummed that it'll delay Jaime telling Cersei what Oleanna told him.  Was looking forward to seeing the look on her face.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 07, 2017, 10:35:28 AM
I would kind of love it if the gold gets stolen ten feet inside the gates of King's Landing. I wouldn't be too surprised if Cersei does something like give it to the Iron Bankers and then tell Euron to go pillage the Iron Bank's ships and get it back. But if so I would hope the Iron Bank turn out to be ready for treachery, because that's 100% one of the oldest stunts ever and any group of bankers who fall for that shit would never have gotten to the point they're at.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 07, 2017, 11:21:57 AM
I was glad that Arya heading back to Winterfell wasn't a tease.  Her sparring with Brienne was  :drillf: :drillf:.  Really curious what's going through Littlefinger's head -- I imagine he's thinking that she'll be a useful tool, but it seems to me he should be a little more worried about ending up on her list.

I'm not sure, but since he did betray her dad and she might actually know that, Littlefinger may already be on her list.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 07, 2017, 11:42:26 AM
Okay, did I totally misinterpret the whole "dragons flaming the wagons" scene?  Because y'all are talking like Cersei's getting her gold, but I thought those wagons were carrying the Tyrell gold back to King's Landing and Dany just completely fucked up that whole plan and put Cersei in deep shit with the Iron Bank.  On top of wiping out the Lannister/Tarly army and probably capturing Jaime.  It's not *quite* as much of a "fuck you" as sacking King's Landing but it's in many ways more effective since there are no civilian casualties this way, while Cersei is still completely crippled.

While Cersei and Mycroft (I forget his actual name) were talking, Mycroft said something about "when the gold arrives" and my girlfriend immediately said "that's foreshadowing and that gold's not going to arrive."  This was quickly followed by motherfucking dragons showing up to fuck up the wagon train that was transporting the gold.  I'm pretty sure Cersei does not in fact get to pay off her debts at this time.

(edit) re: Littlefinger, given that Sansa doesn't know that Littlefinger betrayed Ned, and she's been much closer to him for all this time, I don't think Arya does either.  The only ways I can think of for her to find out are if:
1) Littlefinger lets it slip (I don't think he's even remotely that dumb)
2) Bran sees it and tells her (this seems way more likely, but I don't know why he wouldn't have done that when they were talking about the knife)
3) She gets to have a conversation with someone else who was with the Lannisters at the time of the betrayal -- Cersei, Varys, Tyrion, or Jaime.  Cersei seems most likely -- Arya shows up to whack Cersei, and Cersei's parting shot is "you dumbass, you're after me for double-crossing your dad and you're palling around with the guy who held the knife to his throat on my orders"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bunk on August 07, 2017, 11:55:53 AM
There's a line just before the attack, where someone confirms to Jaime that the gold had arrived at King's Landing. It had been sent off ahead while they were busy flogging farmers for their crops.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 07, 2017, 12:01:41 PM
Yeah that was all grain. Tarly explicitly says the gold's safe inside KL.

(edit) re: Littlefinger, given that Sansa doesn't know that Littlefinger betrayed Ned, and she's been much closer to him for all this time, I don't think Arya does either.  The only ways I can think of for her to find out are if:

4) Arya saw Littlefinger conspiring with Tywin at Harrenhal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9jac7Qg9w4


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 07, 2017, 12:03:16 PM
Yeah she killed the foodstuffs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 07, 2017, 12:05:22 PM
Dickon...*snicker*

Best part of the episode.

Really? Not Arya saying "no one" told her to fight like that? Your favorite part was the dick joke?

duh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetleft on August 07, 2017, 12:36:47 PM
I was glad that Arya heading back to Winterfell wasn't a tease.  Her sparring with Brienne was  :drillf: :drillf:.  Really curious what's going through Littlefinger's head -- I imagine he's thinking that she'll be a useful tool, but it seems to me he should be a little more worried about ending up on her list.

I'm not sure, but since he did betray her dad and she might actually know that, Littlefinger may already be on her list.

I'm sure Littlefinger was already unnerved as fuck after Bran parroted his "chaos is a ladder" line back at him (one of the best moments seeing Littlefinger totally surprised).  He is straight up wondering how fucked he is. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 07, 2017, 12:38:27 PM
There's a lot of talk about character X should have died, plot armor or that the show/books were way edgier when it came to killing major characters in the past.  To that I say, they were never major characters.  They were all players in the game but they were rooks and bishops or just pawns.  The final roster has been set in stone from the beginning and now that it's coming to a close of course there will be fewer and fewer deaths of players because they were never meant to die in the first place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on August 07, 2017, 01:03:11 PM
What a cheesy TV ending

Littlefinger was pretty funny, must've made at least a half dozen creepy sideways glances.

Plus side the actor is highly skilled at creepy sideways glances so he does it well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on August 07, 2017, 01:07:38 PM
Okay, did I totally misinterpret the whole "dragons flaming the wagons" scene?  Because y'all are talking like Cersei's getting her gold, but I thought those wagons were carrying the Tyrell gold back to King's Landing and Dany just completely fucked up that whole plan and put Cersei in deep shit with the Iron Bank.  On top of wiping out the Lannister/Tarly army and probably capturing Jaime.  It's not *quite* as much of a "fuck you" as sacking King's Landing but it's in many ways more effective since there are no civilian casualties this way, while Cersei is still completely crippled.

While Cersei and Mycroft (I forget his actual name) were talking, Mycroft said something about "when the gold arrives" and my girlfriend immediately said "that's foreshadowing and that gold's not going to arrive."  This was quickly followed by motherfucking dragons showing up to fuck up the wagon train that was transporting the gold.  I'm pretty sure Cersei does not in fact get to pay off her debts at this time.

(edit) re: Littlefinger, given that Sansa doesn't know that Littlefinger betrayed Ned, and she's been much closer to him for all this time, I don't think Arya does either.  The only ways I can think of for her to find out are if:
1) Littlefinger lets it slip (I don't think he's even remotely that dumb)
2) Bran sees it and tells her (this seems way more likely, but I don't know why he wouldn't have done that when they were talking about the knife)
3) She gets to have a conversation with someone else who was with the Lannisters at the time of the betrayal -- Cersei, Varys, Tyrion, or Jaime.  Cersei seems most likely -- Arya shows up to whack Cersei, and Cersei's parting shot is "you dumbass, you're after me for double-crossing your dad and you're palling around with the guy who held the knife to his throat on my orders"


They talk at the very start of the scene how the money had arrived at kings landing. The what was blown up was the rest of the baggage train and other spoils/loot/food they had pillaged as well as blowing up their army in the field. So they were not fast enough to destroy the gold but now cersai has the gold but no longer a good chunk of her armor or the foodstuff they need.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 07, 2017, 01:10:27 PM
That was great.

Arya/Brienne was the best scene either of them have had in years - loving the s1 water-dancing throwbacks. Littlefinger managed to exude both fear that he doesn't understand shit - and threat that he might do something extreme because of it.

The battle worked for exactly the reasons last week didn't. It even made me think Bronn might die for first time in 7 years.



I don't think they did say the gold had arrived at KL. Tycho said he was very happy they would be paid back in one installment, and later said his offer of further investment was conditional on the gold from the Reach being delivered. I took all that to mean that it was inevitable, one way or another, that the gold was not going to arrive.


Quote from: Tyrion
Fucking idiot

This was also pretty great.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 07, 2017, 01:11:19 PM
No, I think Lord Tarly specifically said the gold had arrived in King's Landing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 07, 2017, 01:15:30 PM
Rewinding - I see he did indeed say that and that the food was still at risk.

Which also makes for a story so cool.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 07, 2017, 01:41:59 PM
This is a fun "making-of-the-battle-scene" feature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2wcBeyNdk


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on August 07, 2017, 02:18:50 PM
That was up there with the best episodes in the whole series. Guessed from before the battle that Jamie would be a prisoner again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 07, 2017, 02:42:02 PM
http://imgur.com/a/TWGgF

"Why's Varys doing a double Napoleon?"
"Well, Napoleon only lost big once."

OH shit this is just so good. The guy's got a gift.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 07, 2017, 02:49:46 PM
"You went to an all boy's school didn't you?" lol


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 07, 2017, 02:53:45 PM
http://imgur.com/a/TWGgF

"Why's Varys doing a double Napoleon?"
"Well, Napoleon only lost big once."

OH shit this is just so good. The guy's got a gift.
"Worst Burning Man, ever."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Miguel on August 07, 2017, 02:55:32 PM
It's interesting, having just finished an episode of Hardcore History, where Dan Carlin was talking about how devastating a full-horseback cavalry charge was in the time of Genghis Khan (I feel like the Dothraki were probably modeled after them), and how many a Russian or European army was crushed before thousands of mounted cavalry moving at 30+km/hr.  There was no shield wall that could ever withstand that kind of attack, so it was probably pretty accurate to have men holding the line shitting themselves before such a sight.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 07, 2017, 04:45:04 PM
Btw that episode is even more fun if you imagine one of those Lannister soldiers being roasted is Ed Sheeran.



'why does this always happen to me in caves'


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 07, 2017, 05:24:01 PM
Dothraki are definitely intended by Martin to be steppe warriors like the Mongols or the Turks. And yeah, they generally did mow down shield walls (or just go around them in the flat terrains where they really excelled).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 07, 2017, 08:43:21 PM
This is a fun "making-of-the-battle-scene" feature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2wcBeyNdk

As I was watching it I was amazed at the burn effects and thought maybe they composited some of that together. Doing a 20 man burn is nuts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soln on August 07, 2017, 10:28:13 PM
More Bronn.  Team Tits&Dragons is on a rampage (should've been able to draft dragons too).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 07, 2017, 10:40:38 PM
Well the dragons are certainly better than fucking Koner. Stupid ass guard who is surely going to die.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on August 08, 2017, 12:03:09 AM
Did no one else catch Davos correcting Jon Snow with a mumbled "fewer" like when Stannis corrected him a few years ago?  So great.  That whole episode was great. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 08, 2017, 12:30:01 AM
There are dozens of little ticks referencing prior episodes and dead characters in this one. Main theme of 'Spoils of War' being shit people have learned from their experience. They had a strong fan service game.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 08, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
Daenerys is a psycho and I hope the Lannisters win.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 08, 2017, 04:19:40 AM
Daenerys is a psycho and I hope the Lannisters win.


 :drillf: so what does that make Cersei?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on August 08, 2017, 04:23:49 AM
The Gold is safe in King's Landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQtGZYEvFhA#t=47.073273 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQtGZYEvFhA#t=47.073273)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on August 08, 2017, 05:32:46 AM
Daenerys is a psycho and I hope the Lannisters win.


 :drillf: so what does that make Cersei?

A sociopath.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 08, 2017, 08:22:39 AM
Did no one else catch Davos correcting Jon Snow with a mumbled "fewer" like when Stannis corrected him a few years ago?  So great.  That whole episode was great. 

Stannis wasn't even correcting him, he just mumbled it while one of the nightswatch was talking. For Davos to have picked it up means he probably did it constantly, which is the most Stannis thing ever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 08, 2017, 08:27:08 AM
Stannis certainly corrected somebody about "Ser Jaime Lannister the Kingslayer" although I'm not sure if it was Davos (or even if that scene made it to the TV show).

Edit: He did correct Davos directly with "fewer" when talking about his cut-off fingers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 08, 2017, 01:46:02 PM
Arya at the gate was the best callback.

(to the red keep scene)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 08, 2017, 02:27:07 PM
Dani doesn't want to be hated for burning the Red Keep - but she just incinerated a wagonline of food headed towards King's Landing right before a winter everyone is expecting to be legendary.... 

Yes, that food wasn't going to go to the common folk, but they'll still be pissed that food was destroyed as now other food is going to be repurposed for the soldiers and the peasants will get even less.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 08, 2017, 02:53:44 PM
Well, won't they be pissed that it was stolen by Cersei from the Reach, where it was safely stored for the good of the entire realm? For what we know, the Reach pretty much supplies all the other kingdoms with food in a long winter...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 08, 2017, 05:09:03 PM
Destroying the food so that it can't even be fought over or stolen trumps.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 08, 2017, 06:39:07 PM
A lot depends on what's being said on Twitter in King's Landing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on August 08, 2017, 07:50:59 PM
I'm sure the King's Landing facebook group is literally scathing her in overblown hyperbole.  Fuck, it broke the 4th wall and god damn Nynaeve is tugging on her fucking braid again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 08, 2017, 08:04:25 PM
Pretty sure the point of any siege is to starve the people inside the castle out. So destroying the food supplies going to a castle that might be under siege soon is Medieval Strategy 101.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Comstar on August 08, 2017, 09:43:08 PM
I know it's all Fantasy but the sight of light Calvary just walking through a spear wall followed by horses being invulnerable to Dragon fire made be dislike the series, despite not watching much beyond the battle (and seeing a smallsword being able to block a 4 foot long 2 handed sword became it's a smallsword of momentum stopping or something).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 08, 2017, 11:35:39 PM
I know it's all Fantasy but the sight of light Calvary just walking through a spear wall followed by horses being invulnerable to Dragon fire made be dislike the series, despite not watching much beyond the battle (and seeing a smallsword being able to block a 4 foot long 2 handed sword became it's a smallsword of momentum stopping or something).

You mean cavalry, not Calvary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary). And Arya is fighting using Braavosi water dancer style, as taught to her by Syrio Forel. It's not so much blocking as a form of movement that counters the opponent's weight and strength. Syrio was able to do the same to Lannister soldiers with a wooden sword.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 09, 2017, 03:59:46 AM
On arya there are several points in the duel where water dancing or not,  needle should have broken. There was a lot of blocking in place of parrying. I give it a huge pass because it was pretty to watch, made thematic sense, used the TV for something the books can't do, and Maisie Williams is still doing it all left handed.

Also every single character's expression in the scene is brilliant.

I don't think there has been a 1 on 1 fight I've enjoyed more in GoT. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 09, 2017, 04:15:47 AM
I know it's all Fantasy but the sight of light Calvary just walking through a spear wall followed by horses being invulnerable to Dragon fire made be dislike the series, despite not watching much beyond the battle (and seeing a smallsword being able to block a 4 foot long 2 handed sword became it's a smallsword of momentum stopping or something).
The dragon blew a giant hole through the spear wall, and then a massive horde of horses rode right through the hole.  When the line is pierced by cavalry like that, pretty much everybody in a spear wall dies at that point.  I was actually annoyed they drew the battle out so long and showed as many Dothraki dying as they did.  Lannisters should have been wiped out far quicker after that event.

Also, it doesn't matter who burned the food.  The peasants in Kingslanding will have none, and they'll blame it on Cersei.  Because she's in charge and she's not feeding them.  Or at least, that's how it would work out in reality.  Also in reality, the people should be rioting after she blew up their most holy temple, along with the man they supported because he was actually feeding and caring for them.  Like, the High Sparrow had more power than the crown entirely because the whole population liked him so much better than the crown.  Funny how they all abruptly forgot that in between seasons, and are taking it all in stride....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 09, 2017, 04:33:48 AM
Fuck I'm still annoyed that every movie ever has never showed a proper cavalry charge. You don't gallop for a mile and hit the wall piecemeal. You advance as a line and only reach top speed for the last 100 yards..Doesn't exhaust your horses and you hit as one, much more powerful. 
Frankly after the huge flying fire breathing lizard had torched 40 soldiers in one pass the whole Lannister line should've said 'Nope' and fled for their lives (I love the shot of that guy literally quaking in his boots).

If we're gonna get all nitpicking on things..

Btw should Bronn be dead?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on August 09, 2017, 05:04:39 AM
Bronn is such a great character, I will give them a little leeway in finding ways to keep him alive.  Kinda like the Hound.  I also assumed that leaving the bag of gold meant he was going to live.

Just to nitpick, I was thinking that the whole point of the cavalry charge was to line up the spear wall...and then have Drogon come out of nowhere and go down the line laterally.  I thought it was weird she chose to fly him through the line instead, when they had the all in a ripe position like that....could have burned way more in the first pass.  But oh well, they got back to it later (which is probably also why the dragon lined up so nicely for Bronn...it was literally following the line at that point as far as I remember).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 09, 2017, 06:38:26 AM
I don't know if they explain it in the books but it doesn't seem like anybody ever flies dragons, they ride them.  You can kinda give them general commands like "let's go this way" "burn those guys they suck" and "let's head home"  but anything even as complicated as "burn that line lengthwise" or even "turn in this direction now"  is just out of the question.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 09, 2017, 08:39:29 AM
Nobody has flown a Dragon in the books - unless you count Drogon flying Dany away from Mereen.

Inability to control dragons is still a plot point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 09, 2017, 09:05:23 AM
One they haven't addressed in the books yet, so actually a big one.  TV show just decided "she suddenly can."   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 09, 2017, 09:08:17 AM
How hard could it be?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 09, 2017, 09:16:28 AM
I remember a bit in the old Harold Shea fantasy series by DeCamp and Pratt where Harold just has a foil and he's supposed to have a sword fight with an armored knight and a broadsword and he thinks it through pretty carefully. Reminded me of that scene with Arya and Brienne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 09, 2017, 09:48:22 AM
If we're gonna get all nitpicking on things..

Ed: Shit missed Cyrrax's post saying the same thing here.

Also: Dothraki never dismount. Certainly not to chase down one man.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 09, 2017, 10:14:26 AM
One they haven't addressed in the books yet, so actually a big one.  TV show just decided "she suddenly can."   :awesome_for_real:

Well that's what I'm saying, she can't really. Lot of people saying she should have done this or the dragon should have flown that way and all I can think is it's a miracle the dragon not burning her own men.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 09, 2017, 12:03:17 PM
It's a miracle it didn't stop for a snack in the middle of the battle with all that tasty bbq horse lying around.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: lamaros on August 09, 2017, 02:52:45 PM
Jon has taught Dany the secret ways of amgic animal control, duh. Ain't no special secret in the books.

Maybe Bran will come in for an episode and conduct a symphony of dragons and other animals fighting. Maybe he'll puppet a thousand men to build the largest human pyramid of all time.

It's all stupid at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 10, 2017, 08:20:45 AM
They need to make this a regular, weekly thing (http://io9.gizmodo.com/someone-give-leslie-jones-a-game-of-thrones-recap-show-1797711684).

Leslie Jones live watching Game of Thrones with Seth Myers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on August 10, 2017, 02:22:53 PM
I don't even watch the show (no HBO), but am I the only one bothered by Dany's dragons actually being wyverns?

Or least Drogon (whatever one she's flying on) is.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pxib on August 11, 2017, 10:19:06 AM
I don't even watch the show (no HBO), but am I the only one bothered by Dany's dragons actually being wyverns?
Most "realistic" "dragons" are nowadays. See also: The Harry Potter films. How to Train Your Dragon did six limbs, but I don't think I've seen a live-action one since Dragonheart.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 11, 2017, 11:29:35 AM
You're asking too much nerd for even Hollywood art departments these days. As nerdom got trendy the pendantics got pushed off the bus.

But yes, it bothers me a lot too. Even Smaug in The Hobbit was a Wyvern, not a Dragon, and Jackson is a big enough nerd to know better. I blame Reign of Fire, which was the first modern movie I remember with shitty dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on August 11, 2017, 12:30:13 PM
Trivia - Reign of Fire was shot in the Wiclow mountains in Ireland. It was shot in the winter/early spring, and in the middle of filming they too a 2week break. When they got back, instead of the lovely hell landscape they left, everything was green. so the most expensive special effect in the movie was to make the new green grass match the earlier dead grass. So the Dragons probably got shortchanged because of that.

The fantastic Dragon which fought the WW2 bomber in "Sucker Punch" was a Wyvern too. God I wish that was a better movie because some of the scenes in that were so bad ass...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP6Go0ooEWw


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: pxib on August 11, 2017, 01:37:16 PM
I blame Reign of Fire, which was the first modern movie I remember with shitty dragons.
I blame the Academy Award nominated effects work in this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonslayer). It lost to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Dragonslayer is mediocre movie with an awesome creature. It pretty much set the standard for special effects dragons. All the directors who had dragons in their works went MAKE IT LIKE THIS ONE.

"But technically that's a wyvern..."

Sadly, nobody cares. I'm pretty sure How to Train Your Dragon would have had wyverns if the books hadn't been illustrated.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 11, 2017, 01:52:23 PM
Probably just easier to animate 2 legs and 2 wings instead of 4 legs and 2 wings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 11, 2017, 02:15:15 PM
Wyvern
noun, Heraldry.
1.
a two-legged winged dragon having the hinder part of a serpent with a barbed tail.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Typhon on August 11, 2017, 02:34:07 PM
Possibly also something to do with the whole "JUST JAM THE WINGS ONTO THE BACK, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE ANATOMICAL SENSE" plays in there as well.  With the Wyvern you can at least point at a bat or pterodactyl and say, "see? it sort of makes sense".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on August 11, 2017, 02:40:04 PM
Nobody has flown a Dragon in the books - unless you count Drogon flying Dany away from Mereen.

Inability to control dragons is still a plot point.
Yeah, but you'd think there'd be books. Dragons USED to be a pretty common instrument of warfare. There'd be stories about how dragons are used in combat in conquering Westeros, and you'd think a Targeryeon who had a decade or so sitting around in a damn house before getting married off might have read them.

And if she didn't, Tryion "I've read everything about Dragons because they're awesome. Also I've read everything, and also my last big battle I spent reading books on famous sieges to prepare" Lannister damn well would have.

Things like "Don't fly directly at the funny looking giant crossbow". Maybe she's got shit eyesight.

I was okay with her flaming the line perpendicular to it -- the idea was to make a big ass hole that ran all the way through the line, so..success. Seems the best use of a dragon, if you want to avoid friendly fire, is breaking up hard points (shattering a line like that) and then doing stuff like burning baggage, fucking with the reserves, flaming any knots of organized resistance, and in general setting shit on fire and breaking up the opposing force so your troops can crush each portion separately.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 11, 2017, 05:08:53 PM
The books imply quite strongly that the reason you can't pick up a Dummies manual on the subject of Dragon operation is that an anti-magic faction, probably run out of the citadel, has been working to restrict knowledge of magic, dragons, zombies, and 300 mile long walls of ice. While they obviously couldn't remove Baleron's Skull from the Red Keep, or the keep the 300 mile long of wall of ice a secret, they have been pretty successful at making sure nobody understands any of it. 

Maybe because use of magic caused the long night, and/or the doom.

Maybe because they are evil fun-hating bastards.

TBD



On the subject of dragon tactics, Sarah Connor hasn't fought anything that can touch her before, so I have no idea why anyone would expect her to be on the lookout for modified Dragon-piercing Ballistae.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 11, 2017, 05:13:32 PM
I imagine the reason the Maesters in the Citadel have locked all the books on dragons and fucking ice zombies away is for the same reason they did the "cure" to the stoneskin sickness. Sure, the knowledge might help people but chances are pretty good that some unscrupulous bastard like Qyburn will use them to fuck up a whole bunch of shit instead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 11, 2017, 05:43:30 PM
And maybe Varys really is in it for the little guy.

It is explicitly claimed that the citadel killed the Dragons last time, and that they seek to control everyone because plans within plans. Somehow.



If you want to get into deep tinfoil territory the books even have a steward in the night's watch, who is notably from oldtown, ends up involved in Jon's murder, and goes around wearing perfume for no obvious reason other than to trigger 'perfumed seneschal' prophecy speculation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 11, 2017, 05:50:40 PM

On the subject of dragon tactics, Sarah Connor hasn't fought anything that can touch her before, so I have no idea why anyone would expect her to be on the lookout for modified Dragon-piercing Ballistae.
This is funny to me because Sarah Conner is the one that had the dragon-piercing ballista built.

(https://s8.postimg.org/cqwfnh1ut/Sarah_SCC.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 11, 2017, 06:53:22 PM
I don't know why I didn't put together until just now that the last two people to play Sarah Connor are both in GoT.

Someone get Linda Hamilton on this show as the Night Queen or something.   :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 13, 2017, 07:53:08 PM
Meh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 13, 2017, 07:56:33 PM
That was about as convoluted a plan as I've ever seen in fantasy literature.

"So let's go north of the Wall, kidnap a zombie, bring it back undead to King's Landing, convince Cersei that there really are zombies, then Cersei will sign an armistice and Danerys can safely move her troops north to help with the zombies."

WTF, guys. Seriously?

I get the appeal of a Dirty Dozen/Magnificent Seven adventure in the North, but there has got to be a better way to get to it than that fucking dumb shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 13, 2017, 08:36:45 PM
It does sound like a hare-brained scheme from the pen of a bad writer.  Do you think it was GRRM or the TV people?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on August 13, 2017, 08:39:31 PM
Wasn't impressed, though I really liked seeing Gendry again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on August 13, 2017, 08:46:27 PM
I liked the way they snuck in Jon's legitimacy (and Sam's development of a spine in general)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 13, 2017, 09:42:55 PM
Is #dreamteam trending on social media yet?  They're just missing Bronn and Brienne at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 13, 2017, 10:19:41 PM
It does sound like a hare-brained scheme from the pen of a bad writer.  Do you think it was GRRM or the TV people?
It is the tv way to get back towards the GRRM storyline they screwed over with earlier changes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 13, 2017, 10:25:11 PM
I liked the way they snuck in Jon's legitimacy (and Sam's development of a spine in general)

I told you all Gilly was the key to the whole shebang.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2017, 03:14:13 AM
The rowing joke, while funny, was too meta for me. Lots more TV writer stuff here than GRR.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 04:59:00 AM
I liked the way they snuck in Jon's legitimacy (and Sam's development of a spine in general)

I told you all Gilly was the key to the whole shebang.

Isn't Sam now head of house Tarly?  No one mentioned that in the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2017, 05:10:09 AM
He would be if taking the black didn't require renouncing of all claim to titles. Remember, Sam is the older brother and was thrown into the Night's Watch so Dickon could become the heir.
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Tarly

Sam would have to go through the Snow Loophole or otherwise be absolved of his vow to the Night's Watch. Considering that the vow was so strong it let a Targaryen remain alive there's probably no way around it.  The fact that the northern lords allow Jon to lead despite taking the black while also not knowing he died and returned is a rather large plot hole.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 14, 2017, 05:18:25 AM
Considering that quite a few people witnessed Jon's murder and resurrection, I would think by now that the rumor would be spreading among the Northerners. At the least, it's odd that no one in the North is curious about the fact that Jon was the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and then he wasn't. That's pretty weird. They must also be confused by the fact that the surviving remnants of the Night's Watch aren't sending messages about Jon having fled the Night's Watch, considering that they would always have done so in the past.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2017, 05:39:09 AM
I'm just annoyed that Arya skipped the first class of ninja training, the whole being sneaky part.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 05:43:24 AM
It is not clear to me if Jon's order to Sam to study to become a maester released him from the Watch.  If it didn't then Sam has to go North immediately or be a deserter. Otherwise he can do as he wills. But it does seem wrong that he is not following his orders. On the other hand if he isn't in the Watch does he have to follow orders anymore?  Weird situation.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 14, 2017, 05:46:42 AM
I'm just annoyed that Arya skipped the first class of ninja training, the whole being sneaky part.
I actually liked that bit; Arya has come off as pretty overpowered lately, so seeing Littlefinger (who is supposed to be the master of shady) catch her at her own game was a nice touch. LF has seemed lost in Winterfell the past few episodes, so it's good to see him back to successfully scheming a bit.

Overall I liked the episode, although the "Avengers, Assemble!" seemed a bit contrived. Oh well, if it gets us more of The Hound I'll take it.

Re: Sam, I don't think going to Oldtown releases him from the Watch. Leaving probably counts as oathbreaking too, so he's probably doomed. He still has his father's Valyrian steel sword, right? I didn't see it when he was heading out, but I don't remember him giving it away or anything like that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 14, 2017, 06:33:07 AM
I think I would have liked it if Arya and Bran had been played more as almost supernatural actors at this point and they'd have more time devoted to Little Finger and Sansa trying to figure how to deal with them and possibly the different ideologies they represent  (though there are so few episodes left that there's really no time for that anyway).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 06:44:10 AM
With Sam getting fed up right at the same time the other male heirs of House Tarly get killed, it's not too hard to guess where he is going.  Even if his character doesn't know about it yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 14, 2017, 07:03:58 AM
He's got that sword, after all. (Odd that Daddy Dearest didn't make more of a fuss about that. Too late now!)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 14, 2017, 07:30:48 AM
I'm just annoyed that Arya skipped the first class of ninja training, the whole being sneaky part.
Did she, or does she know she is being played?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 14, 2017, 07:50:37 AM
I liked the way they snuck in Jon's legitimacy (and Sam's development of a spine in general)

I told you all Gilly was the key to the whole shebang.

Isn't Sam now head of house Tarly?  No one mentioned that in the show.

Sam resigned all his family rights twice, once when joining the night's watch and once when joining the maesters. House Tarly is over.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 07:51:38 AM
I'm just annoyed that Arya skipped the first class of ninja training, the whole being sneaky part.
Did she, or does she know she is being played?

You would think she would pick up on it.  Littlefinger was discussing a secret issue in the hall (loud enough to be heard) when he could have easily invited the other guy into his room and closed the door.  But this is the same Arya who quit the Faceless Men and thought it was ok to walk around Braavos in broad daylight and no disguise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 14, 2017, 07:54:45 AM
I liked the way they snuck in Jon's legitimacy (and Sam's development of a spine in general)
I told you all Gilly was the key to the whole shebang.
Cube did it first.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on August 14, 2017, 08:17:17 AM
I liked the way they snuck in Jon's legitimacy (and Sam's development of a spine in general)

I told you all Gilly was the key to the whole shebang.

Isn't Sam now head of house Tarly?  No one mentioned that in the show.

Sam resigned all his family rights twice, once when joining the night's watch and once when joining the maesters. House Tarly is over.

What about Gillys kid that Sam claimed as his own?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 14, 2017, 08:37:27 AM
I think it's become pretty clear that the Night's Watch pledge doesn't really even have a lot of meaning anymore. Tarly refused to take the Black because he said Dany wasn't his queen, which while sort of true isn't actually. Dany is the rightful heir to the Targaryen throne, and the only legitmacy Cersei has is that which she took by murder, deception and continuing the lineage of a usurper's throne. If we want to get technical, Jon Snow is actually the most legitimate heir to the throne as apparently his mother was legally married to Prince Rhaegar and so he's the last surviving MALE Targareyn (unless you count Tyrion but since his parents definitely weren't married, you can't) and even though he is Aegon's grandchild, he is male and thus has more claim than Dany.

Which again, matters fuckall if the people don't believe it and the institutions of the crown don't accept it either. Just like the vows of the Night's Watch, that was the old way. Dany likely won't keep the Night's Watch as an unbreakable vow since the whole beheading thing seems to be not her bag (maybe they'll just be burnt alive). The coming of the White Walkers is a sign that all the old institutions are mostly null and void.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on August 14, 2017, 08:58:21 AM
Rhaegar was heir apparent, so under primogeniture if Jon is legitimate then as Rhaegar's eldest surviving son he would inherit the throne before either Viserys or Daenarys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 14, 2017, 11:08:00 AM
This all assumes that all we know becomes known to the characters.  I assume Jon's lineage will come to light and that will prompt the marriage between him and Dani. 

Also, was Tyrion's non-Lannister lineage ever confirmed in the show?  As far as I know, it is only speculated so far.  There are book reasons to suspect it, but nothing determinative like for Jon. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 11:10:43 AM
But Dani is Jon's Aunt.  It's kind of creepy thinking of a marriage between them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Trippy on August 14, 2017, 11:25:42 AM
Lightsabers make everything better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVTtNOepijk


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 14, 2017, 11:47:35 AM
But Dani is Jon's Aunt.  It's kind of creepy thinking of a marriage between them.

Have you uhh....ever watched the show? Or read the books? This is positively tame by Targaryen standards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 14, 2017, 12:05:43 PM
Hey, whatever a Warg King and a Dragon-blooded Queen wish to do in the privacy of their own chambers...

Still, I wonder what GRRM's two younger sisters, Darleene and Janet, think of his abundant use of incest in his books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 14, 2017, 12:07:24 PM
It's arguably significantly less gross than other examples of royal incest since they didn't grow up together and aren't direct full-blooded siblings.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 14, 2017, 12:26:07 PM
Hey, whatever a Warg King and a Dragon-blooded Queen wish to do in the privacy of their own chambers...

Still, I wonder what GRRM's two younger sisters, Darleene and Janet, think of his abundant use of incest in his books.

In the books it was insinuated  that she is barren as a result of the circumstances around her pregnancy when she was married to Drogo.

Thus, it would be legal in places where incestuous marriages are allowed if no children result.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 14, 2017, 12:29:54 PM
Lightsabers make everything better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVTtNOepijk


They should have removed the regular sword noises.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 12:34:47 PM
Hey, whatever a Warg King and a Dragon-blooded Queen wish to do in the privacy of their own chambers...

Still, I wonder what GRRM's two younger sisters, Darleene and Janet, think of his abundant use of incest in his books.

In the books it was insinuated  that she is barren as a result of the circumstances around her pregnancy when she was married to Drogo.

Thus, it would be legal in places where incestuous marriages are allowed if no children result.  :why_so_serious:

So, the people widely assumed to be the rulers at the end of this mess likely can't produce an heir.  This setting the stage for another huge power struggle when they die.

Actually seems appropriate for this world.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 14, 2017, 01:15:25 PM
Hey, whatever a Warg King and a Dragon-blooded Queen wish to do in the privacy of their own chambers...

Still, I wonder what GRRM's two younger sisters, Darleene and Janet, think of his abundant use of incest in his books.

In the books it was insinuated  that she is barren as a result of the circumstances around her pregnancy when she was married to Drogo.

Thus, it would be legal in places where incestuous marriages are allowed if no children result.  :why_so_serious:

So, the people widely assumed to be the rulers at the end of this mess likely can't produce an heir.  This setting the stage for another huge power struggle when they die.

Actually seems appropriate for this world.

Well, maybe, actually the books conspicuously keep repeating a prophecy that says her womb will quicken again when a bunch of impossible things happen. A mountain blowing in the wind, sun rising in the west, seas go dry, that sort of thing. So you could read it is as a guarantee that she will have another child if you want.

My assumption is that neither Jon nor Dany are surviving the series - and she does not have time to have a child on TV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 14, 2017, 01:25:55 PM
As for the episode, gloriously produced fan fic.




I'll be fascinated to see if GRRM includes any of that at all, and bloody impressed if he can sell any of it. But it was really well delivered horseshit.

Dragons have been awesome sauce even when burning people - so 'hey maybe they aren't 100% brilliant' was well done.

Jon on a mountaintop - for no reason thinking Drogon won't eat him - ok, that's cool, the 'Jon is a Targ' subtext very on the nose - but also it might have been calling back to "Tyrion meets the Dragons".

Gilly was clearly "Hey book readers - I'm fucking with you for no reason". But I don't think it is a complete book spoiler, as I'm fairly convinced that it was Septon Meribald who married Rhaegar and Lyanna. Also since when do Maesters marry or annual anyone?

Gendry..... we're just in why the fuck not territory now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 14, 2017, 01:31:26 PM
Until GRRM can show that he'll actually get off his ass and finish the books, I give not one measly fuck whether anything in the TV show ends up being a spoiler for the book or not. If the fat fuck cares, the fat fuck can finish writing the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 14, 2017, 01:32:31 PM
...
Well, maybe, actually the books conspicuously keep repeating a prophecy that says her womb will quicken again when a bunch of impossible things happen. A mountain blowing in the wind, sun rising in the west, seas go dry, that sort of thing. So you could read it is as a guarantee that she will have another child if you want.
Quote
"When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east," said Mirri Maz Duur. "When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves. When your womb quickens again, and you bear a living child. Then he (Drogo) will return, and not before."

There are people that say that this prophecy has already been fulfilled by a Martell doing to the East and dying (A Sun's son), the Dothraki sea drying out, and the destruction of two pyramids at Dany's hands.... However, it doesn't really matter as the prophecy doesn't say that Dany won't get pregnant.  It says when Drogo will return - her pregnancy is a condition, not the culmination - of the prophecy.

Most people read the inclusion of her pregnancy to be a way for Mirri Maz Duur to rub her nose in the revelation that she is as likely to carry a child as the other conditions.  However, when a story makes a big deal about a women not being able to have a child, she usually has a child.  In this case, however, she already has three.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hutch on August 14, 2017, 01:32:50 PM
Stop. Hammertime. (http://imgur.com/a/jbg1r)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 01:44:51 PM
Until GRRM can show that he'll actually get off his ass and finish the books, I give not one measly fuck whether anything in the TV show ends up being a spoiler for the book or not. If the fat fuck cares, the fat fuck can finish writing the books.

Very much this.  I'm convinced GRRM will never finish the books, his stroke or heart attack will happen before that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2017, 01:46:48 PM
They keep getting better...

"He really is a True Dad."

"Would I dodo that?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 01:57:59 PM
They keep getting better...

"He really is a True Dad."

"Would I dodo that?"

"but I set your friends on fire to prove to you that I don't"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 14, 2017, 03:23:52 PM
Gilly was clearly "Hey book readers - I'm fucking with you for no reason". But I don't think it is a complete book spoiler, as I'm fairly convinced that it was Septon Meribald who married Rhaegar and Lyanna. Also since when do Maesters marry or annual anyone?

The book was by a Maester, and the quote she read actually said  (paraphrasing) "Prince Rhaegar asked for an annulment and then was married by Septon so-and-so in Dorne to" before Sam cut her off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 14, 2017, 03:29:44 PM
I want to know how they're going to capture a white walker and bring it to King's Landing.  The scene of them venturing out beyond the wall needed one of them to be carrying a giant butterfly net.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 14, 2017, 03:34:20 PM
I want to know how they're going to capture a white walker and bring it to King's Landing.  The scene of them venturing out beyond the wall needed one of them to be carrying a giant butterfly net.

They are not after a white walker, just a zombie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 14, 2017, 03:37:14 PM
One of them had a large coil of rope.  Maybe they will tie it up?

Sounds really dangerous.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 14, 2017, 03:44:24 PM
I want to know how they're going to capture a white walker and bring it to King's Landing.  The scene of them venturing out beyond the wall needed one of them to be carrying a giant butterfly net.

They are not after a white walker, just a zombie.

Didn't someone try a zombie back when Tyrion was hand?  I vaguely recall it disintegrated.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on August 14, 2017, 03:51:16 PM
I want to know how they're going to capture a white walker and bring it to King's Landing.  The scene of them venturing out beyond the wall needed one of them to be carrying a giant butterfly net.

Dumbest plot point in history that has led to the most awesomeness team in TV history.

The hound, fire sword dude (convinced he will win me the fantasy league), lil' bitch Jon Snow who finally dropped a sack and I root for his death despite everyone cheering for him, and Gentry.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 14, 2017, 04:15:53 PM
How did you not mention Tormund?

The only character in the show who realises he's living through Tits 'n' Dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2017, 04:24:22 PM
AND how awesome Brienne is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on August 14, 2017, 04:33:12 PM
How did you not mention Tormund?

The only character in the show who realises he's living through Tits 'n' Dragons.

Doh, good point.  And Brienne sucks, another I hope dies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 14, 2017, 04:51:07 PM
The fact that Bronn and JAmie swam underwater in armor for however fucking long AND no one looked for them was the FUCKING dumbest plot point


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 14, 2017, 10:01:09 PM
Where is Ghost the direwolf? First, Jon went south without Ghost (would have been cool to see a direwolf meet a dragon), and now he's going north beyond the Wall without Ghost, who has been his best companion there.

I am now convinced Jaime exists to kill pregnant Cersei. Tyrion and the delivery of a sample wight will persuade him that the northern battle is the only battle, and to refocus the world he will have to kill his sister as she threatens humanity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 14, 2017, 11:05:00 PM
Ghost was with Jon last year. They just stopped mentioning him for no reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on August 14, 2017, 11:42:20 PM
I want to know how they're going to capture a white walker and bring it to King's Landing.  The scene of them venturing out beyond the wall needed one of them to be carrying a giant butterfly net.

They are not after a white walker, just a zombie.

Didn't someone try a zombie back when Tyrion was hand?  I vaguely recall it disintegrated.

It was like thumb or some body part, no?  I guess they are going to bring a live one back this time?  I guess we'll see how it all plays out.  I am looking forward to an episode in the near future of hijinks beyond the wall, with the Hound throwing around the word "cunt" every other sentence.

There are some problems, but this is still great TV.  My current gripe is probably all the insta-travel.  It's like The North is just the next town over.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 15, 2017, 12:15:37 AM
I'm fairly confident they aren't actually going to do that.

I cannot imagine the scene where Cersei, Dany, and Jon sit about poking a white walker. Not even from the writers who brought us 'Carry On Up the Sunspear'.

For a start it is well established that the wall is not just a physical barrier. I don't know why the brains trust suddenly forgot that.

But doubt that will even be tested. Really it is all just the Dondarrion protocol "we're going north because the plot says so".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: carnifex27 on August 15, 2017, 02:44:22 AM
Lightsabers make everything better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVTtNOepijk

Only part of this season that has made me laugh out loud was the look on Pod's face when Arya was beating Brienne. It was perfectly between "That's right, someone is kicking YOUR ass" and "My sensei is getting destroyed by a twelve year old".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2017, 04:39:53 AM
Sansa very briefly said something about Ghost in this episode, basically a reference to him having been left behind again.

Really, the catch-a-zombie-to-convince-Cersei is just the dumbest fucking thing ever in this show. Completely jolted me out of the action. I don't mind getting that particular group north of the Wall on a desperate mission, but really?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 15, 2017, 04:50:38 AM
Sansa very briefly said something about Ghost in this episode, basically a reference to him having been left behind again.

Really, the catch-a-zombie-to-convince-Cersei is just the dumbest fucking thing ever in this show. Completely jolted me out of the action. I don't mind getting that particular group north of the Wall on a desperate mission, but really?


Someone elsewhere said that this might be one of the (3) plot points GRRM had ready for the story and that's why it seems a bit ham-fisted since they are trying to make up all the reasons for the trip without all the build-up you might get in the books.

book spoiler:

edit: another thing that bothers me with the passage of time in the show; where are the unsullied for example (Jon has had time to sail to Dragonstone and then to the wall so you'd think they had gotten somewhere even if they were walking...)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2017, 04:53:54 AM
I suspect he's there because they're going to need someone to forge a lot of anti-zombie weapons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 15, 2017, 05:59:25 AM
As for getting over the wall, the books mention


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 15, 2017, 07:36:27 AM
I might be completely wrong - but my assumption is they are going north to do whatever Jon is about to go north to do as Ghost in the books.

Most obviously they need to find out how the zombies get past the wall and what the overall win condition is for each  team. Even if Sam is in charge of figuring out what to do, there is probably a macguffin or three that needs fetching and a prophecy to fulfill.

I don't imagine books or show finishing with a simple battle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2017, 08:45:34 AM
I've always assumed that the plan in the books is:

a) have the Wall come down. Night's Watch all die, more or less.
b) have a group of characters more or less trapped in Winterfell in the books as zombies approach. (GRRM takes winter more seriously than the show does--it's an actual impediment to troops and individuals travelling).
c) have a small group of Winterfell characters escape southward while everyone else dies. Probably the re-united Starks and a few others.
d) have the winter spread across Westeros, bringing the Cersei-Dany war to a standstill. (I do assume that in the books, GRRM had the plan to do the Cersei-blows-up-the-Sept thing, it has his fingerprints all over it.)
e) have folks assemble for a last stand thing. Maybe this is the point where the Magnificent Seven go on a desperate mission northward because Bran tells them about a MacGuffin they need.
f) meanwhile dragons flame zombies but there's too many zombies to stop
g) bad shit happens
h) bad shit concludes


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 15, 2017, 12:31:13 PM
I wonder if the travel issues are a part of why GRRM is struggling to write.

Book North is *really* hard to move around. Ports have been closed, armies cannot move without massive losses.

Its hard to see how GRRM could finish it with a battle because noone can march north.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 15, 2017, 12:58:28 PM
What's interesting is Eastwatch is on the opposite side of continent from Winterfell.  So an army that just wanted to go South would bypass it.  Winterfell doesn't even block the Kingsroad, it being West of it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on August 15, 2017, 12:59:34 PM
Ghost was with Jon last year. They just stopped mentioning him for no reason.

The reason is CGI budget.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2017, 05:31:10 PM
Eastwatch is mostly about the part of the Night's Watch that deals with Wildlings--the cannibal assholes live on the island off to the northeast of Eastwatch. Plus it's also the secret center of smuggling shit north of the Wall in years when there aren't zombies on the march.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 16, 2017, 07:33:16 AM
i always knew the tv writers were stupid, didn't know how stupid. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 16, 2017, 10:54:31 AM
Next episode has leaked. Not hackers, just incompetence. Beware spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on August 16, 2017, 06:47:03 PM
It was like thumb or some body part, no?  I guess they are going to bring a live one back this time?  I guess we'll see how it all plays out.  I am looking forward to an episode in the near future of hijinks beyond the wall, with the Hound throwing around the word "cunt" every other sentence.
Cersei already has at least one undead minion.

I kind of wonder how that's going to color her view. I suspect she'll continue to think dragons are a hell of a lot more problematic.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 16, 2017, 07:43:19 PM
I think she thinks anything that is not "Cersei Lannister is in charge forever" is problematic. Anything that is "Yes she is" is absolutely fine. She's also made it clear in the last episode: she'd rather everything burned and everyone died if there was any chance of Cersei not being in charge.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on August 16, 2017, 09:33:38 PM
Hey that sounds like some conservatives I know ...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 17, 2017, 08:31:23 AM
It was like thumb or some body part, no?  I guess they are going to bring a live one back this time?  I guess we'll see how it all plays out.  I am looking forward to an episode in the near future of hijinks beyond the wall, with the Hound throwing around the word "cunt" every other sentence.
Cersei already has at least one undead minion.

I kind of wonder how that's going to color her view. I suspect she'll continue to think dragons are a hell of a lot more problematic.

I doubt she is aware enough of what the hell was done to Gregor. In the book it is obvious because the dude had no head, but he was alive in the show and as far as she knows Qyburn just made him "better".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 17, 2017, 08:59:00 AM
I made the mistake of watching the leaked episode early and I really want to talk about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 17, 2017, 09:08:07 AM
That will teach you not to peek at the presents early!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 17, 2017, 10:33:45 AM
Yeah, people been telling me its good.

I still am holding out hope that Cersei uses the gold to buy the golden company instead of paying the Iron Bank, and they proceed to walk in and collect the Iron Banks debt for them by burning kings landing and Cersei to the ground.  But this show doesn't seem to give me what I want lately.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 17, 2017, 10:53:16 AM
Yeah, people been telling me its good.

I still am holding out hope that Cersei uses the gold to buy the golden company instead of paying the Iron Bank, and they proceed to walk in and collect the Iron Banks debt for them by burning kings landing and Cersei to the ground.  But this show doesn't seem to give me what I want lately.   :awesome_for_real:

It was heavily implied during the scene with Cersei and Mycroft Holmes, that the Bank will open new lines of credit to hire mercenaries now that they are happier about Cersei's ability to pay them back.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 18, 2017, 09:07:28 PM
Yes, but that was with the caviat of "once we get the gold."  I'm imaging a scenario where she doesn't give the gold now that she lost her army, but the Iron Bank leads her to believe they will continue to support her anyways because she's the best bet.  Leading to Golden Company betrayal.

Who knows what they'll do at this point, but I can dream!    :awesome_for_real:

Also, just watched episode 6 (which fricken HBO accidentally leaked, not hackers this time).  A lot of fun mixed with a lot of stupidity.  Let's just say they have given up an pretense of physics/travel time/realism in order to just make things happen.  TV level written is in full control now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 18, 2017, 09:11:39 PM
Just remember the jumping around like a monkey on coke is because fucking GRRM wouldn't finish the fucking books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 19, 2017, 02:52:24 AM
Yes, but like, they do something this episode that takes it to the most comic extreme possible.  It's hilarious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 19, 2017, 06:29:56 AM
I kind of like that if the books ever come - I know they can't possibly be this silly.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 19, 2017, 06:42:12 AM
I wouldn't count on it in other respects. But I basically assume that Martin's characters aren't going to be ping-ponging up and down Westeros in the middle of winter. I mean, last we left off, Stannis' forces are possibly frozen to death in between Castle Black and Winterfell because it's so difficult to travel even that distance with winter having arrived. I would basically assume that Arya, Sansa, etc., are only making one to two more major geographical movements in the story.

I think basically the showrunners got an outline of known moments from Martin that looks something like:

Cersei blows up Sept of Baelor with wildfire, High Sparrow and Tarlys killed.
Daenerys meets with Tyrion, he becomes her Hand, gets Dothraki to follow her, gets Victarion's ships, sails forces to Westeros.
Arya confronts Faceless Men, is allowed to leave to return home. (I really assume Martin has something better in mind than what happened in show)
Starks regather at Winterfell.
Jon Snow and His Merry Band go North of the Wall on desperate mission, something something happens


Etc. So they know what the 'big moments' are but not how to get the characters to them in the right order in a narratively coherent way. So far I think they're doing a pretty crap job of moving the pieces around, though. It's almost like a slideshow of plot points and reunion moments rather than a story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 19, 2017, 09:33:56 AM
I wouldn't count on it in other respects. But I basically assume that Martin's characters aren't going to be ping-ponging up and down Westeros in the middle of winter. I mean, last we left off, Stannis' forces are possibly frozen to death in between Castle Black and Winterfell because it's so difficult to travel even that distance with winter having arrived. I would basically assume that Arya, Sansa, etc., are only making one to two more major geographical movements in the story.

I think basically the showrunners got an outline of known moments from Martin that looks something like:

Cersei blows up Sept of Baelor with wildfire, High Sparrow and Tarlys killed.
Daenerys meets with Tyrion, he becomes her Hand, gets Dothraki to follow her, gets Victarion's ships, sails forces to Westeros.
Arya confronts Faceless Men, is allowed to leave to return home. (I really assume Martin has something better in mind than what happened in show)
Starks regather at Winterfell.
Jon Snow and His Merry Band go North of the Wall on desperate mission, something something happens


Etc. So they know what the 'big moments' are but not how to get the characters to them in the right order in a narratively coherent way. So far I think they're doing a pretty crap job of moving the pieces around, though. It's almost like a slideshow of plot points and reunion moments rather than a story.

It may be but I am firmly convinced this is the only way we'll ever see how the story ends. Like Haemish and others I don't think Martin will finish the books. Best case scenario he gets the next book out and someone else is brought in to finish it using his story notes after he chokes to death on a bowl of pasta.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 19, 2017, 09:51:28 AM
Brandon Sanderson, obviously.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 19, 2017, 10:02:55 AM
So we really have 4 more books to go...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 19, 2017, 10:33:34 AM
Brandon Sanderson, obviously.

Sanderson wouldn't be a good fit. Unlike with Jordan where their styles are similar, Martin's incest and murder obsessed writing is much different than Sanderson's.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 19, 2017, 11:31:20 AM
I think it's more that he writes relatively quickly and professionally and he understands the genre. I'm pretty sure he could write a fairly good pastiche of Martin if he had Martin's notes and plot outlines, in whatever state they're in.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 19, 2017, 02:34:18 PM
But I basically assume that Martin's characters aren't going to be ping-ponging up and down Westeros in the middle of winter. I mean, last we left off, Stannis' forces are possibly frozen to death in between Castle Black and Winterfell because it's so difficult to travel even that distance with winter having arrived. 

I think that was just a blizzard, pretty mean one but not a permanent state of weather for early winter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 19, 2017, 05:03:42 PM
Really? For a winter that has an army of supernatural ice zombies fully mobilized behind it? I mean, yeah, I grant that in The Winds of Winter, if it's ever published, people are not going to freeze solid the second they step outside, or the books are kind of over right there. (That would be a good out for Martin: he just publishes a ten-page pamphlet of characters freezing to death. The End.) But I'm pretty sure that north of the Riverlands, it's never going to be "ride along like it's a pleasant wintry evening" for years--Martin seems pretty serious about his environmental constraints.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 19, 2017, 05:47:35 PM
As a writer of shorter work, I know that if I tell someone the story before I write it, I will never write it. The telling is in the writing. If you've told even one person, it's done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 19, 2017, 08:53:45 PM
Really? For a winter that has an army of supernatural ice zombies fully mobilized behind it? I mean, yeah, I grant that in The Winds of Winter, if it's ever published, people are not going to freeze solid the second they step outside, or the books are kind of over right there. (That would be a good out for Martin: he just publishes a ten-page pamphlet of characters freezing to death. The End.) But I'm pretty sure that north of the Riverlands, it's never going to be "ride along like it's a pleasant wintry evening" for years--Martin seems pretty serious about his environmental constraints.


Well the book described winters that lasted decades, it's impossible any human survived if every day was -50c with 20cm of snow. Maybe at the peak it could be like that but we're just at the onset. Then again, SUPER MAGIC, so real world and even previous westeros winters are  not really relevant to current story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 19, 2017, 10:23:07 PM
My fear is that they will hire some hack who will just copy the tv-series  in a rush to get the books published as fast as possible and do it so badly that the differences between the books and the tv-series will get mostly ignored (leading to plot-holes and inconsistent characters).  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 19, 2017, 10:32:58 PM
Anyone besides me thinking that Gendry is a contender for the Prince That Was Promised?

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 20, 2017, 05:41:53 AM
I hope it is never definitively resolved, because I don't believe any answer will ever be as interesting as the question.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 20, 2017, 08:12:55 PM
Tormund was MVP of that episode. And I believe I called it:

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 20, 2017, 08:17:24 PM
Tormund was MVP of that episode. And I believe I called it:

 

The entire plot for this season was leaked months ago.  So far everything leaked has been correct.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 20, 2017, 08:34:42 PM
I've decided that winter in Westeros makes human beings unnaturally stupid. All of them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 20, 2017, 08:53:03 PM
Tormund was MVP of that episode. And I believe I called it:

 

Literally every thinking human knew there would be an ice dragon -_-


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on August 20, 2017, 09:42:27 PM
fanfic: the season has been decent, I'm enjoying it but in that hollow way where if I think about it too much afterwards I feel bad that they've cheapened everything. Reality is Martin will have just as huge an issue with everything Dorne related as the show did and he's got too much pride to just give up on sorting it out.

Its a shame if the grand prophecy army of the dead shit just didn't exist there would have been time to tell a really good story about the houses, politics and wars.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 20, 2017, 10:15:13 PM
Now I have a dragon.

Ho Ho Ho!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 20, 2017, 10:32:22 PM
fanfic: the season has been decent, I'm enjoying it but in that hollow way where if I think about it too much afterwards I feel bad that they've cheapened everything. Reality is Martin will have just as huge an issue with everything Dorne related as the show did and he's got too much pride to just give up on sorting it out.

Its a shame if the grand prophecy army of the dead shit just didn't exist there would have been time to tell a really good story about the houses, politics and wars.
Yeah, if the series had just stuck with Fantasy War of the Roses, would have been amazing.  I really wish HBO, instead of trying to make 600 spin offs to GoT, would just make their own IP copying the same basic premise (fantasy war of the roses, without all the dragons and bullshit.  Just back stabbing and a cast of 100 characters to root for/violently kill).  Same way Bioware decided to make Mass Effect instead of trying to make a bunch of Star War's RPGs.
Tormund was MVP of that episode. And I believe I called it:

 

Literally every thinking human knew there would be an ice dragon -_-
So, best that I can tell, the only real thing that came about from the Red God sending this grand team he assembled up north is that it handed the Nights King an Ice Dragon.  Sooo, Red God actually Night's King in disguise?  Heh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Zetor on August 20, 2017, 11:03:59 PM
To be fair, this Icecrown Citadel raid composition was terrible. 4 arms warriors, a fury warrior, a DPS DK, a priest and a mage? Yea, those clothies are as good as dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 21, 2017, 12:15:07 AM
Come on, Beric has to count as a Paly at this point.   :awesome_for_real:

Oh, and going back to what I had brought up earlier.  The whole 'Quick, run and get help from 5,000 miles away Gendry!' thing was just  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 21, 2017, 02:18:38 AM
The problem with GoT as Fantasy War of the Roses is that noone involved in this project could write it.

GRRM demonstrably can't and D&D don't seem to be able to write anything with any depth without him.

But I agree. Fantasy war of the roses plus Arya & the Hound travelogue would be great.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 21, 2017, 03:44:11 AM
So how much time was supposed to pass between them sending Gendry running to Eastwatch and Daenarys coming to their rescue?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2017, 04:13:28 AM
So how much time was supposed to pass between them sending Gendry running to Eastwatch and Daenarys coming to their rescue?

Some internet mathematicians have put the fastest time from gendry running to the dragons showing up at 5-6 days.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 21, 2017, 04:18:30 AM
I'm not sure how they came up with that.  If going by the actual book distance, it should have taken fucking months.  Ravens don't fly that god damn fast in the book.  If by what they showed in the episode, looks like they hung out just one night.  I mean, the zombies were waiting for the water to freeze back over totally.  Pretty sure the Nights King would have known, even without the Hound, that it doesn't take 5 days.
The problem with GoT as Fantasy War of the Roses is that noone involved in this project could write it.

GRRM demonstrably can't and D&D don't seem to be able to write anything with any depth without him.

But I agree. Fantasy war of the roses plus Arya & the Hound travelogue would be great.
Yeah, agreed.  Hopefully if they, or some other network, actually attempt such a thing, it would be with a different crew.  Hell, with the amount of GoT generated tourism to various places used in the show, I'd imagine the EU would be willing to throw a lot of support at anybody looking to do something similar.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 21, 2017, 04:30:12 AM
Yeah, I really wish in some ways that the zombie thing wasn't there.

Fantasy War of the Roses/Hundred Years' War might have the problem of the ending being as depressing as the rest of it, I suppose (Shakespeare was kissing up to the current ruler by trying to make it be 'the good guys won').


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 21, 2017, 04:47:23 AM
I wish there had been no dragons or zombies and the northern threat would have just been the coming winter and the wildlings (and later the northeners) that it pushes south. End the show with whoever wins sitting on the iron throne and watching snow start to fall over somewhat ruined King's Landing (with the sitter knowing that the winter is there to stay).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 21, 2017, 04:59:04 AM
Right--I mean, it could have been a good underlying theme (the vanity and folly of fighting wars to the finish in a world where the seasons leave no room for error). Or have a fantasy Reformation and the Black Plague in the background--make it clear that the "wheel is broken" simply because the lords of Westeros couldn't find a way to value the greater good. Have the winner of the game realize that they lost a deeper war than they knew they were fighting.

----------------

I think basically the reason this season is pretty bad--in my view, the worst--is that servicing the plot requires the characters to be turned into idiots on a regular basis, without any dramatic attention to that. Even with Battle of the Bastards, the show was aware that Jon Snow was acting stupidly (less aware that Sansa arranging a rescue without telling him was also sort of stupid). But now, every episode requires almost all the characters to act stupidly in order for the preordained set piece to unfold. It just isn't much fun to watch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 21, 2017, 05:10:43 AM
The whole fucking show - and books - BEGIN with the discovery of the white walkers. This is a story of humanity's self-obsession risking its entire future in the face of a far greater threat, perhaps all guided by good and evil gods, towards a final showdown between them.

If you want the Wars of the Roses, you need a different show. This was never it, should never be it!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 21, 2017, 05:13:49 AM
This season has certainly been a mixed bag for me. The set pieces are awesome; as a long time fantasy fan, it's great to see wyverns dragons burning shit to death and cool battles. The story, however, has just gotten ridiculous. There's no sense of time passing, and they've been mass-producing plot armor in a way that runs counter to the previous season's mentality (and the books) of "anyone can die at any time."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on August 21, 2017, 06:03:09 AM
I went from zero to second place in the league, yay!   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 21, 2017, 07:46:37 AM
The White Walkers in the show and the books are sort of best as a thematic device rather than characters who have intentions of their own. E.g., as a kind of climate change parable, the "if you continue in your folly and cannot think about the bigger threats, you will pay an enormous price for your foolishness". Once it becomes "just kill Foozle with the magic sword and all will be well", that fizzles into a cheap reprise of "throw the Ring into Mount Doom".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 21, 2017, 08:41:14 AM
Bah, all your cynical motherfuckers just can't enjoy a goddamn thing. I'm loving this season.

The travel times are beyond ridiculous - deal with it. If they actually dealt with the travel times in any remotely realistic manner you'd complain about how slow it is and how padded out it is. And it would be. That was actually one of the complaints of first season - it took like 5 episodes to get from Winterfell to King's Landing. Was it realistic? Yes. Was it great storytelling - meh.

As for characters acting stupid, well yes. Jon is INCREDIBLY STUPID and always has been. "You know nothing, Jon Snow" is not just an annoying character catchphrase, it's literally his entire character. The fact that he's somehow the best leader for the North maybe shows why the North has been beholden to a Southern king for a while, because these snow humpers up here will literally follow any shithead who can bash his enemy's skull in (just like the Scots - HOOOOOO!!!!!) JK, Ironwood.

I mean, his plan sort of makes sense if you believe that the threat is so real and in your face that just seeing it will make you forget everything else and get on board the survival train. It was just foolhardy and doomed to failure because for some reason, he didn't get dragonglass or Valyrian weapons for every member of the party. That part was more stupid than anything else in it. Granted, he wouldn't have had one for the Hound or the Brotherhood because he didn't expect them to be there but Tormund should have had one.

Also, Tormund has the best fucking lines.

Great work, Jon. NOW THEY HAVE A DRAGON. You had ONE JOB. ONE JOB.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 21, 2017, 09:12:21 AM
What Haemish said.

One other thing that's bugging me, is Sophie Turner the worse actress on this show by far? Holy fuck I can't stand her whining.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 21, 2017, 09:32:33 AM
I don't know if she's a bad actress, but Sansa does get all the whingiest lines.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MisterNoisy on August 21, 2017, 10:09:16 AM
So how much time was supposed to pass between them sending Gendry running to Eastwatch and Daenarys coming to their rescue?

No idea, but the show made it look like Gendry is the original Flash and both ravens and dragons are capable of supersonic flight.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 21, 2017, 10:51:47 AM
I was annoyed at how fucking convenient it was that after that little skirmish with the undead that ended with a bunch of them exploding there was exactly one of them left standing so they could all comically dogpile it.

Also lest we forget, if Dany had just flown up there with them in the first place (LIKE WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUSLY VERY HELPFUL), they could have grabbed a wight and gotten the fuck out of there before the Night King knew what was going on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 21, 2017, 10:57:00 AM
Bah, all your cynical motherfuckers just can't enjoy a goddamn thing. I'm loving this season.

The travel times are beyond ridiculous - deal with it. If they actually dealt with the travel times in any remotely realistic manner you'd complain about how slow it is and how padded out it is. And it would be. That was actually one of the complaints of first season - it took like 5 episodes to get from Winterfell to King's Landing. Was it realistic? Yes. Was it great storytelling - meh.

Yeah I agree with this. Maybe they had wasted too much time earlier, but the reality was the whole story is reaching it's climax very quickly and they only had 14 episodes to bring together all kinds of story arcs, characters and loose ends as well as show the climatic moments. Things were going to have to move quickly.

One other thing that's bugging me, is Sophie Turner the worse actress on this show by far? Holy fuck I can't stand her whining.

I find most of the acting to be pretty crap but gotta keep in mind these were mostly child actors. The only main character performance that stuck out to me was Dinklage who does a great job of earnestly trying to serve and looks so wounded when all these conversations end with him getting chewed out with his loyalty and competence questioned when things go wrong.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2017, 10:58:38 AM
Bah, all your cynical motherfuckers just can't enjoy a goddamn thing. I'm loving this season.

The travel times are beyond ridiculous - deal with it. If they actually dealt with the travel times in any remotely realistic manner you'd complain about how slow it is and how padded out it is. And it would be. That was actually one of the complaints of first season - it took like 5 episodes to get from Winterfell to King's Landing. Was it realistic? Yes. Was it great storytelling - meh.

Yeah I agree with this. Maybe they had wasted too much time earlier, but the reality was the whole story is reaching it's climax very quickly and they only had 14 episodes to bring together all kinds of story arcs, characters and loose ends as well as show the climatic moments. Things were going to have to move quickly.

One other thing that's bugging me, is Sophie Turner the worse actress on this show by far? Holy fuck I can't stand her whining.

I find most of the acting to be pretty crap but gotta keep in mind these were mostly child actors. The only main character performance that stuck out to me was Dinklage who does a great job of earnestly trying to serve and looks so wounded when all these conversations end with him getting chewed out with his loyalty and competence questioned when things go wrong.

To be fair, everything since Tyrion took the job has been a total shitshow for team dragon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on August 21, 2017, 12:15:58 PM
Christ, I could listen to the actor playing Beric narrate anything. That dude's voice is smooth.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 21, 2017, 01:44:48 PM
Although the distance beyond the wall that the warband traveled is ambiguous, it was certainly at least a few hours - 4?.  The distance from Easternwatch to Dragonstone is about 1900 miles per book maps.  If the ravens flew at 50 to 60 miles per hour that would be between 30 and 40 hours of flight.  Then, unless Dani is going to be torn up by the wind, she can't fly back at more than about 75 MPH, so that would be another 20 to 25 hours.  All in all, if everything is perfectly sequential, we'd be saying a little over 2 days.

Of course, that is all irrelevant.  Bran can see the past and future.  Obviously, he sent the Raven to Dani before John went beyond the wall.  They just showed the scenes out of order and left out Bran sending the message.  By the time they encountered the undead bear, Dani was already mounting up.  By the time they were trapped on the island in the lake, Dani was halfway there. 

At least that is how I choose to believe it took place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 21, 2017, 01:52:25 PM
"A wizard did it."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 21, 2017, 01:58:46 PM
Leaving aside any other magic powers he might have, Bran being able to receive information instantaneously across large distances should be a major strategic game-changer in this war.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 21, 2017, 02:19:53 PM
Leaving aside any other magic powers he might have, Bran being able to receive information instantaneously across large distances should be a major strategic game-changer in this war.
Why?  Apparently everyone with a raven can do it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 21, 2017, 02:31:29 PM
Hah - that made absolutely no sense but we're all the way through the looking glass now so who cares. I smiled almost all the way through it despite myself.


Gendry he just craaazy!

Bears!

Bros stopping in pairs to have meaningful conversations in front of a green screen because writing for 3 is hard!

Lightsabres!

Guys without names getting eaten!

Tyrion going slowly bonkers because nothing anyone does makes any sense!

Completely original zombie mechanic!

Least significant named character dies!

Tormund saved by status as only remaining named wildling!

Ice that can't take the weight of zombies.... Fuck that it can now!

Supersonic ravens!

Dragons!

Oh shit zombies have pre-prepared surface to air munitions!

Ice Dragons!

Suddenly Benjen for no goddamn reason!

Clegane bowl is on!

Brienne and Jamie in the same town!


The only part I failed to enjoy was Sansa/Arya/Littlefinger. That was just annoying.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 21, 2017, 02:33:51 PM
Honestly, of all the things that just didn't make a lot of sense with the zombie fight was how many redshirts just seemed to keep popping up. I didn't bother counting (and it probably wouldn't have mattered if I did) but I don't think they took more than 10 people total, which meant 3 redshirts and I swear there were at least 5 dead redshirts besides Loras at the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on August 21, 2017, 02:38:12 PM
Bit of dragon glass might have come in handy there, if only they had some.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 21, 2017, 02:41:25 PM
I just looked, the first shot has exactly 10 dudes in a wide shot of the whole party. Jon, Gendry, Tormund, Hound, Beric, Thoros, Friendzone leaves room for 3 red shirts who are given a total of zero lines and whose faces appear on screen a combined total of no times to establish their existence before they get eaten.

I got confused when the bear ate a guy we apparently didn't know - assumed it was a passing wildling at first.

Quality writing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 21, 2017, 02:44:05 PM
Bit of dragon glass might have come in handy there, if only they had some.

I think Ser Friendzone was using some dragonglass daggers - the rest didn't seem to have them but really should have.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on August 21, 2017, 02:52:53 PM
Not like they didn't have time to forge a bunch of makeshift dragon glass weapons before they left, would have only take about five minutes in the current time scales.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 21, 2017, 03:04:35 PM
Why the everloving fuck does this family keep referencing my sartorial choices during peak trauma moments?

https://imgur.com/gallery/W4LOw


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 21, 2017, 03:31:16 PM
Not like they didn't have time to forge a bunch of makeshift dragon glass weapons before they left, would have only take about five minutes in the current time scales.

Jon had a Valyrian sword, Thoros and Beric had fiery magic, Jorah had two dragonglass daggers, the Hound had a doubleheaded dragonglass axe and Tormund had a dragonglass handaxe. I don't remember what Gendry had apart form his hammer because he was already running back to Eastwatch when they did the (very brief) montage of people unshipping their anti-Wight weapons for the big fight.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 21, 2017, 03:43:27 PM
Why the everloving fuck does this family keep referencing my sartorial choices during peak trauma moments?

https://imgur.com/gallery/W4LOw

Maybe they want this to drag on.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 21, 2017, 03:58:21 PM
That about sums up this season. (http://imgur.com/gallery/l2aGS)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 21, 2017, 04:04:57 PM
That about sums up this season. (http://imgur.com/gallery/l2aGS)

Dragonstone really is nowhere the fuck near the North or the Wall, is it.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on August 21, 2017, 04:37:38 PM
Jon had a Valyrian sword, Thoros and Beric had fiery magic, Jorah had two dragonglass daggers, the Hound had a doubleheaded dragonglass axe and Tormund had a dragonglass handaxe. I don't remember what Gendry had apart form his hammer because he was already running back to Eastwatch when they did the (very brief) montage of people unshipping their anti-Wight weapons for the big fight.

I knew John had the Valyrian sword, but wasn't sure about the others. Thanks for clearing it up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 21, 2017, 05:19:38 PM
Why the everloving fuck does this family keep referencing my sartorial choices during peak trauma moments?

https://imgur.com/gallery/W4LOw

Maybe they want this to drag on.

 :grin:

This has become my favourite part of Monday.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Amarr HM on August 21, 2017, 06:07:50 PM
Christ, I could listen to the actor playing Beric narrate anything. That dude's voice is smooth.

You should check out another show called Fortitude, if you haven't already. He's epic in that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 21, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
The best part of the episode was the banter between Tormund and The Hound, especially about Brienne. The ending was far too predictable, from the moment of the spear throw.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 21, 2017, 07:29:48 PM
Just basically this: the showrunners are great at doing a better second draft on Martin's first draft. They're fucking *terrible* at doing a first draft from a few sketches on a napkin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2017, 07:42:05 PM
Between this and Defenders, I'm at peak lazy TV writing.

My friend at work was all hyped to discuss the episode today. I'm afraid I kind of dashed his enthusiasm after only a few minutes.  But in the end, he did agree that this season has been pretty low effort outside of the dragon assaults.

It's fun, but it's all just incredibly dumb. The major actors all kind of look like they're sick of being there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 21, 2017, 08:10:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/6lc4K3b.jpg)

*snort*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 21, 2017, 08:46:08 PM
I got motivated today in a discussion with friends. It took me all of ten minutes to think of a better 7-episode outline with most of the same plot beats and basic showcase scenes that didn't require a single fucking "let's do something really dumb" plot idea to get there--and it wouldn't cost anything different than what this cost them.

These guys were only good when they were polishing a second draft of someone else's first draft. Leave them to write the first draft and they're catastrophes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 21, 2017, 09:19:16 PM
I kept wondering if this wouldn't have been a shit load better if they were under siege in an abandoned tower. Surrounded by wights, knowing the main army was approaching and would overwhelm them in a few days if help didn't arrive.

It would still be stupid - but nearly the same kind of stupid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 21, 2017, 09:32:26 PM
I kept wondering if this wouldn't have been a shit load better if they were under siege in an abandoned tower. Surrounded by wights, knowing the main army was approaching and would overwhelm them in a few days if help didn't arrive.

It would still be stupid - but nearly the same kind of stupid.

The only problem with that is that it might come out a little too close to Bran and Hodor in the cave.  They might've wanted something that would feel more open and epic since they've already done the "barricading the doors against zombies" thing.

Other than that, I tend to agree that if you're going to remake Army of Darkness you should do it right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on August 22, 2017, 03:56:05 AM
I don't care how bad Game of Thrones could get, those reviews will always be worth it.

"This is just frozen water Gendry, row your way to safety"



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: carnifex27 on August 22, 2017, 04:13:32 AM
I can forgive pretty much ANYTHING they do this season, so long as Arya, Brienne of Tarth and The Hound reunite at some point. They are the only characters left that I still care about at this point. I literally am only still watching to see if the three of them have a scene together.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on August 22, 2017, 04:24:27 AM
Nah, I'm pretty much over this.  Suspension of disbelief totally out the window.  I can accept zombies and dragons and shapeshifting and dragon zombies, but this travel shit is just bullshit.  What fucking speed would that Raven have needed to go at.  Never mind that, what fucking speed would Gendry have had to go at ?

What fucking speed would those dragons have to go at ???

It's bullshit and not even interesting bullshit. 

I also thought the banter between Sophie and Maisie was FUCKING AWFUL.  I like them both and I know for a fact Maisie can act, but that was wooden as SHIT performances.  Fear and Anger ?  There was nothing with either of them.  It's awful.  Awful.  Fucking Jon did better emoting as a guy that might wanna fuck a dragon mum and he's usually wooden as fuck.

The wife won't let me quit it, but it's fast becoming the show I watch while compiling PowerBI reports.  I can't think of any bigger insult than that....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 22, 2017, 05:10:30 AM
I have pretty much been over this series for a couple years now. Basically the fantasy league plus knowing it will end soon is making me stick with it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Hoax on August 22, 2017, 05:41:56 AM
It is frustrating as a thinking fan that the writers forgot Bran existed or Ghost existed or the red religion and their fire seeing existed. Use any method other than Gendry running and getting the watch to fly a raven to dragonstone pls guys pls.   :psyduck:

Also the whole every zombie but one thing was awful. Like cmon. Don't show writers feel shame when they take such a stupid shortcut to get what they want?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 22, 2017, 06:18:05 AM
Imagine taking a feature length movie and cutting it to a 20min student film.  I don't doubt everything we've seen was meant to be in this season but without any context it just seems rushed and out of place. 

The whole zombie lake scene was likely to be in the books almost exactly as it was except probably involving the cast setting up some kind of camp on the island, dragging it out for a week while the lake ice froze and they all began to starve.   Arya and Sansa could be playing a deeper game against Littlefinger and maybe a scene or two with Bran, Brienne or even the maester at winterfell would make it more clear or let us know that there is some shit going on beyond face value of the two sisters scenes but we don't see that either.

There's a lot of stuff happening that COULD make sense but there's just zero context for it.  So I don't really think the scenes in particular are dumb or could never make any sense but the overall package is.

"Game of Cliff Notes."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 22, 2017, 07:09:40 AM
From the alternative plot outline I worked up with a friend, here's a way to get the Magnificent Seven to the Wall for a big set piece.

Dany receives an envoy from Jon Snow--not Jon Snow, but Davos. He tries to convince her to come see the zombies. Tyrion tells Dany it might be real--there are dragons, after all, and Jon Snow seems like a decent chap. Dany thinks it's either a trick or a delusion, but then suddenly ta-da! Jorah Mormont shows up. She welcomes him and he mentions that he was cured by the nicest young maester who was really urgently worried about zombies north of the Wall. Varys mentions that he'd heard rumors from the Wall about dead men coming to life just before he took off for Essos with Tyrion.

Dany has an idea--she'll send Jorah Mormont to see about the zombie thing. If they're real, she says, send me a raven from Castle Black and I'll head north that instant with my dragons.

Davos and Jorah head north--but Davos makes a smuggler's pit stop in KL to pick up Gendry--and to leave a letter for Jamie from Tyrion begging Jamie to talk Cersei into surrender. Jamie reads it, then it goes missing--Qyburn snatches it and gives it to Cersei. Cue conversation about baby and betrayal.

Davos, Jorah and Gendry arrive at Winterfell. Guess who's there? The Hound, Thoros and Beric, in the prison, because Jon Snow, Sansa and Brienne totally do not trust them. Arya feels a bit different but doesn't know what to say. They tell a story about having to go to the Wall to see zombies. Jon Snow decides impulsively that he'll let them go and join Jorah, Gendry, Tormund *and himself* on a trip to Castle Black to see if they can see a zombie. (We'll just flat out undo Tormund having been sent to Eastwatch, which was stupid anyway). Davos stays because Winterfell needs his steadying influence.

[I have better ideas about Sansa and Arya, too, but leave that aside for the moment.]

The Magnificent Seven arrive at Castle Black. Dolorous Edd says, "Hai guys, you are in luck, a brother of the Night's Watch just died of a venereal disease and we were gonna burn him, I'll put him in the zombie lockup instead and you can see it's real." They wait a day and holy fuck, zombies are real. Jorah says, "I'll send the message to Daenerys." Suddenly the horn blows: there's a million zombies and wights approaching the Wall. Jorah says, "I'll amend the message to Daenerys and tell her HOLY FUCK COME QUICK IT'S A MILLION ZOMBIES".

The zombies just wait a short distance from the Wall, creeping everyone out. DT and the Dragon Squad arrive, she begins flaming the hell out of zombies, and the Night King does his javelin throw. Viserion is seriously wounded and crashes to the ground. Daenerys freaks out and flies back over the wall with Rhaegon and Drogon. Jon Snow decides to take the Magnificent Seven out the gate to try and keep the zombies off Viserion while the Night's Watch tries to find enough chains (remember the anti-climber defenses?) to drag his body back to the gate, hoping they can maybe tend to his wounds. Thoros dies; the redshirts die. Daenerys watching from the top of the Wall realizes they're all going to die and that Viserion is toast. So she hops on Drogon to be the choppa. She lands, they all climb on (including Jon Snow). Night King lines up his javelin, and suddenly there's Benjen, doing a suicide run at the Night King! He distracts the Night King long enough that DT succeeds in getting them out. She decides to fly everyone back to Winterfell so they can confer and tells Dolorous Edd to hold the Wall as long as possible.

Danerys is kind of smitten with that nice Jon Snow--he valiantly tried to save her baby! In the meantime, the Night King waits for Viserion to croak and then resurrects him. Cue the next episode!

----------------


See? Nobody did anything dumb. It's roughly the same set piece. It sets up the same emotional beats, more or less. It doesn't cost any more to stage, really. The only thing you lose is the dumb, unnecessary meeting between Tyrion and Jamie in KL--just find a better time for that later. (or earlier, maybe in the aftermath of the Loot Train Battle)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 22, 2017, 07:50:35 AM
But we don't get 'This is Jon Snow - A right proper lad' meeting in Dragonstone :D


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 22, 2017, 08:15:36 AM
So maybe you bring Davos to Castle Black, and DT and Jon have their first meeting there in the courtyard, same scene as at Dragonstone, more or less, only without Tyrion present. If the zombies are just quietly doing nothing out there, DT has time to stop and confer with Jorah, Davos and the rest. Maybe here you get a really interesting hint from Dolorous Edd that Jon is kind of a zombie himself, only to have Jon shush him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 22, 2017, 08:33:29 AM
My only concern with the rush here is what that means for next season. I mean, we've seen the dragons BBQ Lannisters, we've seen them cook up some zombies, and other than an ice dragon vs. fire dragon fight, how are you going to top the set pieces from this season without repeating some of the same beats? I don't think they've got enough budget to do 8 episodes of battle but I'm not sure they have enough story left to tell outside of that. I guess we'll see after this next week - I predict it will be a more low key episode without as much action and lots of talky.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 22, 2017, 08:37:48 AM
Next season is only 6 episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 22, 2017, 08:55:01 AM
My guess is four episodes of spectacle next season followed by two quieter episodes of falling action.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 22, 2017, 09:06:27 AM
With basically 7 episodes left then, that explains the rush.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 22, 2017, 09:22:13 AM
I really don't understand why they imposed this arbitrary limit of 7 and 6 episodes for the final 2 seasons. I can agree that there was a shit ton of filler in previous seasons that didn't need to take up so much screen time (most of the Dorne plot, Daenerys failing to impose her values on Slavers' Bay) but now they are trying to cram way too much into each episode because there isn't enough screentime to finish the story in a cohesive manner. It can't be budget, I don't imagine that HBO is worried about making enough money from the series to justify spending money. If it's a tradeoff for more CGI budget then scale back (heh) the Dragon closeups except for a few set pieces. Unless someone critical to the show has said they'll only do half seasons, I really don't get it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 22, 2017, 09:35:13 AM
General fatigue from the cast+crew I'd imagine.  Probably a lot of people saying "I've got one more in me then I'm done"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 22, 2017, 10:02:35 AM
It costs more and more money to keep the cast together as they get more famous and in demand. Generally actors are signed to seven year contracts and after that the salary demands explode.  It's probably all they can afford.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 22, 2017, 10:20:01 AM
They're extending the life of the product by splitting the last "season" in two.  HBO makes money by people subscribing.  Once GoT ends, if they do not have a hit show to replace it, they lose subscribers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 22, 2017, 10:30:03 AM
It costs more and more money to keep the cast together as they get more famous and in demand. Generally actors are signed to seven year contracts and after that the salary demands explode.  It's probably all they can afford.

Certainly would be a shame if we never got a Pixels 2 because Peter Dinklage was busy being Tyrion Lannister.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 22, 2017, 10:37:50 AM
I really don't understand why they imposed this arbitrary limit of 7 and 6 episodes for the final 2 seasons. I can agree that there was a shit ton of filler in previous seasons that didn't need to take up so much screen time (most of the Dorne plot, Daenerys failing to impose her values on Slavers' Bay) but now they are trying to cram way too much into each episode because there isn't enough screentime to finish the story in a cohesive manner. It can't be budget, I don't imagine that HBO is worried about making enough money from the series to justify spending money. If it's a tradeoff for more CGI budget then scale back (heh) the Dragon closeups except for a few set pieces. Unless someone critical to the show has said they'll only do half seasons, I really don't get it.
They also have less source material to draw from; with the books they had pages of filler to use for various scenes but now they've got outline notes, at best.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 22, 2017, 11:11:19 AM
I think it's pretty clear the showrunners have no idea how to imagine the smaller turns of plot and characterization without Martin's work to draw upon. Now I have to admit that I do sort of hope he manages two more books because this is not going to be a satisfying conclusion *at all*.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 22, 2017, 11:11:34 AM
On raven speeds - the Internet says 500 miles per day. If we allow for  these being badass westerosi ravens that can push 750 miles that gives a travel time of two days.

But speeds aren't the main issue, I coukd tell myself perhaos they were trapped on the rock for a few days - the bit I couldn't get my head around is Dany flying 1500 miles through a blizzard without adequate protection.

Jorah was worried about freezing ffs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on August 22, 2017, 11:13:22 AM
I think it's pretty clear the showrunners have no idea how to imagine the smaller turns of plot and characterization without Martin's work to draw upon. Now I have to admit that I do sort of hope he manages two more books because this is not going to be a satisfying conclusion *at all*.


That's exactly how I feel too. I didn't care before, but now I'm more and more curious how GRRM will write these plots.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MrHat on August 22, 2017, 11:14:44 AM
On raven speeds - the Internet says 500 miles per day. If we allow for  these being badass westerosi ravens that can push 750 miles that gives a travel time of two days.

But speeds aren't the main issue, I coukd tell myself perhaos they were trapped on the rock for a few days - the bit I couldn't get my head around is Dany flying 1500 miles through a blizzard without adequate protection.

Jorah was worried about freezing ffs.

Maybe first-class dragon seats are heated?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 22, 2017, 11:18:37 AM
Maybe first-class dragon seats are heated?

This.

The thing has a metabolism that generates fire on demand, there's gotta be a fair amount of waste heat coming off it.  I'm actually a little surprised that non-Targaryens can ride on dragonback without getting singed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on August 22, 2017, 11:31:39 AM
They didn't show any ice melting when Drogon was waiting for Jon and Company to climb aboard. Maybe Dany is immune to both Ice and Fire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 22, 2017, 11:31:50 AM
That 'waste heat' is how they fly so fast. Ramjet assist!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 22, 2017, 11:57:39 AM
Considering how Jon lived is he immune to cold, aka his Stark heritage? Just wondering.

I also think that HBO has to end this as the talent is basically saying 'immm doooooonnneeee'


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on August 22, 2017, 12:15:25 PM
The thing is, with the talent, they should know better than to fuck with HBO. HBO is loyal to their favorites. You will see actors pop up in new series a decade later. Why would you want out of the biggest show on TV? You're gonna get your money after this show. Soak up all the fame you can, while you can. Parlay it into the next HBO series, movies, TV, whatever....but unless you are a total idiot: don't you dare fuck with HBO.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 22, 2017, 01:21:57 PM
I wonder how Euron Greyjoy is going to react to the news that Cersei is pregnant with Jamie's child, now that she doesn't plan on hiding her "relationship" with her brother?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 22, 2017, 01:22:50 PM
I don't buy the idea that the cast and crew is phoning it in. It's a shit script being delivered as well as it reasonably can be.

The producers otoh strike me as being at the limits of their capabilities.

Noone is fucking with anybody.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 22, 2017, 01:29:33 PM
The thing is, with the talent, they should know better than to fuck with HBO. HBO is loyal to their favorites. You will see actors pop up in new series a decade later. Why would you want out of the biggest show on TV? You're gonna get your money after this show. Soak up all the fame you can, while you can. Parlay it into the next HBO series, movies, TV, whatever....but unless you are a total idiot: don't you dare fuck with HBO.

You think people would have learned by now what happens when you get into a dispute with the producers of the successful TV show you're on.  Ask Suzanne Somers and Wayne Rogers how well it worked out for them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 22, 2017, 01:46:37 PM
Dany had that bad-ass coat tho.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 22, 2017, 02:10:02 PM
Dany had that bad-ass coat tho.

ikea rug


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 22, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
I really don't understand why they imposed this arbitrary limit of 7 and 6 episodes for the final 2 seasons. I can agree that there was a shit ton of filler in previous seasons that didn't need to take up so much screen time (most of the Dorne plot, Daenerys failing to impose her values on Slavers' Bay) but now they are trying to cram way too much into each episode because there isn't enough screentime to finish the story in a cohesive manner. It can't be budget, I don't imagine that HBO is worried about making enough money from the series to justify spending money. If it's a tradeoff for more CGI budget then scale back (heh) the Dragon closeups except for a few set pieces. Unless someone critical to the show has said they'll only do half seasons, I really don't get it.

They said it was because these last two seasons have bigger battles and such and so they had to save money by cutting down on the number of episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: taolurker on August 22, 2017, 03:02:06 PM


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on August 22, 2017, 03:04:36 PM

They said it was because these last two seasons have bigger battles and such and so they had to save money by cutting down on the number of episodes.

So they took a show that was famously based on character drama and Tits, and decided to run a Michael Bay Transformers movie for the final 2 seasons.

*slow clap*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 22, 2017, 03:25:52 PM
Stop expecting actors to cover their faces, it just doesn't work. Some times realism has to take a back seat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 22, 2017, 03:41:48 PM

They said it was because these last two seasons have bigger battles and such and so they had to save money by cutting down on the number of episodes.

So they took a show that was famously based on character drama and Tits, and decided to run a Michael Bay Transformers movie for the final 2 seasons.

*slow clap*

If you think this is a Michael Bay Transformers movie, you've never seen one of those movies. (Consider yourself lucky). Did you think the show (or the books) would end with them all sitting around the table with Cesei and Dany flashing their breasts and Jon and the others deciding who'd rule based on the results of this flash?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 22, 2017, 04:45:29 PM
On Cersei's baby, I'm thinking:

a) It's totally fake, doesn't exist
b) It's Euron's baby--she already humped him

B) is pretty consistent with Cersei's behavior to date: she does whatever she wants, when she wants. Her feelings about Jamie are not really love per se.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 22, 2017, 04:51:12 PM
Gotta agree with most of this:

http://theweek.com/articles/719732/game-thrones-become-terrible-show

The show is really quite crap this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on August 22, 2017, 04:53:37 PM
Did you think the show (or the books) would end with them all sitting around the table with Cesei and Dany flashing their breasts and Jon and the others deciding who'd rule based on the results of this flash?

... Yes


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 22, 2017, 05:10:26 PM
On Cersei's baby, I'm thinking:

a) It's totally fake, doesn't exist
b) It's Euron's baby--she already humped him

B) is pretty consistent with Cersei's behavior to date: she does whatever she wants, when she wants. Her feelings about Jamie are not really love per se.


I don't think the scene with Qyburn was staged for Jaime's benefit, so I'm going with the assumption that Qyburn has in fact told her that she's pregnant. We know from Maggie's prophesy that Cersei will only have three children, so this child is not going to be born one way or another. I'm pretty sure she's not physically interested in Euron and is only tolerating him as a way to cement her power base, so random casual sex with him isn't something that seems very likely.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on August 22, 2017, 05:37:13 PM
Her feelings about Jamie are not really love per se.

Its complicated.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 22, 2017, 11:18:30 PM
Game Of Thrones director admits the show’s timeline is “straining plausibility” (http://www.avclub.com/article/game-thrones-director-admits-shows-timeline-strain-259742)

I especially like part
Quote
“If the show was struggling, I’d be worried about those concerns, but the show seems to be doing pretty well so it’s OK to have people with those concerns.”
The show's doing well so who cares about stuff like timelines?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on August 23, 2017, 05:21:09 AM
I would be more okay with the time travelling and distance issues if they would at least half attempt to explain it with some kind of MacGuffin.  They could have done a few really, really simple things to make it more believable.

That said, I get enough entertainment out of this show that I can easily forgive its obvious flaws.

Oh, and regarding the talent and their possible discontent...I have no idea how much actual time investment some of these guys put in, but actual screen time for most of them is extremely limited.  I'm guessing they have it pretty sweet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 23, 2017, 07:58:18 AM
The show has pretty much made some of these actors' careers, especially the young ones. I'm sure they aren't too bent out of shape about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on August 23, 2017, 08:34:55 AM
Even most of the older ones.  This is the biggest TV thing that has ever been, anyone who wants out would be a bit of a fool, at least as far as the main characters are concerned.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 24, 2017, 09:05:32 AM
Reading someone else complaining about GoT they referenced this scene from s1...

https://youtu.be/CY5As-RP1MM

... yeah, this is not that show.  

And there are so many like this pre-wedding.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2017, 02:49:41 AM
We know from Maggie's prophesy that Cersei will only have three children, so this child is not going to be born one way or another.

Maggie also said all 3 children will wear a crown. After Myrcella's early departure I'm not sure we can rely on the show observing mundane traditions such as continuity.

That said, I'd thought the same initially but...

There was a hell of a lot of foreshadowing of a Dany/Jon child in this episode. The only reason I can think of for the stupid longclaw discussion is for Jorah to mention the idea of Jon having kids, and Dany is talking about being barren *again*. Her exchange on succession has to refer to something.

Of course, if Dany and Jon procreate then it means the show has enough time left for Cersei as well.

Also Jamie is surely a lock to kill Cersei. With his unborn child still around that is tough to deliver. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 25, 2017, 04:26:04 AM
I'm still hoping that the GoT will show some of it's old "everybody dies" instead of "everyone gets a last minute save"-mentality and kills off some important character like Tyrion, Dany or Jon in the season's last episode to bring it to a decent close.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2017, 04:49:04 AM
My expectation is that main characters will die per the ASOIAF outline, which is why it was impossible to believe any of them were going to die on that stupid rock. Hard to predict if anything will happen this week because nothing nothing much has been set up beyond Jon and Dany making eyes.

The only main character potential survivors I can imagine are Sansa, Jamie, and at a real stretch Tyrion and/or Bran. Though if Bran lives he'll probably wander off to live in a tree.

Secondary characters not obviously marked for death: Brienne, Pod, the Hound, Tormund, Jorah, Sam.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 25, 2017, 05:59:30 AM
Also Jamie is surely a lock to kill Cersei. With his unborn child still around that is tough to deliver. 

Azor Ahai forged Lightbringer by plunging it into the breast of his beloved wife, killing her. This is the sword that could defeat the Night King. Jaime is already the kingslayer. Is he the nightkingslayer?

P.S. Tormund and The Hound continued (https://twitter.com/LordSnow/status/900821741563506689).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 25, 2017, 06:29:18 AM
Whose breast do you think you could plunge a sword into and have fire come out? You get one guess.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2017, 07:32:59 AM
We know from Maggie's prophesy that Cersei will only have three children, so this child is not going to be born one way or another.

Maggie also said all 3 children will wear a crown. After Myrcella's early departure I'm not sure we can rely on the show observing mundane traditions such as continuity.

She was a princess of Dorne when she died. Then her Prince and the King followed her. So you could *technically* swing it that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2017, 08:41:18 AM
I don't think the showbringers care all that much about carrying forward fine-grained character arcs. At this point, they only know:

a) gotta reveal Jon's parentage to everyone, preferably about half-an-episode after Jon and Daenerys have fucked and very likely when the person who's supposed to tell them about it (I'm guessing Sam) arrives to find them sprawled nude in bed
b) gotta finish out the Maggy the Frog prophecy since they showed it; I think they're setting Jamie up to have multiple motivations for it (selfless rage at Cersei trying to kill everyone in Westeros; selfish rage because the baby thing is a lie of some kind)

Plus they'll do the fanservice shit, since this entire season is like a fanservice slideshow.

So: Cleganebowl. Theon dying heroically (I'm pretty sure that's this Sunday and no I haven't peeked). Probably Brienne and Jamie meeting and Brienne dying heroically. (Also good odds for Sunday.)

The shit that I'm now 100% convinced they're going to fuck up catastrophically is Arya-Sansa-Littlefinger. Everyone keeps holding out that it's more clever than it appears, but considering that they lost control of the Arya story arc when she left for Braavos and they never have had a story for Sansa beyond damsel-in-distress, and that Littlefinger's last appearance as a competent plotter was in the Vale and not even really then,  nope, they're about to fuck it up. Doesn't matter how they seemed to foreshadow any of that in the early seasons--they don't really give a crap about that and I don't think GRRM's plot outline gives them much guidance either. (Partly because I think those are two plotlines that GRRM himself is confused about--the Braavos material in the books is equally meandering and Sansa's story hasn't gone beyond arriving at the Vale.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brennik on August 25, 2017, 08:44:48 AM
Bwahahaa: http://imgur.com/gallery/vIzHd (http://imgur.com/gallery/vIzHd)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2017, 10:41:54 AM
Point of order.

The show didn't include the entire maggy prophecy. It cut off after the section about children. The valonqar bit never happens on TV.

Edit :


Sam doesn't know shit about Jon's parents - all he (Gilly) knows is that any Lyanna / Rhaegar children are legit.


Edit2:

ALSO I'm 99% certain tv Myrcella never married Trystane - so isn't anything in Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 25, 2017, 10:53:53 AM
Bran knows that Jon is legitimate. I'm pretty sure that he's the only person still alive who does.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2017, 11:00:35 AM
Only on the basis that Bran knows everything. We don't have specific evidence he's found the wedding.

Howland Reed probably knew - but I don't think we'll see him on TV.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 25, 2017, 11:17:15 AM
In the books, isn't the whole Dorne plot line that they are going to crown Mycrella because she is older than Tommen and Dornish succession is solely by age?

Of course they totally mixed like 80% of the characters/story from Dirbe in the TV series like Oeryn's sister who was the heir to Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2017, 11:25:55 AM
In the books, isn't the whole Dorne plot line that they are going to crown Mycrella because she is older than Tommen and Dornish succession is solely by age?

Yes. Also in the books the Martell women don't kill Mycrella, it's a ploy to lure Lannister loyals in which she accidentally gets hurt.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: IainC on August 25, 2017, 12:16:03 PM
Only on the basis that Bran knows everything. We don't have specific evidence he's found the wedding.

Howland Reed probably knew - but I don't think we'll see him on TV.



Sorry, I meant to say that Bran knows who Jon's real mother is and no-one else who has shown up so far does. Howland Reed does but he's not even appeared as a random bannerman at Winterfell so I don't expect him to roll up later. We've only seen the younger version in Bran's vision and, if they were going to use him as an authority on Jon's parentage, I expect that the character would have shown up in the current timeline by now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on August 25, 2017, 02:25:29 PM
Only on the basis that Bran knows everything. We don't have specific evidence he's found the wedding.

Howland Reed probably knew - but I don't think we'll see him on TV.



Sorry, I meant to say that Bran knows who Jon's real mother is and no-one else who has shown up so far does. Howland Reed does but he's not even appeared as a random bannerman at Winterfell so I don't expect him to roll up later. We've only seen the younger version in Bran's vision and, if they were going to use him as an authority on Jon's parentage, I expect that the character would have shown up in the current timeline by now.

Right... I imagine it playing out with Bran dropping the bomb that Jon is Lyanna's child by Rhaegar; and in the spirit of watery tarts, swords, and all that stuff being a poor foundation for succession... Sam or probably Gilly swoops in with documentation per the book they stole from the maesters; and that makes it all legal an' shit.  

Sad to see the show deteriorate so far so quickly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2017, 02:52:09 PM
Yeah, that's what I see too: Bran says it, people go, come on man, and then Sam shows up and say, well, in this book it says. Maybe to gild the lily an old man wanders in with Meera and says, "Hi, I'm Howland Reed and yeah it's true". Which is like every fantasy trope ever except a sword in a stone, and Jon more or less has that too: it's called "o hai I can ride dragons".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 27, 2017, 07:35:53 PM
Good finale.  Going to be a long wait.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 27, 2017, 07:48:25 PM

But whatevs, only 7 more episodes and I never have to think about it again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 27, 2017, 07:52:01 PM

But whatevs, only 7 more episodes and I never have to think about it again.

Only until the prequel series starts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 27, 2017, 08:01:19 PM
If I don't ever watch any of the prequel, then I won't have this "well I started watching it, I need to finish it" thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 27, 2017, 08:04:11 PM
I'm pretty annoyed that they basically wasted 3.5 episodes this season trying to fake us out and make us think really really dumb shit was about to happen. But at least they did the smarter stuff in the last 40 minutes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 27, 2017, 08:08:42 PM

But whatevs, only 7 more episodes and I never have to think about it again.

That was through a lot of inbreeding though. The Stark genes are stronk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 27, 2017, 08:18:59 PM
That was a good episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 27, 2017, 10:17:18 PM
Prediction: Cersei's child is a tumor a la Queen Mary I.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on August 27, 2017, 10:39:47 PM
I'm gonna say it dies in the womb and the night king turns it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on August 28, 2017, 03:51:48 AM
So the Unsullied just marched across the continent without supplies to arrive at the perfect time for the show of force (or maybe it was their turn on the teleport)?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2017, 04:31:27 AM
Casterly to KL is not that ridiculous a march, but they keep on talking the bullshit about Cersei's armies this and Cersei's armies that and how she's going to retake southern Westeros if Dany moves north. WHAT ARMIES? If the Unsullied and Dothraki can move unimpeded around southern Westeros and Casterly's been taken, the only army she has is in KL. And it can't be that big--she lost a lot of troops at the Loot Train (as well as all the food she needed).

So now it seems clear that Cersei really does have a bun in the oven--I though it was possible she was faking it. But it's also clear she had a private consultation with Euron--so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's Euron's.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 28, 2017, 05:31:10 AM
Um she explicitly mentions the 50k Golden Company in this very episode??


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 28, 2017, 06:53:26 AM
I hear Arya's got a new friend on Facebook. Wonder if she'll use those connections.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2017, 07:11:11 AM
But nobody else knows about the Golden Company, so why is anyone else afraid of Cersei's non-existent armies? That's the entire reason for wanting a truce--the supposed fear that Cersei will march some nonexistent armies that don't have any food all over southern Westeros. The whole Golden Company thing is in fact confirmation that she's got no armies, which everyone else should know already. The point of not sacking KL is just not to incur civilian casualties plus I assume Cersei has just enough of a force to hold the walls for a bit.

Also btw, the idea that a *million* people live in KL and that they don't have a secure food supply is fucking nuts. Hangzhou was probably the biggest city in the medieval world at 2 million-ish due in part to refugees from the north flooding in, and the Southern Song spent much of their administrative time desperately remaking surrounding districts into more efficient rice-producers to deal with it. They also had to construct the most elaborate premodern system ever for fighting fires. Paris on the verge of the Black Death in the 14th Century was maybe the biggest in Western Europe at 200,000. Constantinople might have hit a million before falling to the Turks. And all of those cities also spent all their time trying to secure their supply lines. London got hit by a peasant revolt because of it.

That was literally like someone pointing to an aerial shot of New York City today and saying, "1 billion people live there!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 28, 2017, 07:11:38 AM
Um she explicitly mentions the 50k Golden Company in this very episode??
This gives me hope that my 'Iron Bank sends the Golden Company to actually betray and loot/burn Kings Landing' theory is true.  Not that the writers seem to care about any consistency, but Cersei is breaking an Oath about fighting against the enemy of all life, so it would fit.  Also would make true Dany's vision of walking through a burned down Red Keep way back in what ever season (bittersweet victory over the undead, now nothing to claim back home.  Time to found Queens Landing!).
I hear Arya's got a new friend on Facebook. Wonder if she'll use those connections.
Heh, nice.  Hadn't thought about that.  Though Christ, I guess I should have figured they'd have no time to explain Littlefingers master plan, and just kill that plot off for time constraints.  I mean, I have no idea still in the TV show what the fuck he was trying to accomplish in his quest for power.  Book Littlefinger still has hopes for greatness.  Should not have drafted the fucker, almost no points the whole season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: jgsugden on August 28, 2017, 07:26:44 AM
Not that it matters, but was it 20K or 50k troops?

Disappointed in the death. I was expecting him to pull out one more trick that he thought would keep him safe... only to have Arya shrug off the trickery and end him. The Littlefinger I knew should not have been exposed in that room... Not after hearing Bran and seeing Arya.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2017, 07:57:45 AM
I blame anime for giving people unrealistic expectations  of smart characters that are always 100 steps ahead as plot demands.  LF was a brilliant tactician but the game he had been playing was being changed at an ever increasing pace as the storyline went on.  Should LF have run when Bran gave him the heads up that he was onto LF's shit? Maybe but LF has always been an arrogant character who underestimates those around him and it led to his death.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on August 28, 2017, 08:03:27 AM
Maybe but LF has always been an arrogant character who underestimates those around him and it led to his death.

that's not LF at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 28, 2017, 08:11:12 AM
Yeah, LF was undone by his hubris. He was CONVINCED he still had Sansa in his pocket. Half the viewing audience was convinced he had Sansa in his pocket, dancing to the discord he was working on between the Starks. I kept thinking what a fool Sansa had become this season after learning the game two seasons ago.

Him being completely wrong about it was perfect. Him realizing how badly he'd miscalculated, and breaking to the point of begging on his knees? Yeah, that was it.


Heh, nice.  Hadn't thought about that.  Though Christ, I guess I should have figured they'd have no time to explain Littlefingers master plan, and just kill that plot off for time constraints.  I mean, I have no idea still in the TV show what the fuck he was trying to accomplish in his quest for power.  Book Littlefinger still has hopes for greatness.  Should not have drafted the fucker, almost no points the whole season.

All he was trying to do was laid out three or four seasons ago. He was a nobody from a nothing house when he began. His single goal was personal power and getting as high as he could so he was never shit on again. Littlefinger was out for Littlefinger and he had a vision to become the King. Was it modified along the way? Yes, but he always saw himself as being able to climb into a position of power as the Chaos he sowed kept bringing him opportunities. Chaos is a ladder.

He rose up to being one of the most powerful men in Westeros. I'd say he damn near got himself crowned King. He felt he could play Sansa into become Queen in the North, play on her feelings and become her husband, then, well, things happen. It's a dangerous place. After that? Well, he now controls the North and East being warden of the Vale. Betrothal or Betrayal, he's getting onto the Iron Throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 28, 2017, 08:11:36 AM
But nobody else knows about the Golden Company, so why is anyone else afraid of Cersei's non-existent armies? That's the entire reason for wanting a truce--the supposed fear that Cersei will march some nonexistent armies that don't have any food all over southern Westeros. The whole Golden Company thing is in fact confirmation that she's got no armies, which everyone else should know already. The point of not sacking KL is just not to incur civilian casualties plus I assume Cersei has just enough of a force to hold the walls for a bit.

Also btw, the idea that a *million* people live in KL and that they don't have a secure food supply is fucking nuts. Hangzhou was probably the biggest city in the medieval world at 2 million-ish due in part to refugees from the north flooding in, and the Southern Song spent much of their administrative time desperately remaking surrounding districts into more efficient rice-producers to deal with it. They also had to construct the most elaborate premodern system ever for fighting fires. Paris on the verge of the Black Death in the 14th Century was maybe the biggest in Western Europe at 200,000. Constantinople might have hit a million before falling to the Turks. And all of those cities also spent all their time trying to secure their supply lines. London got hit by a peasant revolt because of it.

That was literally like someone pointing to an aerial shot of New York City today and saying, "1 billion people live there!"

Isn't KL supposed to be like Constantinople though?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 28, 2017, 08:31:28 AM
People who worry about the food supply and firefighting capabilities of completely mythical cities suck all the joy out of life..:P  Just sayin'

Be a fun twist if the Night King said, '1 million ppl? Fuck that shithole Winterfell, let's head south boys!'


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2017, 08:32:15 AM
I hear Arya's got a new friend on Facebook. Wonder if she'll use those connections.
Heh, nice.  Hadn't thought about that.  Though Christ, I guess I should have figured they'd have no time to explain Littlefingers master plan, and just kill that plot off for time constraints.  I mean, I have no idea still in the TV show what the fuck he was trying to accomplish in his quest for power.  Book Littlefinger still has hopes for greatness.  Should not have drafted the fucker, almost no points the whole season.

It occurs to me now that Arya dressed as Littlefinger is going to be what finally kills Cersei off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 28, 2017, 08:46:12 AM

But whatevs, only 7 more episodes and I never have to think about it again.

That was through a lot of inbreeding though. The Stark genes are stronk.

I thought the first book did a really good job setting that up with the genealogy book Ned found establishing the genetic rules of Westeros and then a bunch of data points you can use to make further inferences:
1) The son of a Baratheon father will take after the father.  (This was the proof Joffrey and Tommen were not Robert's sons.)
2) The son of a Stark father and Tully mother will take after the mother.  (Not shown in the show, but in the book Cat is very angsty about this.)
3) The Targaryens have very distinctive coloration and are also inbred as fuck.

My takeaway from this is that Baratheon color genes are patrilineal, Stark (and maybe Tully) color genes are matrilineal, and Targaryen color genes are recessive (hence the inbreeding -- any non-inbred Targ kids look like bastards).  Jon looks like a Stark because he has a Stark mother.  Arya is also called out in the book as the only other Stark kid who looks like a Stark, further proof that the Starks tend to pass on their looks through the X chromosome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 28, 2017, 08:48:29 AM

This gives me hope that my 'Iron Bank sends the Golden Company to actually betray and loot/burn Kings Landing' theory is true.  Not that the writers seem to care about any consistency, but Cersei is breaking an Oath about fighting against the enemy of all life, so it would fit.  

I like that prediction, and maybe the way she's been all family this - family that recently is foreshadowing a bit since it would be poetic justice after all it was her father who betrayed the old Targaryen king who let the Lannister army through the gates, who then immediately sacked the place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 28, 2017, 09:20:54 AM
Oh yeah and just gotta say I was LOL'ing pretty hard at the creepy dwarf moment during the sex scenes. Hopefully Tyrion can pull some weight there for the remainder now that Littlefinger's bought the farm.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 28, 2017, 09:28:42 AM
Yeah, LF was undone by his hubris. He was CONVINCED he still had Sansa in his pocket. Half the viewing audience was convinced he had Sansa in his pocket, dancing to the discord he was working on between the Starks. I kept thinking what a fool Sansa had become this season after learning the game two seasons ago.

Him being completely wrong about it was perfect. Him realizing how badly he'd miscalculated, and breaking to the point of begging on his knees? Yeah, that was it.


Heh, nice.  Hadn't thought about that.  Though Christ, I guess I should have figured they'd have no time to explain Littlefingers master plan, and just kill that plot off for time constraints.  I mean, I have no idea still in the TV show what the fuck he was trying to accomplish in his quest for power.  Book Littlefinger still has hopes for greatness.  Should not have drafted the fucker, almost no points the whole season.

All he was trying to do was laid out three or four seasons ago. He was a nobody from a nothing house when he began. His single goal was personal power and getting as high as he could so he was never shit on again. Littlefinger was out for Littlefinger and he had a vision to become the King. Was it modified along the way? Yes, but he always saw himself as being able to climb into a position of power as the Chaos he sowed kept bringing him opportunities. Chaos is a ladder.

He rose up to being one of the most powerful men in Westeros. I'd say he damn near got himself crowned King. He felt he could play Sansa into become Queen in the North, play on her feelings and become her husband, then, well, things happen. It's a dangerous place. After that? Well, he now controls the North and East being warden of the Vale. Betrothal or Betrayal, he's getting onto the Iron Throne.
OK.  It made a broad, vague sense in the TV series, but honestly, wasn't lined out well at all.  You can assume anything you want, but what we got was:  Step 1:  LF takes control of the vale.  Step 2:  allies with Sansa in hopes of taking the north/fucking her, Step 3: ......who the fuck knows.

In the book its heavily implied little finger has crazy plans, and while I'm TOTALLY fine with those plans falling apart and him dying in the process, you'd at least expect to have an explanation of what he was trying to do in that case.  He was very powerful as the Master of Coin.  It was talked about, at great lengths, in the book that he wanted more.  So basically running the kingdom.  There is little information about how that, or something like it, was going to happen on his current crazy path.  Which hey, his goal might have been to fuck an underage teenage girl that looked like the former love of his life, and I guess hurrah for having specific goals and all that, but it makes for shitty TV.

It does make me sleep at night that they may have taken this from a GRRM outline, which means that Sansa eventually learns all the tricks of state craft/fuckery, finds out about him betraying her father, and does him in.  Something I've been hoping for since before this millennium began.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on August 28, 2017, 09:56:27 AM
I vaguely recall the books pointing out that Littlefinger is quick on his mental feet-- the whole accusation involving the knife used on Bran was a spur-of-the-moment thing, wasn't it?  It's not that he doesn't have plans, but I don't get the feeling he's married to a master plan.  He's constantly rolling with the flow to adapt to changes.

His mistake was forgetting Sansa knows how he operates, and thinking she hadn't grown up.

There are mentions in the books of dark-haired Targaryens.

I think the number quoted for the golden company was 20,000.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 28, 2017, 10:48:19 AM
Littfinger had a master strategy; use chaos to climb higher and higher in power, with a goal of King/ Regent/ Hand. The tactics he used to further that goal varied based on the pieces on the board and whatever might be most advantageous for his strategy to use.  Betray Ned, save Ned. Fuck Sansa, sell Sansa to the Boltons. Marry Lyssa, throw Lyssa out a window.

Never mistake the strategy for the tactics. Or the ability for a strategist to completely abandon a plan if a newer, more advantageous one shows up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 28, 2017, 01:16:30 PM
In both book and show Littlefinger's "strategy" is just be confident he's smarter than everyone else. He fucked up, he died. I'm ok with that.

Suspect if tv wasn't phoning it in there would be a better story behind it but it was fine.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WayAbvPar on August 28, 2017, 01:22:11 PM
Pretty satisfying finale. I was not expecting the Littlefinger twist, but was ecstatic when it happened. Really liked the scene with Sansa and Arya reminiscing about Ned too...that really strengthened the point that LF was never going to split them.

I was disappointed that the zombagon didn't breathe ice, but it was kinda cool to see it destroy the Wall with blue fire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2017, 01:24:28 PM
I like the Iron Bank sends the Golden Company to loot KL theory. That would be fun. It would be interesting if Cersei then has to flee north with her few remaining loyalists and that's how she ends up re-encountering her now-bitter enemies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2017, 02:28:45 PM
*Dracolich


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on August 28, 2017, 02:53:51 PM
Sweet, I won the league by dumb luck.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 28, 2017, 03:25:19 PM
Tyrion being totally worthless was depressing. If I'd chosen Arya instead of him it would've been smooth sailing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2017, 03:30:46 PM
I'm trying to remember where Tyrion lost his cock, because it wasn't at the same time as Theon. This was the guy who was willing to fight, to plot, and to shoot his fucker of a father through the cock while he was shitting. And to murder his former lover.

Then he got drunk, hung out with a eunuch spy, was kidnapped by a maniac, was briefly enslaved, and met an ambitious lady who had some bad enemies. This somehow resulted in him becoming a rather cheerless Protestant who has a bunch of stupid plans.

Dinklage had one modestly good scene the entire season, which was with Cersei. The rest was of him being a bore, a wet blanket, and a seriously dumb fuck advisor who should have already been used as dragon food. What happened?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 28, 2017, 03:33:26 PM
I picked him first pick of the draft?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 28, 2017, 03:54:21 PM
I'm trying to remember where Tyrion lost his cock, because it wasn't at the same time as Theon. This was the guy who was willing to fight, to plot, and to shoot his fucker of a father through the cock while he was shitting. And to murder his former lover.

Then he got drunk, hung out with a eunuch spy, was kidnapped by a maniac, was briefly enslaved, and met an ambitious lady who had some bad enemies. This somehow resulted in him becoming a rather cheerless Protestant who has a bunch of stupid plans.

Dinklage had one modestly good scene the entire season, which was with Cersei. The rest was of him being a bore, a wet blanket, and a seriously dumb fuck advisor who should have already been used as dragon food. What happened?

White Walkers are real. Wights are real. Dragons are real. The ambitious lady turned out to be worthy. Think back to a comment about Grumpkins and Snarks. Tyrion was humbled by his worldview ending. He became serious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 28, 2017, 04:25:33 PM
A stupid thought that someone should turn into a proper meme. Spoiler.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2017, 04:34:29 PM
Heh.

---------

So, yeah--he was humbled and became serious. Dinklage should have had at least one scene written to exactly that point--he's maybe the only actor in the whole thing who could have pulled that off and even carried the rest of us along with him. He thought life was just tits, wine, and outwitting his evil nephew and then he was threatened with death, saw a good man die on his behalf, killed his father and lover, escaped into exile, found himself, and then found out dragons and wights were real. He grew up, fine! But he should get to talk about that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rishathra on August 28, 2017, 05:38:07 PM
I thought it was less that his plans were shit, more that his boss was too impatient to let his plans come to fruition.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 28, 2017, 06:18:58 PM
What good are plans if your enemy's armies and navies can pingpong around the continent foiling them all in a single episode?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on August 28, 2017, 06:35:14 PM
I like the Iron Bank sends the Golden Company to loot KL theory. That would be fun. It would be interesting if Cersei then has to flee north with her few remaining loyalists and that's how she ends up re-encountering her now-bitter enemies.


Wasn't the Golden Company in the books a bunch of displaced former Westeros noblemen who were loyal to the Targaryens or something like that?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 28, 2017, 06:50:17 PM
I like the Iron Bank sends the Golden Company to loot KL theory. That would be fun. It would be interesting if Cersei then has to flee north with her few remaining loyalists and that's how she ends up re-encountering her now-bitter enemies.


Wasn't the Golden Company in the books a bunch of displaced former Westeros noblemen who were loyal to the Targaryens or something like that?

To the Blackfyres. They come back with Fakegon because they probably got the real story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Raph on August 28, 2017, 07:58:44 PM
I thought it was less that his plans were shit, more that his boss was too impatient to let his plans come to fruition.

You will probably enjoy this article: https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/28/16205048/game-of-thrones-season-7-cersei-daenerys-jon-snow


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2017, 08:16:00 PM
Thumbs up. Great piece.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on August 28, 2017, 10:33:50 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/FC9Ps5z.jpg) (https://imgur.com/gallery/i5dsO)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 29, 2017, 01:53:40 AM
I like the Iron Bank sends the Golden Company to loot KL theory. That would be fun. It would be interesting if Cersei then has to flee north with her few remaining loyalists and that's how she ends up re-encountering her now-bitter enemies.


Wasn't the Golden Company in the books a bunch of displaced former Westeros noblemen who were loyal to the Targaryens or something like that?

To the Blackfyres. They come back with Fakegon because they probably got the real story.

And to clarify further. The blackfyres were Targ bastards who founded the company. The current Company is made up of westerosi exiles and their sons.

Some people think Varys is a Blackfyre.

Having a Lannister crown hiring the golden company to fight against a Targ restoration seems on a par with Cersei's excellent decision to allow the Faith Militant to take up arms. Not because they are pro-Targ so much as because many of them feel aggrieved about being exiled in the first place. When the book Golden Company arrive in westeros they do so after breaking a contract for the first time in their history and they are led by men exiled after Robert's Rebellion.  They are written as having an inflated sense of their own importance and honour - but also as being an extremely professional and effective military force.

The last time they were in Westeros was 40 years ago. They were trying to overthrow Jaehaerys II and install one of their own Blackfyre commanders as king. Ser Barristan supposedly killed the last Company Blackfyres during the campaign.

I can't decide if I think Cersei bringing them specifically is a way to mess with books readers or because they are bringing some plot along with them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 29, 2017, 03:29:04 AM
Well, since threy have given no background to the Golden Company, and have precious few episodes left to give even more back story, I think it's safe to assume the TV version will just be a normal mercenary company.  If my betrayal theory holds true, it may be to bring a major future book plot point back around to the TV.  When we last left off, the Golden Company had successfully launched an invasion, and where gathering their forces to march on Kingslanding.  In the next book, they may actually take/sack it, forcing Cersei to flee.  Just in time for the long night to hit in full force.

Also, again, the only damn thing that came about from that grand mission north of the wall was give the nights king a dragon.  That zombie did not actually get cersei on their side, and she is sending nobody north.  And the nights king had no way to get past the wall until he got that dragon.  The Lord of Light is a dick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 29, 2017, 03:56:40 AM
I can't see book golden company and fake Aegon taking KL from Cersei, because I do not see how you position them as a "younger more beautiful queen".

Possibly if they switch to Dany at some point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 29, 2017, 06:37:00 AM
Well, since threy have given no background to the Golden Company, and have precious few episodes left to give even more back story, I think it's safe to assume the TV version will just be a normal mercenary company. 

The background is with the Iron Bank, who is sponsoring the deal to to hire them. Seems like they have laid some groundwork for this on the TV show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bungee on August 29, 2017, 06:38:32 AM
Also, Jamie really will kill Cersei now, no?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 29, 2017, 06:53:47 AM
The background is with the Iron Bank, who is sponsoring the deal to to hire them. Seems like they have laid some groundwork for this on the TV show.
Yes, but I mean like, suddenly revealing that the Golden Company is run by former lords who fled after Robert's Rebellion, and have designs about restoring a Targaryen to the throne, and ect ect.

I cannot imagine them giving any extra screen time to revealing stuff like that.  So its just going to be a normal merc company from the continent of bad accents, with none of the book backstory.
I can't see book golden company and fake Aegon taking KL from Cersei, because I do not see how you position them as a "younger more beautiful queen".

Possibly if they switch to Dany at some point.
Eh, that ones hard.  Margaery could actually still be the one she talked about, as she's still alive and well in the books.  We have no idea if the book will kill her off like the TV show did.  Maybe she'll be successful in ousting Cersei, only to have the Golden Company show up right after.  Not to mention that there are a lot of other theories out there about the younger one not being Dany.  That prophecy is still way up in the air at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 29, 2017, 08:59:47 AM
The background is with the Iron Bank, who is sponsoring the deal to to hire them. Seems like they have laid some groundwork for this on the TV show.
Yes, but I mean like, suddenly revealing that the Golden Company is run by former lords who fled after Robert's Rebellion, and have designs about restoring a Targaryen to the throne, and ect ect.

I cannot imagine them giving any extra screen time to revealing stuff like that.  So its just going to be a normal merc company from the continent of bad accents, with none of the book backstory.

Oh yeah that's what I was trying to get at, that's all out, no way that comes in now. GRRM spent like half of ADOD going deep into that and it was all a big fake out.

It can't be a coincidence that both GRRM and the TV writers have the Golden Company converging on KL, through very different plotlines. Has to be a reason to drop an elite foreign army of 20,000 on the capital, so one has to assume there is a big violent event involving it coming up.

Oh yeah and I had forgotten that Varys wasn't even with Danaerys. Maybe that's why he doesn't have much to say or do on the show, in the books he wasn't even part of her court, he was with the fake pretender. I guess he has something to do towards the end which is why they are keeping him around, but a convoluted plot he was involved with in the books was edited out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Viin on August 29, 2017, 09:06:36 AM
How did Beric end up with 200 status points?!?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on August 29, 2017, 09:32:47 AM
Dammit Jaime!  One more good zinger and you'd have won it for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cheddar on August 29, 2017, 09:39:53 AM
How did Beric end up with 200 status points?!?

Magic  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on August 29, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
How did Beric end up with 200 status points?!?
[/quote

No one knows, the LoL just wanted it that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Merusk on August 29, 2017, 11:38:07 AM
How did Beric end up with 200 status points?!?

Magic  :awesome_for_real:

Yeah, each time he lit his sword he got points. Plus multiple violence points for the wright slaughter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 29, 2017, 12:35:04 PM
The background is with the Iron Bank, who is sponsoring the deal to to hire them. Seems like they have laid some groundwork for this on the TV show.
Yes, but I mean like, suddenly revealing that the Golden Company is run by former lords who fled after Robert's Rebellion, and have designs about restoring a Targaryen to the throne, and ect ect.

I cannot imagine them giving any extra screen time to revealing stuff like that.  So its just going to be a normal merc company from the continent of bad accents, with none of the book backstory.

I agree they won't explain it - though s1 and s2 introduced far more complicated shit in less time.

But if they turn out to be at all important in doing something besides acting as Varys'/Fakegon's generic army in the books, I wouldn't be shocked if the tv writers decide to have them do whatever they need to do anyway without explaining why. Or giving them a stupid alternative motivation for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 29, 2017, 01:52:50 PM
I thought it was less that his plans were shit, more that his boss was too impatient to let his plans come to fruition.

You will probably enjoy this article: https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/28/16205048/game-of-thrones-season-7-cersei-daenerys-jon-snow


Why does everyone keep saying Littlefinger got outsmarted by Sansa and Arya? Littlefinger died because Bran can literally see anything he wants. There is no outsmarting that. Sansa and Arya acted out their parts wonderfully, but Bran is the one who fucked him and there was absolutely no chance of beating him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 29, 2017, 02:16:34 PM
Tbh on tv we didn't see him get outsmarted at all. Sansa just decided to kill him and apparently got Royce on board off screen. As Royce always hated Littlefinger that wasn't very hard I imagine.

Littlefinger's hold over the Vale is based on his control of Robin Arryn and the knights' loyalty to Robin, Royce originally refused to follow Littlefinger until Littlefinger had Arryn threaten Royce. It always seemed ridiculous for tv Littlefinger to have left Robin in the Vale as it opened him up to the utter contempt Royce has always held for Baelish.

We never saw sansa or bran outmaneuver him.

It was a neat scene played well without any of the groundwork or clever plotting that might have made it interesting.

My main emotion was relief that we weren't going to be subjected to another emo-sister sequence.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 29, 2017, 02:21:32 PM
Of course you never saw Bran outmaneuver him, the moment you saw Bran you'd know he was absolutely fucked and would have taken away all the drama from that storyline. But seeing But the second you saw Bran at that hearing should have been when you realized it was all a huge set up and Littlefinger was fucked. When do think Bran told Sansa and Arya what really happened to their father? i seriously doubt it was right before that hearing. They've known all along Littlefinger betrayed their father and got him killed, that means the whole Sansa/Arya thing was a setup from the get go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on August 29, 2017, 03:34:36 PM
Random thought: Cersei's little unborn child possibly Cthulu monster kills her during pregnancy"

"You have three kids, all of whom will die. Then the fourth will kill you and be born stillborn, because you are a heinous bitch and also it's ironic because that's why your Mom died and why you hate Tyrion. You lose."



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: March on August 29, 2017, 04:12:20 PM
that means the whole Sansa/Arya thing was a setup from the get go

For whom?  Baelish doesn't witness the Sansa/Arya dialogue... only we the hapless hostage viewers.  Which means that the TV writers are writing as if we are characters to be fooled, not readers to be enlightened. 

We've left off the tale and are now just in it for the ride.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on August 29, 2017, 05:21:14 PM
that means the whole Sansa/Arya thing was a setup from the get go

For whom?  Baelish doesn't witness the Sansa/Arya dialogue... only we the hapless hostage viewers.  Which means that the TV writers are writing as if we are characters to be fooled, not readers to be enlightened. 

We've left off the tale and are now just in it for the ride.

Yes, that was simply bad writing or a lot less... confrontational than it looked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 29, 2017, 06:07:20 PM
TV writers writing a TV show, to be shown on TV, write episodes like TV shows.  Shocking.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on August 29, 2017, 07:21:01 PM
But they weren't doing that before.  It was great TV because writing a second draft of GoT meant it wasn't being written like a standard TV show.  Its really jarring to see how the writing was in the first half of the show, compared to what its become in the second half.  Without GRRM to guide them, they've devolved back to the most basic lazy level of TV writing.  SAD!
How did Beric end up with 200 status points?!?
No one knows, the LoL just wanted it that way.
Nah, it was from the pre-approved point structure from the get go unfortunately.  50 points for using magic.  So, in the beyond the wall episode, Beric lit his sword on fire three separate times, netting him 150 points.  The same amount of points The Nights King got for killing a dragon.

 :oh_i_see:

Hopefully they adjust the use of magic points, since I imagine a whole lot of magic is going to fly around next season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on August 29, 2017, 07:41:30 PM
GRRM was a TV writer before he started writing books. His input since the show has started has been more and more towards TV style. Hell the last book was pretty meh in terms of useful narrative shit too.

These guys running the shows are TV hacks, but Martin is a TV hack too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on August 29, 2017, 09:13:31 PM
There have been TV beats and set ups in every season of the show. People look back on prior seasons with rose colored glasses if you ask me. Its always been pretty shlocky with lots of shmuck-bait (an actual screenwriter term).  It just had the benefit of people being able ladle their own deeper book knowledge over the top of it like gravy. Mmmmm, gravy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on August 29, 2017, 10:45:17 PM
Had this been a full length season with horseshit filler (and it still had horseshit filler, just way less); the jarring bits would have been less jarring. ESPECIALLY TRAVEL TIMES.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on August 29, 2017, 11:02:31 PM
IMHO that wasn't a setup from the go, Littlefinger was overplaying his hand.

As dumb as it makes the Stark kids seem before that, the moment it fell apart was when Littlefinger gave Sansa his final lesson - assuming the worst in people and going from there.

I think that was when Sansa realized there is little that Arya gives less shit about that being Lady of Winterfell, whereas Littlefinger was power hungry from the start. Thats when he was doomed. Her "I am a slow learner, but I am learning" speech at the end confirmed that theory for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on August 30, 2017, 04:22:14 AM
People seem to think Sansa just realised this episode.  I don't think that's true at all.  Bitch has been on to him for ages.

It took him overplaying it with Maisie and Branflakes and his amazing visions for her to decide to end it is all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 30, 2017, 07:06:37 AM
For all we know, Sansa was weighing the real possibility of marrying Littlefinger in order to solidify her own hold over both the North and the Vale before her siblings showed up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on August 30, 2017, 08:27:31 AM
Maybe so, but you'd still think she'd do it with eyes open.

She's been through a lot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tebonas on August 30, 2017, 08:56:02 AM
That could as well be, but why the slow learner comment if she had caught Littlefingers ploy early?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Morat20 on August 30, 2017, 09:10:49 AM
That could as well be, but why the slow learner comment if she had caught Littlefingers ploy early?
Littlefinger has been her "friend" since Daddy got his head chopped off. She could have known for years and still think herself a slow learner for not knowing sooner.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 30, 2017, 09:27:59 AM
She wasn't too thrilled with him even last season since the whole sellout to Bolton, and IIRC she was hesitating on his offer of the Vale helping them up north vs. Bolton until she finally accepted when there was no other way. This season for that reason she accepted his necessity at Winterfell as part of the Vale armies but clearly wasn't too interested in him personally or his creepy propositions.

I'm sure there's some subtle moment earlier in the season people will be able to pinpoint as the switch where Sansa, Arya and Bran have set out to nail LF, I just can't be arsed to go re-watch the episodes looking for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ironwood on August 30, 2017, 09:53:29 AM
That could as well be, but why the slow learner comment if she had caught Littlefingers ploy early?
Littlefinger has been her "friend" since Daddy got his head chopped off. She could have known for years and still think herself a slow learner for not knowing sooner.

Yeah, this.  I would imagine, despite knowing him at this stage, some of Brans absolute truths might have shocked her.  I can imagine her being told the graphic details of his involvement in the end of Poor Ned.  After all, she was forced to watch the guys head come off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Slayerik on August 30, 2017, 12:52:32 PM
Honestly, I had the feeling Littlefinger was going down and I had the same feeling about the priest dude. They are both unimportant enough to whack. Now that the focus is white walkers, scheming between the houses is kinda obsolete...both their deaths had no teeth. Neither hurt. Neither was like, OMG they killed off -insert name here-

It was a couple guys who had served their purpose long ago and really weren't all that interesting anymore. I liked Littlefinger's character but he was going nowhere.

They shoulda killed off that whole group of adventurers. In a brutal struggle. The kind where when each of em gets killed you are like.....NOOOOO. And you walk away shocked and a little pissed. They should have died for being on a moronic quest and not saying 'Hey, this is a moronic quest'.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: kaid on August 30, 2017, 01:14:12 PM
Tbh on tv we didn't see him get outsmarted at all. Sansa just decided to kill him and apparently got Royce on board off screen. As Royce always hated Littlefinger that wasn't very hard I imagine.

Littlefinger's hold over the Vale is based on his control of Robin Arryn and the knights' loyalty to Robin, Royce originally refused to follow Littlefinger until Littlefinger had Arryn threaten Royce. It always seemed ridiculous for tv Littlefinger to have left Robin in the Vale as it opened him up to the utter contempt Royce has always held for Baelish.

We never saw sansa or bran outmaneuver him.

It was a neat scene played well without any of the groundwork or clever plotting that might have made it interesting.

My main emotion was relief that we weren't going to be subjected to another emo-sister sequence.



Apparently there was a scene that got cut but it was the sansa vs arya thing coming to a head only to have bran interject a lot of truth bombs about littlefinger and how he was tied to every terrible thing that has happened.  Kinda sad they cut it because bran being useful instead of just weird and cryptic would have been a nice change.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Wasted on August 30, 2017, 01:26:09 PM
Tbh on tv we didn't see him get outsmarted at all. Sansa just decided to kill him and apparently got Royce on board off screen. As Royce always hated Littlefinger that wasn't very hard I imagine.

Littlefinger's hold over the Vale is based on his control of Robin Arryn and the knights' loyalty to Robin, Royce originally refused to follow Littlefinger until Littlefinger had Arryn threaten Royce. It always seemed ridiculous for tv Littlefinger to have left Robin in the Vale as it opened him up to the utter contempt Royce has always held for Baelish.

We never saw sansa or bran outmaneuver him.

It was a neat scene played well without any of the groundwork or clever plotting that might have made it interesting.

My main emotion was relief that we weren't going to be subjected to another emo-sister sequence.



Apparently there was a scene that got cut but it was the sansa vs arya thing coming to a head only to have bran interject a lot of truth bombs about littlefinger and how he was tied to every terrible thing that has happened.  Kinda sad they cut it because bran being useful instead of just weird and cryptic would have been a nice change.

I agree.  Not only would it really demonstrate Bran's usefulness to both the audience and to the Stark girls, but it would also show how close Littlefinger really came to alienating Sansa from the rest of her family and placing her in his control.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 30, 2017, 01:29:04 PM
Random thought: Cersei's little unborn child possibly Cthulu monster kills her during pregnancy"

"You have three kids, all of whom will die. Then the fourth will kill you and be born stillborn, because you are a heinous bitch and also it's ironic because that's why your Mom died and why you hate Tyrion. You lose."



Her current pregnancy is definitely a valonqar so prophecies check out.

Also neatly foreshadowed by Joanna's death.

I don't buy it though.



Book Jamie with the hand's chain of office, in the bedroom.

TV Jamie with his golden hand, in the map room.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 30, 2017, 01:30:55 PM
Tbh on tv we didn't see him get outsmarted at all. Sansa just decided to kill him and apparently got Royce on board off screen. As Royce always hated Littlefinger that wasn't very hard I imagine.

Littlefinger's hold over the Vale is based on his control of Robin Arryn and the knights' loyalty to Robin, Royce originally refused to follow Littlefinger until Littlefinger had Arryn threaten Royce. It always seemed ridiculous for tv Littlefinger to have left Robin in the Vale as it opened him up to the utter contempt Royce has always held for Baelish.

We never saw sansa or bran outmaneuver him.

It was a neat scene played well without any of the groundwork or clever plotting that might have made it interesting.

My main emotion was relief that we weren't going to be subjected to another emo-sister sequence.



Apparently there was a scene that got cut but it was the sansa vs arya thing coming to a head only to have bran interject a lot of truth bombs about littlefinger and how he was tied to every terrible thing that has happened.  Kinda sad they cut it because bran being useful instead of just weird and cryptic would have been a nice change.

I agree.  Not only would it really demonstrate Bran's usefulness to both the audience and to the Stark girls, but it would also show how close Littlefinger really came to alienating Sansa from the rest of her family and placing her in his control.

And would have turned sansa / arya into an arc rather than two daft and contradictory scenes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on August 30, 2017, 03:25:29 PM
I've said this before, but one of the problems they have right now is that the books don't fill stuff in anymore. Before you could get the backstory of X character from the books and that could fill in the inadequacies of the shows narrative. Conversely the writers could point at the books and get a sense of what scenes should look like, or they could just abridge scenes from the books. That's pretty much easymode writing.

The shortened timeframe they have now is not helping either of course.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on August 30, 2017, 03:53:45 PM
The thing about the books giving us necessary backstory simply isn't true up to the blackwater, and arguably not until the red wedding. They made good decisions on cuts but left plenty of meat on the bones.

If you go back and look at the care taken through to the middle of season 3  it is unrecognisable compared to season 5 through 7.

The thing I Iiked about the last episode this year is how it mostly evoked the early episodes where characters just talk to each other in rooms trying to figure each other out.


You are completely correct that the show writers obviously can't do their jobs well without the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on August 30, 2017, 03:57:19 PM
Good points


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on August 30, 2017, 09:26:57 PM
If you go back and look at the care taken through to the middle of season 3  it is unrecognisable compared to season 5 through 7.

To be fair, everything after the Red Wedding in the books is mostly shit too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on August 31, 2017, 06:54:21 AM
To be fair, everything after the Red Wedding in the books is mostly shit too.

Arya saw it, ragequit and moved to Bravos just like half of Twitter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on August 31, 2017, 11:30:22 AM
I can't argue since A Dance with Dragons was a 1000 page meandering dog turd of a book ending with the cliffhanger of Jon Snow dying.  It seemed like the ultimate in lazy plotting to throw a character death in there at the end when everyone knew it was going to be reversed later.

That was five years after the previous book.  Here it is five years after that and we are still waiting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on August 31, 2017, 11:56:16 AM
6 years.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: satael on September 01, 2017, 02:44:47 AM
I think this Wisecrack's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLfoNVG2m4c) pretty much matches my opinion of the 7th season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 01, 2017, 05:28:07 AM
GRRM has been saying he is hopeful that 1 of WoW or his asoiaf history book will be ready by end of next year.

Would suggest his minimum WoW estimate is up to 7.5 years.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on September 01, 2017, 11:54:06 AM
GRRM has been saying he is hopeful that 1 of WoW or his asoiaf history book will be ready by end of next year.

Would suggest his minimum WoW estimate is up to 7.5 years.

Which means there is zero chance he finishes the last book before he croaks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Bzalthek on September 01, 2017, 12:39:28 PM
At this point I just relegated his books as fan-fiction.  The HBO show is the story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on September 01, 2017, 12:48:50 PM
If the show was as good as season 1 and 2, or even 3 and 4, I could understand that.

But feast and dance have issues but are nowhere near as silly as seasons 5 and 7 in particular. Season 6 gets a pass because of the final two Sapochnik episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on September 01, 2017, 11:24:07 PM
I submit that the distinct lack of T&A - which has really been trending downward the last several seasons - needs to be addressed going forward. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on September 01, 2017, 11:38:03 PM
Agreed about the severe lack of sexposition.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on October 01, 2017, 06:03:26 AM
Season 8 direction is being split between Nutter (red wedding), Sapochnik (hardhome, sept explosion) and Weiss/Benioff (various bad episodes).

Reasonably good news.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on October 01, 2017, 07:04:04 AM
.......   you reference the other episodes for Sapochnik but not Battle of the Bastards? 

But yes, generally good news.  Hopefully they give all the filler episodes to Weiss/Benioff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on October 01, 2017, 07:24:31 AM
There's like 7 episodes total, or 6... don't remember. And its still fan fiction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 05, 2018, 03:11:28 AM
Final season delayed to 2019.

I choose the believe this is an elaborate way to troll GRRM who in all likelihood will still not have written any damn books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 05, 2018, 05:50:53 AM
Rewatching some, I'm struck at just how bad a character Tyrion becomes in both the books and the show after he kills his father. This last season especially--just completely stripped of emotional intensity or edges, sometimes sanctimonious. It's a waste of Dinklage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sir T on January 05, 2018, 07:34:22 AM
Well, what was character he other than the seething resentment and desire for revenge? Once that's gone, what job has he in the story? A creative writer could have done something with that, such as him falling apart once the center of his existence has been fulfilled. Turn him into a morality play about the destructive power of revenge.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on January 05, 2018, 07:50:18 AM
It actually was sort of going that way in the book (and hinted at in the series).  He started becoming cripplingly alcoholic and bitter at everything once he was on the run.  But that still kind of sucked in the books anyways, so not to bothered they changed him to his current boring form.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on January 05, 2018, 09:31:29 AM
The post-assassination Tyrion in the books was fucking insufferable and useless and had not come back around to doing anything worth a fuck. The TV show version is light years better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 05, 2018, 02:29:15 PM
They're both insufferable. The book Tyrion just mopes and whines on a boat for 1000 pages. The series Tyrion mopes a bit and then becomes a nice sitcom dad trying to manage his teenage daughter-queen. There's no edge at all to him, he's all fake-wisdom that comes from fucking nowhere. Plus he's like I Love Lucy or something, in that the writers perpetually set him up to fail in his advice without any real consequences. Of all the things that I think don't work about the show (and the books) this is the #1 easily. Except maybe the dumb "capture-a-zombie" mission.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on June 23, 2018, 01:45:26 PM
Ygritte married Jon Snow. Like, for real. :awesome_for_real:

(https://i.imgur.com/8AhFwgR.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on June 23, 2018, 02:01:22 PM
He still knows nothing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soln on June 23, 2018, 03:01:42 PM
I seen her nakid. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ginaz on June 23, 2018, 09:05:09 PM
God Damn he is short.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Abagadro on June 23, 2018, 09:30:52 PM
Nice tux though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on June 25, 2018, 02:41:33 AM
That is not a tux. As is appropriate for someone not getting married at night.

As one of the least stylish people I know, I feel the urge to stand up for the one fundamental style rule I can get behind - no evening wear in the day time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on June 25, 2018, 07:10:29 AM
Only being allowed to wear certain clothes at night is a stupid rule.  I now feel the need to buy a white tuxedo to wear in the middle of the afternoon after Labor Day.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on June 25, 2018, 08:35:20 AM
I wonder if they invited Olly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 14, 2019, 01:28:04 AM
Final season of 'f13 complains about Game of Thrones' starts April 14.

There is a teaser trailer of Starks wearing big coats that I can't be arsed to link.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 14, 2019, 06:38:37 AM
Don't worry, we get to complain about the prequel later on.

And then probably in the nursing home a few of us will get a shot to complain about the reboot and about the ghostwritten version of the concluding books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: MediumHigh on January 14, 2019, 06:45:08 AM
Current writing levels insures I'm not going to watch the prequel until GRRM finishes the book series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Threash on January 14, 2019, 07:30:15 AM
At least whoever is making the prequels knows from the start they are going in blind instead of signing up to do an adaptation that ended up being fan fiction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 14, 2019, 08:05:29 AM
Kind of. Martin actually HAS written some prequel stuff now in three books, so there's a bit of guidance from the Official Author.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on January 14, 2019, 08:20:29 AM
Final season of 'f13 complains about Game of Thrones' starts April 14.

There is a teaser trailer of Starks wearing big coats that I can't be arsed to link.
You mean final season of F13 GoT Fantasy League!

Because really, I'm looking forward to that more than anything.  I can't imagine a show any time soon that will replace this as perfect for a TV series fantasy draft.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: calapine on January 14, 2019, 08:35:57 AM
Final season of 'f13 complains about Game of Thrones' starts April 14.

There is a teaser trailer of Starks wearing big coats that I can't be arsed to link.

Well, luckily you guys have me.

New Trailer:

Game of Thrones | Season 8 | Official Tease: Crypts of Winterfell (HBO) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA38GCX4Tb0)



(https://i.imgur.com/eQmnbSU.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on January 14, 2019, 08:46:38 AM
Considering where they seem to be in that shot, it may turn out that having a crypt underneath your castle is a bit of a disadvantage when you're fighting zombies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on January 14, 2019, 11:59:00 AM
 :awesome_for_real:

Curious whether that sequence is actually in the show or if it was made solely for teaser purposes.  If it's from the show it's got to be a Bran dream.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 14, 2019, 02:18:51 PM
Current writing levels insures I'm not going to watch the prequel until GRRM finishes the book series.

So, never then? I doubt the man will finish the next book, let alone the series.

:awesome_for_real:

Curious whether that sequence is actually in the show or if it was made solely for teaser purposes.  If it's from the show it's got to be a Bran dream.

I heard it was just for the teasers. Some people freaked out that the statues hinted they'd be dying but Sophie Turner said it was just for a commercial and she took one home to put in her garden.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: eldaec on January 15, 2019, 12:52:16 AM
If you want to go all in on statue analysis, Jon's and Sansa's could be older versions of each, whereas Arya not so much.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on January 15, 2019, 01:34:44 AM
Maisie Williams is almost 22.  She's not getting any bigger than that.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Shannow on March 05, 2019, 09:47:48 AM
Season 8 trailer  out now.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlR4PJn8b8I)


ahhhhhhh yes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on March 05, 2019, 10:38:09 AM
Rewatching the whole series, and Hound/Arya roadtrip is still gold:  "I understand that if any more words come pouring out your cunt mouth, I'm gonna have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 05, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Rewatching the whole series, and Hound/Arya roadtrip is still gold:  "I understand that if any more words come pouring out your cunt mouth, I'm gonna have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."

It's one of my favorite parts of the series. And that line is probably my favorite line in the entire series. I'd seriously watch a spin off that is just those two traveling the country side and fucking people up when they get irritated with them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on March 05, 2019, 01:22:04 PM
Was just rewatching that scene. It really is one of the top five best moments in the whole series, and a good example of how the showrunners working with the actors revised Martin's original storytelling for the better WHEN they had a complete story rather than an outline to work with. Once it was outline only, they did some dumb as fuck stuff, so now Martin if he ever writes the books will be able to return the favor by revising the show's mistakes.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Brolan on March 05, 2019, 02:41:44 PM
I don’t think GRRM will ever finish with his pace/age/physical condition.  The show will likely be our only ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 05, 2019, 07:31:49 PM
I don’t think GRRM will ever finish with his pace/age/physical condition.  The show will likely be our only ending.

I'll go further. I doubt we'll even get the next book in the series. Between his age and what seems to be him finding any excuse he can to do anything other than write this book it's just not happening.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on March 05, 2019, 07:38:31 PM
Eh, someone will write them eventually. They'll have the chance to edit/improve.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Polysorbate80 on March 05, 2019, 07:39:05 PM
Once it was outline only, they did some dumb as fuck stuff, so now Martin if he ever writes the books will be able to return the favor by revising the show's mistakes.


It’s not all dire.  I hope the Brienne/Tormond stuff gets written in, I do love those bits.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on March 05, 2019, 08:34:48 PM
The show certainly got worst after they had to wing it, but even then, the best form of this story is some blend of the books and TV.  Even in the later seasons fixed some silly shit Martin did.

He may die off before finishing the next book, but I think he has written a giant tome of pages for it already.  If he were to croak today, Sanderson would basically just walk in, edit that pile into something coherent, then take what ever little bits are left along with any notes Martin might have given, and make a final book blending that with how the show ended.  Doesn't seem like much of a stretch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on March 05, 2019, 09:51:59 PM
The show certainly got worst after they had to wing it, but even then, the best form of this story is some blend of the books and TV.  Even in the later seasons fixed some silly shit Martin did.

Yeah, even when they still had actual books to work off of it wasn't exactly high quality product. We're lucky we didn't end up with a season of Tyrion doing nothing but asking "Where do the whores go?". The story seems to have gotten away from GRRM and it's an unenviable task the HBO folks have had trying to rein it in so they can get it across the finish line. They've been a bit sloppy with it at times, almost getting to Walking Dead levels of characters making bad decisions to advance the story, but even if GRRM manages to finish the last two books (he won't) I wouldn't expect them to be particularly good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on March 05, 2019, 10:52:14 PM
this is an entertaining show

but in fifteen years i'll still tell people to watch x-files


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on March 06, 2019, 05:11:51 AM
this is an entertaining show

but in fifteen years i'll still tell people to watch x-files

Hmmm.

As someone who re-watched xfiles a few years ago with the exception of the last season and a half I'll have to agree.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on March 06, 2019, 05:17:30 AM
I'm probably the only person on this board who never watched X-Files.  Not really sure why.  There, just outed myself.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 06, 2019, 06:18:21 AM
I've never watched all of X-Files either. I'd seen a few episodes when I was younger; tried to watch the whole thing and got somewhere into the second season before giving up. I've debated trying to just watch the mytharc episodes but haven't gotten around to it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on March 06, 2019, 07:33:28 AM
Same, I've also never seen the entire X-Files.  Only a handful of episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on March 06, 2019, 07:51:06 AM
Heathens.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on March 06, 2019, 07:56:31 AM
I just want Game of Thrones to be done. The trailer didn't really get any excitement going, I think it's just too long in between seasons recently with too little substance in each one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on March 06, 2019, 03:21:22 PM
I'm probably the only person on this board who never watched X-Files.  Not really sure why.  There, just outed myself.

I only just started watching it a few weeks ago at schild's suggestion. I've stalled out a bit early into season 2, but so far I'm going to say you're fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 06, 2019, 10:42:35 PM
I'm probably the only person on this board who never watched X-Files.  Not really sure why.  There, just outed myself.

I only just started watching it a few weeks ago at schild's suggestion. I've stalled out a bit early into season 2, but so far I'm going to say you're fine.

I tried really hard to watch the X-files on Netflix. I figured my love of stuff like Twin Peaks would make it a no-brainer but I don't think I even got past season 2 either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Trippy on March 06, 2019, 10:49:00 PM
That's too bad cause seasons 3 and 4 were the best.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on March 06, 2019, 11:01:19 PM
But is it fun?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on March 07, 2019, 06:05:35 AM
sb.exe


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on March 08, 2019, 07:10:17 AM
You could also skip the monster of the week episodes (you shouldn't) if you just want the conspiracy episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Velorath on March 08, 2019, 08:15:58 AM
You could also skip the monster of the week episodes (you shouldn't) if you just want the conspiracy episodes.

The MOW stuff at least has a conclusion to the story at the end of the episode usually. The conspiracy stuff I've seen so far ends with them almost getting some evidence and then having it taken away like the conspiracy is being run by Belloq. And Mulder will mention how he has to know what happened to his sister. Then I think about how nothing will actually get resolved for several more seasons and that if I felt like getting strung along by bullshit with no satisfying answers I'd have watched Lost which has about half the number of episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 08, 2019, 11:39:07 AM
I at least finished Lost, so I don't mind being strung along by bullshit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: HaemishM on March 08, 2019, 12:25:36 PM
For whatever you think of its ending (and I loved it), Lost at least ENDED. It had a resolution. Fucking X-Files... just... GAH.

If you like two decades worth of edging that truly never reaches climax, that's the X-Files mythology arc in a nutshell. Chris Carter should be bitch-slapped for the second revival season premier alone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on March 27, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
Are we doing the fantasy league thing again?  Did I miss it?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 27, 2019, 07:13:36 PM
I'm down to play Fantasy GoT again.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rattran on March 27, 2019, 08:51:29 PM
The scoring made it pretty stupid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on March 28, 2019, 05:12:28 AM
Fantasy GoT is the best part of this whole thing.  I’m still in Africa, somebody organize!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 28, 2019, 07:32:49 AM
I've got a league. PM me for invite; I'm going to cap it at 8 players so we can all have decent sized teams. If someone wants to make another one for either an overflow or a "let everyone join and we all have 2 players", go for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on March 28, 2019, 11:54:13 AM
I'm trying to come up with a name.  What do we have so far?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Khaldun on March 28, 2019, 01:11:28 PM
Maybe you should flip the scoring logic so the game is trying to predict who survives.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on March 28, 2019, 01:53:17 PM
They're giving out bonus points this season for anyone who survives the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 04, 2019, 01:44:41 AM
Need more people to sign up to Rendakor's league.  Come on people, it requires nothing of you beyond thinking of a clever name to call your team.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on April 04, 2019, 06:24:21 AM
Suppose I'll join if there are still available slots, didn't want to displace anyone from last year.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 04, 2019, 07:01:14 AM
There are only three filled spots so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 04, 2019, 07:45:38 AM
I sent Phildo an invite, which will put us at 4/8.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Strazos on April 04, 2019, 03:31:37 PM
I'll take an invite.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 04, 2019, 03:43:25 PM
Sent.

We're currently sitting at 7 teams (including Straz), but I think I've sent out a few more invites as requested. I'm not going to send any more, to give everyone time to accept. If we're still at 7 by the weekend and someone else is interested, I'll send out a last minute invite. Please set your Draft Rankings once you've joined the league; I'd like to have our draft on Wednesday 4/10.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Draegan on April 04, 2019, 05:55:09 PM
Any room left?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Tale on April 04, 2019, 11:07:33 PM
Game of Thrones season 1-7 bundle is 50% off at Google Play (https://play.google.com/store/tv/show?cdid=tvseason-Z9GrFbCEg6_PFkRqPSoOYQ&id=UBWMnSm4n5A) right now, in my region at least.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 05, 2019, 06:40:14 AM
Any room left?
We're full up at 8, sorry.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 05, 2019, 07:15:07 AM
Our 2019 Fantasy Game of Thrones Teams:

Khaleesi Ocasio-Cortez 2020 - Samwise
Diplomatic Immunity - Strazos
Theon’s Missing Cock - Cyrrex (Ready)
Tits & Dragons - Soln (Ready)
A team has no name - Teleku
Non-Copernican Cosmology - MahrinSkel (Ready)
Valar Somethingsomething - Rendakor (Ready)
Brienne's Brass Balls - Phildo (Ready)

I think I correctly matched the real names to screen names; if I fucked any up, let me know. Ready indicates that your Draft Rankings are done and you have autodraft turned on. To set them, go to Settings, then Set Draft Rankings and rearrange the cast to your liking. Don't forget to toggle Autodraft to On, for the sake of everyone's sanity. I'm going to do the autodraft this coming Wednesday, unless everyone is set before then.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Phildo on April 05, 2019, 08:41:15 AM
That was a fun exercise, is there a pool for how many of the characters score 0 or negative points?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cyrrex on April 05, 2019, 08:43:59 AM
I am ready, I think.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Soln on April 06, 2019, 08:52:31 AM
I think I’m also ready. Real pain to figure out their site on a phone.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 06, 2019, 06:46:50 PM
i should join but I don't think I'll watch in real time which deadens the appeal


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 07, 2019, 10:39:29 AM
Locked and loaded.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 08, 2019, 01:00:26 PM
I'm hoping to push the Draft button around 5pm EST on Wednesday, in case anyone wants to watch it happen. If work gets fucky (like it tends to the week before vacation) that might get delayed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Samwise on April 10, 2019, 01:34:36 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/EOpZ7XsVfTN2E/giphy.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 10, 2019, 01:40:27 PM
Draft done. I'm on mobile (and at work :awesome_for_real:) so I can't easily post the teams. I'll do so after work if no one else feels like it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rendakor on April 10, 2019, 05:41:51 PM
Our 2019 Fantasy Game of Thrones Teams:

Khaleesi Ocasio-Cortez 2020 - Samwise
  • The Hound
  • Bran Stark
  • Lyanna Mormont
  • Alys Karstark
  • Qyburn
  • Harry Strickland

Diplomatic Immunity - Strazos
  • Jon Snow
  • Sansa Stark
  • The Mountain
  • Yara Greyjoy
  • Tycho Nestoris
  • Hot Pie

Theon’s Missing Cock - Cyrrex
  • Tormund Giantsbane
  • Bronn
  • Beric Dondarrion
  • Grey Worm
  • Ebrose
  • Edmure Tully

Tits & Dragons - Soln
  • Arya Stark
  • Rhaegal
  • Viserion
  • Fergus
  • Eddison Tollett
  • Martha

A team has no name - Teleku
  • Drogon
  • Brienne of Tarth
  • Davos Seaworth
  • Theon Greyjoy
  • Meera Reed
  • Nora

Non-Copernican Cosmology - MahrinSkel
  • The Night King
  • Cersei Lannister
  • Podrick Payne
  • Gendry
  • Nymeria (wolf)
  • Gilly

Valar Somethingsomething - Rendakor
  • Jaime Lannister
  • Tyrion Lannister
  • Varys
  • Melisandre
  • Ghost
  • Ned Umber

Brienne's Brass Balls - Phildo
  • Daenerys Targaryen
  • Jorah Mormont
  • Euron Greyjoy
  • Samwell Tarly
  • Missandei
  • Qhono



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Teleku on April 10, 2019, 06:00:31 PM
Boy, I fucked up my auto draft rankings.   :awesome_for_real:


'A Team has no Chance' shall be my new team name.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Chimpy on April 14, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
Probably the best episode in a couple of seasons, IMO.

I am sure it will go careening downhill from here.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 14, 2019, 07:26:11 PM
For 7 seasons and 4 or 5 books Jamie has been called the Kingslayer by everyone he meets. Until I watched the preview for the next episode it somehow completely slipped my mind that the king he slayed was Dany's dad.

This episode also put me firmly in the "I don't want Dany to end up on the throne" camp.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: schild on April 14, 2019, 08:22:08 PM
snore

this whole season is going to be fanservice

just pack it up


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 15, 2019, 03:10:37 PM
I'm ok with fan service if it is as good as that.

Theon and Sansa's bits espeicially. The Jon and Sam thing was better than it had any right to be.

And compared to the last 20 episodes or so, that was some pretty great plot compression.

Excluding the fancy set piece episodes - best one for a long time. I was shocked to feel some actual tension.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 15, 2019, 06:24:19 PM
The manufactured drama they are going to probably milk the whole season is going to drive me nuts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 15, 2019, 10:17:31 PM
The manufactured drama they are going to probably milk the whole season is going to drive me nuts.

They only have 6 episodes and we know one of them is nothing but one long battle. Probably another one will be as well. They don't have time to milk drama this season. It's a nice benefit of a shortened season like this. They have to be economical with their storytelling. For example, in prior seasons it'd have been 2-3 episodes minimum before Sam talked to Jon about his real parents. This one got it out of the way in the first episode. I guarantee next episode will deal with the Jaime drama and Dany will find out who Jom really is. Probably by Episode 4 they'll have resolved it one way or the other and it'll only be that long because Episode 3 is the batlle for Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 15, 2019, 10:24:11 PM
Importantly, I jumped out to a nice lead in the Fantasy League, mostly due, I think, to Beric simply igniting his sword.  And Bronn getting laid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 16, 2019, 04:16:09 AM
The only thing that seemed manufactured to me was Bronn's thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 16, 2019, 04:21:18 AM
Manufactured how?  That's basically Bronn in a nutshell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 16, 2019, 05:32:40 AM
Bronn's reaction was fine, and it is the logical end point for his character to get to. But cersei hiring him was a stretch for me. Also Cersei not being in the scene because... er... reasons... kind of stood out.

And that enormous crossbow.

It was a great episode though.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 16, 2019, 05:43:37 AM
The manufactured drama they are going to probably milk the whole season is going to drive me nuts.

They only have 6 episodes and we know one of them is nothing but one long battle. Probably another one will be as well. They don't have time to milk drama this season. It's a nice benefit of a shortened season like this. They have to be economical with their storytelling. For example, in prior seasons it'd have been 2-3 episodes minimum before Sam talked to Jon about his real parents. This one got it out of the way in the first episode. I guarantee next episode will deal with the Jaime drama and Dany will find out who Jom really is. Probably by Episode 4 they'll have resolved it one way or the other and it'll only be that long because Episode 3 is the batlle for Winterfell.

This episode made it feel like they have a structure and story that is within their abilities as writers. Last three years haven't seemed like that.

They must fucking love Bran.

Instant convincing way to shut down a rabbit hole.

And the way he dealt with Sam was great. "Sort your shit, do it now".

There are few enough hours left and the cast is good enough that it seems they can carry it. The Sansa/Jon/Arya stuff was like watching season 1 all over again.

At least until we get to episodes the show runners decide to direct.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 16, 2019, 07:19:33 AM
It felt like a checklist rather than a story. And the amount of time devoted to some things seemed weak; Sam telling Jon should have been a major climax point for the episode but instead it felt like just another thing to get done and move on from.

The food supply scene could also have been more interesting--essentially Winterfell would have to be abandoned after this anyway, but on the other hand Jon could have replied that the dead will be there pretty soon so who cares, everything will be done one way or the other within a few days, in all likelihood. I guess we learned where the next stage of the war is going to happen anyway with Yara's exposition about the Iron Islands (which explains also how Euron will come into play--I'm guessing this is a plot element that's straight from Martin's notes, since it explains why the Iron Islands continues to be important in the books well past the point where you'd think they matter.)  I wouldn't be surprised if the dead stop pursuing the remnants of the Winterfell armies retreating to the Iron Islands in order to head for King's Landing and the Golden Company, which will be a sort of "told you so" to Cersei.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 16, 2019, 08:05:23 AM
It was almost scene by scene a remake or nod to the first episode of the first season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 16, 2019, 03:41:15 PM
*slurps wine, watches first episode*

I'd just like to say the show went downhill after Tywinn died. (Who was like the perfect Daddy......)

And Cersei is the most relateable main character. (Mean that, and tot saying that to be edgy)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 17, 2019, 06:57:47 AM
She has the most interesting arc. Slowly but surely the norm of making heroic characters more heroic has infiltrated the show. They were still willing to make Jon be kind of dumb in Battle of the Bastards (and maybe now) but many other complicated people have gotten less complicated. Tyrion has lost all his edge--he's entirely Daddy Knows Best now, despite having been a shitty advisor to Danerys in Meereen and in Westeros, for the most part. Varys doesn't seem to be plotting or scheming any more. The Hound is tamed. Etc. I get it--it's a function of everyone BUT Cersei being able to see the plain truth of it, that they are facing a different kind of enemy and that if they don't put aside everything, no one wins or survives. But you know, when has that actually happened? Even when a threat is overwhelming and unity is required to have any hope, real human beings generally do not put aside grudges and ambitions and willful blindness about the situation. I wish at least a few of the major surviving characters were still playing out arcs that run counter to "fight together or die" besides Cersei and Euron.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 17, 2019, 08:08:06 AM
Seems like Sansa isn't fully sold on team ice & fire.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 17, 2019, 08:44:16 AM
There's plenty of opportunity for drama now that Jon is a potential challenger to Dany's claim to the throne, once the throne is secure.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on April 17, 2019, 08:59:02 AM
There's plenty of opportunity for drama now that Jon is a potential challenger to Dany's claim to the throne, once the throne is secure.
Never mind once the throne is secure, there's plenty of reason for Jon to make his claim now in order to bring the houses of the North - and his own sister - back on board.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 17, 2019, 09:18:32 AM
But then how will he continue to get that sweet, sweet aunt loving?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 17, 2019, 10:02:34 AM
There's plenty of opportunity for drama now that Jon is a potential challenger to Dany's claim to the throne, once the throne is secure.
Never mind once the throne is secure, there's plenty of reason for Jon to make his claim now in order to bring the houses of the North - and his own sister - back on board.

And I'm sure the unsullied dothraki and the freaking dragons are just going to be a-ok with that...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 17, 2019, 10:17:01 AM

And I'm sure the unsullied dothraki and the freaking dragons are just going to be a-ok with that...

Them being the generic CGI armies nobody cares about, I doubt many will still be standing in a couple of episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 17, 2019, 10:21:13 AM
But then how will he continue to get that sweet, sweet aunt loving?  :why_so_serious:

You jest, but I have long held the belief that one of the underlying themes of this show is basically the different outcomes of incestual relationships and how Martin is fascinated by the subject for some reason.  Like, all the Targaryens did it.  And look who is now also a Targaryen, why it is none other than Jon Snow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 17, 2019, 10:21:53 AM
She has the most interesting arc. Slowly but surely the norm of making heroic characters more heroic has infiltrated the show. They were still willing to make Jon be kind of dumb in Battle of the Bastards (and maybe now) but many other complicated people have gotten less complicated. Tyrion has lost all his edge--he's entirely Daddy Knows Best now, despite having been a shitty advisor to Danerys in Meereen and in Westeros, for the most part. Varys doesn't seem to be plotting or scheming any more. The Hound is tamed. Etc. I get it--it's a function of everyone BUT Cersei being able to see the plain truth of it, that they are facing a different kind of enemy and that if they don't put aside everything, no one wins or survives. But you know, when has that actually happened? Even when a threat is overwhelming and unity is required to have any hope, real human beings generally do not put aside grudges and ambitions and willful blindness about the situation. I wish at least a few of the major surviving characters were still playing out arcs that run counter to "fight together or die" besides Cersei and Euron.


Thank you for the response (really!).

And that's a good point. While Cersei definitively started out as a cliche she developed nuance while the "heros" have become more cardboard.

And while I wouldn't use the word "subtle" to describe Cersei, her motivations and the wrongs that shaped her are still more down to earth than those of the male (Tyrion) and female (Danersys) Mary Sues.
The one whose being a dwarf is made a plot point again and again so we the viewers get it that he is treated unjust. The other who is literally whored out by her brother at the start so we the viewers get it that that there is some abuse, power dynamics, feminism subtext going on.

Compared to that Cerseis situations of growing up in what looks a superficially privileged situation while in reality being locked in (while at the same time using/abusing) the gender role society prescribes her, is positively subtle. I can see some analogies to myself as for a long time I was locked in the role "woman with history of mental health problems" while also learning how to leverage that to my advantage. (Which was self-defeating because it cemented me even more into that role.) (Being probably waaaay to honest here for this being an open forum, but whatever.)


To close on a polemical note: What do you get if you teleport the average F13-politics-forum poster to Westeros? Probably not a monster like Joffrey but also no Rob Stark. More likely a Littlefinger-wannabe with half the psychopathy and a quarter of the cunning of the original. coughspeedycough.

Which also describes Cersei perfectly. So basically we are all little Cerseis! :grin:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 17, 2019, 10:56:19 AM
Fuck Cersei for that fucking "You want a whore, buy one. You want a queen, earn her" line that every annoying girl is going to be using for the next few months completely ignoring the fact that the "queen" gave it up less than a minute later.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 17, 2019, 11:10:06 AM
Fuck Cersei for that fucking "You want a whore, buy one. You want a queen, earn her" line that every annoying girl is going to be using for the next few months completely ignoring the fact that the "queen" gave it up less than a minute later.

And after the deed she felt bad about it. So real it hurts.  :grin:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 17, 2019, 11:25:00 AM
I really like this hot take:

(https://i.imgur.com/g960VJF.jpg)

The mountain as a big silent friend. Someone who listens patiently to your problems and crushes the skulls of anyone being mean to you. Disturbingly adorable.  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 17, 2019, 01:02:09 PM
She has the most interesting arc. Slowly but surely the norm of making heroic characters more heroic has infiltrated the show. They were still willing to make Jon be kind of dumb in Battle of the Bastards (and maybe now) but many other complicated people have gotten less complicated. Tyrion has lost all his edge--he's entirely Daddy Knows Best now, despite having been a shitty advisor to Danerys in Meereen and in Westeros, for the most part. Varys doesn't seem to be plotting or scheming any more. The Hound is tamed. Etc. I get it--it's a function of everyone BUT Cersei being able to see the plain truth of it, that they are facing a different kind of enemy and that if they don't put aside everything, no one wins or survives. But you know, when has that actually happened? Even when a threat is overwhelming and unity is required to have any hope, real human beings generally do not put aside grudges and ambitions and willful blindness about the situation. I wish at least a few of the major surviving characters were still playing out arcs that run counter to "fight together or die" besides Cersei and Euron.


I have to wonder if we're watching the same show.

Tyrion's entire character arc has become a subversion. He was once the smartest person in the room, now he is totally out of his depth and screwing up constantly. Sansa literally calls him out on this. "I used to think you were the most clever man in the world."
Varys is very much plotting and scheming. We saw it in action in this first episode and I think he may be doing some offscreen scheming, possibly with Tyrion who seems much more susceptible to manipulation than he used to be.
The Hound isn't tamed. He had a spiritual rebirth and symbolically gave up being the Hound when Arya left him on that mountain-side.  This is more clear in the books than it is in the show but it's pretty clear in the show too. I guess you can say he is tamed because he's not killing as many people but the entire speech from Ian McShane's character was about that very thing. "It's never too late to change."
Jon, well, Jon is basically who he has always been. He's an  honorable idiot like Ned and is incredibly brave. He's really the most Stark-like of the surviving Starks and my number one choice not to survive this season because of it.

As for Cersei and Euron. They're being utter morons which isn't out of character for Cersei. She always thinks she is the smartest person in the area and she's not. Her hubris almost always comes back to bite her in the ass and in this case it might just bite all of King's Landing. I think your comments about wishing more people would act out arcs that run counter to "fight together or die" doesn't really apply against this kind of threat. This isn't some distant, far off threat like, say, climate change. This is more akin to World War 2. At the end of the day, even Russia helped us invade Berlin. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because Hitler was a threat and he'd attacked them.

Also, we are seeing some of what you're asking for. Sansa is clearly not happy with Dany being there. The Northern lords as a whole are restless about it. I get the sense Jon is just barely holding everyone together in this little alliance of his and I think the one family refusing the call to banners and the loss of the Umbers is supposed to show us just how fragile this all is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 17, 2019, 01:36:03 PM
Hmmm. With our gods eyes view of the situation we know Cersei is underestimating the threat.

From her pov I think it makes sense. What's the point of teaming up against the walkers and beating them, only then to die at Daneyrs hand. Having your enemies knock each other out and then deal with whoever is left standing is sound plan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 17, 2019, 01:37:55 PM
Based on this week it seemed to me like they decided the Stark kids plus Theon and Dany are the leads, everyone else is a less a character than a plot point, narrator, or obstacle.

This is fine, the characters they've picked have conflicts and arcs to complete, and it feels like they have about the right amount of time for those 6 to get over themselves, Dany and Jon to do the big damn sacrifice, and idk, Sam and Bran to set up the enlightened rule of people who stop pulling stupid shit.

I honestly don't think TV Varys has anything left in the tank, Cersei is just a betrayal that Dany Sansa and Jon have to agree a response to, Euron is here to twirl a moustache and move shit around the map. Howland Reed isn't coming to complicate things. I doubt the golden company is more than a nod to book readers. At this point I even doubt Cleganebowl is happening.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 17, 2019, 02:18:25 PM
Okay pretty random, but the scene introducing Tywin was one of the best in the show. Just read that the stag he is skinning is a real one: https://youtu.be/47MazYDnmaU


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 17, 2019, 02:20:08 PM
Varys has always been about keeping the 7 Kingdoms together so as to do as little damage as possible to people who have no ability to fight back. He's supported complete bastards in the throne while also conspiring against them so that some less bastard-y bastard can take the throne and make a less bastard-y kingdom. When he sees that no matter how much of a bastard Cersei is, what could happen if winter well and truly comes and fucks us all, he has maneuvered Jon and Dany together. I don't remember if he knows who Jon is or not (I think he doesn't), so would have miscalculated by putting those two together.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 17, 2019, 03:33:04 PM
I still find it hard to read into book Varys that he's just a nice guy - it matches available info after Joffery takes over but no obvious sense before that.

TV Varys, sure why not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Sir T on April 17, 2019, 09:39:02 PM
Was just reading the team names, and realized that if I had a team I'd probably call it "Hold the Phwoars."

Yes, I have nothing else to add. Carry on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 17, 2019, 10:59:49 PM
Okay pretty random, but the scene introducing Tywin was one of the best in the show. Just read that the stag he is skinning is a real one: https://youtu.be/47MazYDnmaU

I am starting to remember that you have some kind of unhealthy crush on Tywin Lannister.  Or is that my imagination?

I think Varys essentially has gotten what he wanted, and will be content to remain in the background until such time as that changes.  The revealing of Jon and Dany as relatives who are also rubbing their junk together might change that.  Speaking of which....is she going to get pregnant?  Doesn´t it mean the sun has to rise in the west, and if so, what could that be a metaphor for?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 18, 2019, 02:02:23 AM
I am starting to remember that you have some kind of unhealthy crush on Tywin Lannister.  Or is that my imagination?

Slightly offended that this seems to trigger people, I genuinely like him. He oozes both authority and sexappeal. Strong without being a psychopath. He is intelligent which again is a very sexy trait in any person. Jamie comes a close second in date-ability, but is more the cliché of a fairy tale prince while Tywin is the teacher you have a crush on.

Who of the men would you like to date most? (genuine question) The most popular answer on here probably would this would be Bronn, which I guess is fine if you are looking for a drink/fuckbuddy with a heart of gold.

Anyway, with people ranting for pages about inane marvel comic shit I am not going to apologise for some harmless and not unhealthy daydreaming! And no, I am not being defensive. :p

Talking about pregnancy: Did you notice that Cersei was pregnant at the end of the last season but now drinks wine again and almost cried when Euron made that line about putting a baby in her stomach. She is really not having any luck with her kids. :/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on April 18, 2019, 02:40:03 AM
Since I'm heterosexual I would go for Varys - for obvious reasons. On the surface Greyworm has the same characteristics, but hes a bit too handsy for an Eunuch.  :awesome_for_real:

Just a quick aside without spoilering anything. The people in Westeros don't know shit about fetal alcohol syndrome, so the fact if and how much Cersei is drinking is unlikely to have any bearings on her pregnancy status.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 18, 2019, 04:45:54 AM
Eh, bang one with all the bits or what’s the point?

Spoilered for the squeamish, abandon hope all ye....



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on April 18, 2019, 04:57:16 AM
The point being those are the options I can date without them demanding to bang me.

If its about banging as well it would definitely be Ygritte or Yara Greyjoy, no male substitute allowed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 18, 2019, 05:21:08 AM
Okay pretty random, but the scene introducing Tywin was one of the best in the show. Just read that the stag he is skinning is a real one: https://youtu.be/47MazYDnmaU

I am starting to remember that you have some kind of unhealthy crush on Tywin Lannister.  Or is that my imagination?

I think Varys essentially has gotten what he wanted, and will be content to remain in the background until such time as that changes.  The revealing of Jon and Dany as relatives who are also rubbing their junk together might change that.  Speaking of which....is she going to get pregnant?  Doesn´t it mean the sun has to rise in the west, and if so, what could that be a metaphor for?

She's in Westeros. Jon is the Son of a Targaryen. Sounds like the Son is indeed rising in the West to me.

Since I'm heterosexual I would go for Varys - for obvious reasons. On the surface Greyworm has the same characteristics, but hes a bit too handsy for an Eunuch.  :awesome_for_real:

Just a quick aside without spoilering anything. The people in Westeros don't know shit about fetal alcohol syndrome, so the fact if and how much Cersei is drinking is unlikely to have any bearings on her pregnancy status.

Tyrion figured out she was pregnant because she wasn't drinking wine last season. So they've already established a link there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: rattran on April 18, 2019, 05:39:29 AM
You think the writers remember that?
Tyrion figured out she was pregnant because she wasn't drinking wine last season. So they've already established a link there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on April 18, 2019, 05:54:51 AM
Did he? I though he was figuring it out because she stroked her belly.

Either way, Tyrion has not the best track record the last few seasons. Even Sansa realized he is not that smart anymore, and she didn't see all his failures like we did.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 18, 2019, 07:16:18 AM
I still find it hard to read into book Varys that he's just a nice guy - it matches available info after Joffery takes over but no obvious sense before that.

I didn't say he was a nice guy. He most certainly wasn't, either book or TV Varys. His drives were very much revenge-based - see what he did to the wizard who cut off his balls. His aims were that the powerful would be accountable to and responsible for the people they held power over, because he's seen all too well the damage that the powerful can do when they have no checks. He's literally the "responsible government" character. While it's a noble goal, he is hardly noble in carrying it out. He's perhaps the least honorable character on the show because of how well he hides his machinations.

In a world of violent cunts, he's probably the cuntiest for all the wrong reasons but with the best intended outcomes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 18, 2019, 07:33:39 AM
I still find it hard to read into book Varys that he's just a nice guy - it matches available info after Joffery takes over but no obvious sense before that.

TV Varys, sure why not.
In the very first book Vary’s goes to meet Ned down in the dungeon and gives him some water to relieve his suffering, then basically asks ‘wtf did you do that for you moron, listen to me, I’m trying to help you.’  He then manages to get it so that Ned is sent to the wall instead of executed (or so he thinks), even though a schemer would have no use for him at that point and shouldn’t care.

Vary’s is obviously extremely dangerous and driven by his own goals, but from the get go he’s been portrayed as a guy murdering his way towards fixing the kingdom, instead of murdering his way towards ruling it like everybody else.

Book Vary’s could still totally pull of his mask and reveal he’s evil at the end, but even when I read the first book, I got the sense he was one of the good guys (as much as you can have in the books).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 18, 2019, 08:17:17 AM
The most satisfying ending for Varys I can see is that the speech about the sorcerer cutting off his nads turns out to be true, and he is part of the anti magic faction.

That might become relevant since presumably the rise of magic is the cause of both winter and dragons - and ending that ecological problem is ultimately how you stop the night king.

It might also be relevant to all the wheel and breaking the wheel stuff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 18, 2019, 08:18:33 AM
I think book Varys' motives are still a bit mysterious, though--most of the character work on him in the series where he philosophizes about power and the wheel and situates himself as the anti-Littlefinger doesn't have a lot of echoes in the books. It looks from his last murder spree in the books as if he's trying to get someone strong on the throne again with a pro-Targ take, but even that's not very verified (or varys-fied, as it were).

TV Varys has been pretty much a good guy from the get-go in some fashion, but he actively moved into that lane after crossing the Narrow Sea with Tyrion.

I really don't think the series writers fully recognize that Tyrion has been a fuck-up as the Queen's Hand. E.g., that seems plain to most viewers, but I don't think it's actually what they think they've done. Kind of the same as the really dumb fucking stuff with Arya and Sansa fighting last season which they then lamely tried to pretend at the very end was just setting up Littlefinger. You can really feel how much they lost the sense of the characters once they went beyond Martin's writing--I feel like you can plainly spot what the big set-pieces that were in Martin's outline of the plot were and which things they had to make up.

In Martin's notes, I'm guessing:

Jon comes back to life
Jon sees the Night King/Wild Walkers
Sam discovers important stuff at the Citadel
Stannis gets killed but maybe not by Ramsay Bolton
Jon declares himself free of his oath after dying and retakes Winterfell in a battle; Ramsay gets brutally killed
Sansa and Littlefinger show up to help Jon at Winterfell with the Knights of the Vale (but I suspect Sansa will be much more Littlefinger-like and in control in the books, if that happens)
Dany takes control of the Dothraki, defeats an attack by the Slave Lords, gets boats and returns to Westeros
Dany and Tyrion meet when she returns from the Dothraki and Tyrion gets into her good graces
Arya returns to Westeros, probably after rebelling in some fashion against the Faceless Men
Arya kills at least some of the people on her list, probably the Freys in particular
Cersei blows up the Sept (that one in particular feels like it comes straight from Martin's outline) and seizes the Iron Throne after her son commits suicide
A dragon gets captured/killed by the Walkers and is used to bring down the Wall
Winterfell is the first place that there's a major fight with the Walkers after the Wall comes down

But I'm guessing that if Martin ever does write his own version of this:

Tyrion remains bitter and depressed
Arya is way creepier
Sansa becomes a Littlefinger-like schemer and is the prime mover behind Littlefinger's eventual death
Varys remains dangerous and mysterious (hard to know what's going to go down with Young Griff and all that)
etc.--I suspect the characterizations will be different and harsher. But then I think this is one thing that has Martin kind of stymied--his desire to keep anyone from emerging as a classic fantasy protagonist that readers can straightforwardly root for. At some point that becomes a narrative prison in its own right.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Selby on April 18, 2019, 08:19:55 AM
He oozes both authority and sexappeal. Strong without being a psychopath. He is intelligent which again is a very sexy trait in any person. Jamie comes a close second in date-ability, but is more the cliché of a fairy tale prince while Tywin is the teacher you have a crush on.
I loved Tywin for all the reasons you list. He seemed to be one of the more intelligent and capable people in the entire series, and actually executed his plans and made things happen unlike the majority of others. I still have a strong dislike for Jamie because of his early antics but he’s at least redeemed himself somewhat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 18, 2019, 08:24:56 AM
I still find it hard to read into book Varys that he's just a nice guy - it matches available info after Joffery takes over but no obvious sense before that.

TV Varys, sure why not.
In the very first book Vary’s goes to meet Ned down in the dungeon and gives him some water to relieve his suffering, then basically asks ‘wtf did you do that for you moron, listen to me, I’m trying to help you.’  He then manages to get it so that Ned is sent to the wall instead of executed (or so he thinks), even though a schemer would have no use for him at that point and shouldn’t care.

Varys explicitly explains the reason for this when he under the keep with illyrio.

He is not ready for the war.

He wants a war to remove Robert, but not yet. He knows that if Ned dies the war of the 5 kings will come too early for either Viserys, Dany, or fake Aegon to win it. Maybe he has a preference for which, maybe he does not.

Book 1 Varys certainly appears to want control of the throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 18, 2019, 10:24:24 AM
TV-Varys defiantly seems to be set up as a good guy. I hope the producers are going to throw a curveball here, because right now it looks like it's set up to have Daneyrs and Jon with Vaerys setting up some enlightened government with slavery abolished, being just ruler with the interest of the small folk at heart. Also destroying the feudal Westeros society and replacing it with an absolute monarchy, thus destroying the Game of Thrones and ever changing wheel. Disgusting.

The lession, which should occur wether Daneyrs wins or loses, should be the same the the US learned post cold-war: History never stops. The wheel will keep up turning, same shit as always: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

In this sense I would like a Cersei win, showing that not the best ruler wins and not even necessarily the brutalst one but that it can come down to pure luck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 18, 2019, 10:28:11 AM
Way back in season 1, when someone (I forget who, I think it was Ned?) asked Varys "and whom do YOU serve?" he said "The realm.  Somebody has to."  At the time I thought there was a decent chance he was bullshitting, but his actions have fairly consistently borne that out.

(edit) on the subject of squirrels, I was always a Margaery fan first and foremost.  For pretty much all the obvious reasons, plus the fact that even in a medieval setting I bet she had impeccable personal hygiene.   :oh_i_see:  Limiting ourselves to people who are still alive makes it considerably harder because most of them are cray cray in one way or another.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 18, 2019, 11:02:56 AM
Okay pretty random, but the scene introducing Tywin was one of the best in the show. Just read that the stag he is skinning is a real one: https://youtu.be/47MazYDnmaU

Pretty sure they stole it from Abercrombies first law trilogy though, that's how Bayaz is introduced.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 18, 2019, 12:18:54 PM
(edit) on the subject of squirrels, I was always a Margaery fan first and foremost.  For pretty much all the obvious reasons, plus the fact that even in a medieval setting I bet she had impeccable personal hygiene.   :oh_i_see:  Limiting ourselves to people who are still alive makes it considerably harder because most of them are cray cray in one way or another.


Who of the men would you like to date most? (genuine question)


Sam, I think you're missing the one critical word in that request.  Get with the program!  :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 18, 2019, 01:56:16 PM
Oh, that one's Tyrion, easily.  He's entertaining and we already know he's fine with sexless relationships born of necessity.   :drill: :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 18, 2019, 04:12:26 PM
Tyrion is a horndog and hung like a moose. The obvious pick is Grey Worm, duh.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 18, 2019, 04:32:35 PM
I half expect someone to try to argue that Brienne somehow counts as a man...

Edit:  Brain kicking out more useless stuff—suppose the Night King overruns Winterfell, raises everyone in the crypts, and we get Headless Ned, the Undead Dad?  Has a Netflix-comedy-spinoff ring to it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 19, 2019, 12:21:44 AM
They’ve been sort of foreshadowing that, but I really hope they leave the shit in the crypts out of this.  At this point they would be pure skeleton, and I don’t think we’ve seen pure skeleton wights yet, have we?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Draegan on April 19, 2019, 03:54:44 AM
Or maybe the crypts are magic because first men reasons and he can't be raised, but something else magic happens and he's a good-guy undead?

Hopefully none of that happens.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 19, 2019, 04:55:40 AM
Might be one way we get a cheap version of Lady Stoneheart.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on April 19, 2019, 07:04:51 AM
Didn't we have Coldhands as a good guy undead already?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 19, 2019, 07:46:32 AM
Didn't we have Coldhands as a good guy undead already?

We did


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 19, 2019, 07:50:04 AM
I just really don’t want to deal with the gimick of long dead characters being brought back as some sort of shock thing.  Just seems really dumb.  And again, every single person named so far is so long dead they would just be unrecognizable bones, so it would be really fucking stupid.

Now, current characters I fully expect to be killed and come back as a nemesis.  Probably when Winterfell inevitably... falls.  Maybe blue eyed Hound or even Jaime.  Or maybe the Mountain shows up with Cersei but suddenly turns blue eyed and converts because he’s already fucking undead.

Also, I will hold out hope that the Gold Company is there to backstab Cersei, but looking like they are going to stick with safe plot paths.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Miguel on April 19, 2019, 08:08:22 AM
At this point they would be pure skeleton, and I don’t think we’ve seen pure skeleton wights yet, have we?
(https://coubsecure-s.akamaihd.net/get/b25/p/coub/simple/cw_timeline_pic/b424b022106/80010b4adef78bb557357/big_1411643321_1402936515_image.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 19, 2019, 10:26:14 AM
1) I apologise for my habit of posting things that go against the current direction of a thread. Not doing it to be annoying.

2) The Cersei I choose violence scene (https://youtu.be/AgeFj9qBrew).

Some thoughts:
a) It's definitely camp but so poignant.  :heart:
Nice acting detail the knowing smirk and glance Cersei and Qyborn exchange at 1:51. They know what's coming.  :grin:

a) Funny how easy it is to tug one's emotional strings. After the traumatising Oberyn fight who would ever think of rooting for the Mountain? Yet the faith militants are such unlikeable cunts that I find myself doing exactly that.

b) A fair critisim against Qyborn that due to his invincibility he is more plot-macguffing than a character, but from an acting POV he is great. A YouTube comment put it very well: "Somebody needs to arrest Qyborn facial expression because they are stealing the scenes."

Similar to how scenes that have Bronn being typical Bronn are enjoyable regardless of what is happening in them plot wise.

c) Qyborn in general is the closest Cersei ever had to a true friend. Cersei seems to genuinely respect him too, which is something rare as has aproblem forging, ah,.. healthy relationships with anyone outside her kids. He for his part seems 100% loyal.

The closest in-universe comperison would be Daneyrs relationship with her dragons. Qyborn is Cersei's dragon. In fact, he literally burns her enemies. (cf the Sept of Baelor)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Mandella on April 19, 2019, 10:34:34 AM
I haven't been part of the discussion here, but I can't help but bomb the thread with this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU15_LP_oiM&feature=youtu.be

If you are a guitar rock fan *and* a GoT fan you have got to see this -- at least the first three minutes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Draegan on April 19, 2019, 10:46:30 AM
Pretty cool.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 19, 2019, 10:56:28 AM
That was fucking awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 19, 2019, 12:20:09 PM
I found a deleted scene:
https://youtu.be/lMXJlUIQP94

Tywin is fishing, echoing thr scene with the stag, while talking with Pycelle and getting him to drop his feeble old man act.

Worth a watch!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 20, 2019, 04:01:34 AM
(https://i.redd.it/gt0ru2nrtbt21.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 20, 2019, 04:28:17 AM
Also, what's the ending going to be? "

Kinda want to know how far people will be off.

Edit: Recapping the show a bit to refresh my memory and came across this scene with, IMHO, one of the more underrated characters in the shoe: King Robert.

He and Cersei talk about their marriage . One of the few where Robert shows up as more than a loud drunk. Cersei shows a real human side and one gets the feeling they almost could make their relationship work.  :heartbreak:
Happy Couple  (https://youtu.be/xpBBueLih_k)

Also Got started in April 2011. I was just a young babe of 30 years back than. Fuck...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 20, 2019, 07:06:37 AM
That list is missing the rest of the sand snakes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 20, 2019, 07:26:58 AM
Wouldn't it be great if Robin ended up on the Iron Throne somehow, just to troll all of us?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Mandella on April 20, 2019, 09:17:58 AM
I found a deleted scene:
https://youtu.be/lMXJlUIQP94

Tywin is fishing, echoing thr scene with the stag, while talking with Pycelle and getting him to drop his feeble old man act.

Worth a watch!

I love Julian Glover.

He was in *everything* in the sixties as the overly officious and very British-officer-type prick who nonetheless had backbone when the chips were down. He had great characters in The Avengers (the British silly but great spy show, for you young uns out there), the Saint, and my personal favorite, Five Million Years to Earth (aka Quartermass and the Pit).

He was about eighty in that scene above, and he's still working today.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 20, 2019, 09:52:43 AM
Also, what's the ending going to be? "

Kinda want to know how far people will be off.



A lot of people think Sansa could end up on the Throne. I personally think Dany is going to die and possibly Jon will die one last time so Sansa or Tyrion makes sense. But I also am kind of hoping for an apocalyptic ending with the last shot being snow falling in the burning remains of the throne room. Something like the way the 80s The Thing ended. But I don't think HBO is brave enough to do it.



I love Julian Glover.

He was in *everything* in the sixties as the overly officious and very British-officer-type prick who nonetheless had backbone when the chips were down. He had great characters in The Avengers (the British silly but great spy show, for you young uns out there), the Saint, and my personal favorite, Five Million Years to Earth (aka Quartermass and the Pit).

He was about eighty in that seen above, and he's still working today.

I'm the type of nerd that remembers him mainly from the Empire Strikes Back and one of the Indiana Jones movies. I think it's the Last Crusade. Otherwise known as the last Indiana Jones movies since none were made after that movie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 20, 2019, 09:59:02 AM
Yeah, i seriously doubt we get an ending that includes a unified seven kingdoms. We'll get Sansa in charge of Winterfell, and various other parties in charge of the other kingdoms (Robin? Tyrion? Edmure? Gendry?).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 20, 2019, 10:24:51 AM
Also, what's the ending going to be? "

Kinda want to know how far people will be off.



But I also am kind of hoping for an apocalyptic ending with the last shot being snow falling in the burning remains of the throne room. Something like the way the 80s The Thing ended. But I don't think HBO is brave enough to do it.


We saw several times visions of Bran that showed exactly that. I wouldn't rule it out.

My predictions, based on some leaky meta-info, so spoilers here, beware:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Sir T on April 20, 2019, 10:43:07 AM
The game of Thrones: the only winning move is not to play...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 20, 2019, 11:12:00 AM
My predictions, based on some leaky meta-info, so spoilers here, beware:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 20, 2019, 12:00:03 PM
Since the original intent of the book series was a low-fantasy retelling of the War of the Roses, I suspect that none of the current crop of rulers will end up on the throne but there will be a throne that covers all the 7 kingdoms. It just won't be the Iron Throne. The Iron Throne gets melted down and the survivors choose a new unifying monarch, perhaps a marriage of convenience between Tyrion and Sansa who rule as co-equal monarchs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 20, 2019, 12:16:08 PM
My predictions, based on some leaky meta-info, so spoilers here, beware:
Not to me, no.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 20, 2019, 12:39:18 PM
Since the original intent of the book series was a low-fantasy retelling of the War of the Roses, I suspect that none of the current crop of rulers will end up on the throne but there will be a throne that covers all the 7 kingdoms. It just won't be the Iron Throne. The Iron Throne gets melted down and the survivors choose a new unifying monarch, perhaps a marriage of convenience between Tyrion and Sansa who rule as co-equal monarchs.

War of the roses ended with a Lancaster returning from exile, winning a huge battle and the marrying a York right? So uh... Jamie has the advantage in the "winning a huge battle" side of the equation, but Tyrion is already conveniently married to Sansa. Dany has the returning from exile thing going I guess, and she could end up with Jon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 20, 2019, 02:45:18 PM
I had to look it up, but yes, you have the right of it. The two warring claims to the throne were united by a marriage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 20, 2019, 02:59:02 PM
Oh another thing:

Gwendolin Christie and and Coster-Waldau doing a short GoT promo by answering questions. Well, they are not really answering questions, they are just being cute together for 3 minutes: https://youtu.be/1hHm6eyvUfs which is really good enough for me. Gwendolin has a nice laugh btw.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 20, 2019, 08:17:57 PM
I think another possibility is that Dany's talk of "breaking the wheel" will come true, in one of two ways:

a) this entire narrative is a post-apocalyptic prelude; meaning, almost everybody dies, and the survivor rules a kingdom that is basically obliterated. This is not inconsistent with the intersection of the Black Death and the Hundred Years War, another Martin source. I could see the series closing with a lone survivor in a frozen King's Landing, ruler of nothing.

b) No one of the existing Houses ends up in charge; the 'wheel' is truly broken and a commoner ends up in charge of a fundamentally new order. If we buy the history Martin has set out, Westeros has been under aristocratic/feudal rule for an INSANELY long time, much longer than Western Europe was. Maybe we end up with something more like a French Revolution at the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 21, 2019, 01:10:02 AM
I cannot believe that asoiaf ends with an existing house on the iron throne in the conventional way we understand it. I think the tudor marriage thing is a misdirect if it is a thing at all. The only couple that would make any sense in that context is Sansa/Tyrion and I don't really see that happening.

 - There is a thematic need for global-warming-allegory to be defeated by something other than mankind's conventional politics and warfare.

 - The previous long night finished with a settlement we don't fully understand - seems much more likely that once main characters figure that out they can work out how to calm everyone the fuck down.

 - Major characters keep outright telling us nobody will sit the throne. 'break the wheel' 'give up your crown to save the kingdom' etc etc, not to mention the house of undying. Even the zombies keep reminding us about the damn wheel.

 - From a story perspective it is an inevitable anti climax, humans beat climate-change in big damn battle and then as you were everyone? We've had a bunch of wars and political battles that the series has amply demonstrated are not an effective way to stablise the kingdom. 'oh it worked this time and everyone was fine' is a rubbish ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 21, 2019, 06:42:15 AM
I think another possibility is that Dany's talk of "breaking the wheel" will come true, in one of two ways:

a) this entire narrative is a post-apocalyptic prelude; meaning, almost everybody dies, and the survivor rules a kingdom that is basically obliterated. This is not inconsistent with the intersection of the Black Death and the Hundred Years War, another Martin source. I could see the series closing with a lone survivor in a frozen King's Landing, ruler of nothing.
This is what I've actively been cheering for ever since reading the third book sometime in the 90's.  I don't think the TV show has the guts to do it, but it would be my preferred way out.  I actually remember in my teen years thinking of a Fantasy story plot in my head that would revolve around everybody endlessly backstabbing and fighting each other until the 'good guys' eventually won, but left with a kingdom mostly in ruins.  The book ending with the sudden arrival of some long defeated and thought dead nemesis from the past that was obviously about to sweep in and wipe out humanity without effort.

Would be fun to actually see something like that get made, I just don't see the current show runners having it in them to do it.  Hope I'm wrong!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 21, 2019, 06:56:05 AM
People need to stop expecting anything groundbreaking in the story or some amazing ending.

The show runners are writing fan fiction about stuff written by a guy who basically was world building and not building a narrative.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 21, 2019, 07:49:51 AM
I totally accept that the season might turn shit. But the world building is the point. How the zombies and dragons are made to go away is presumably how GRRM plans to answer the basic mystery of why anything started.

I don't expect groundbreaking but I do expect it to contribute to understanding the mythos. Because like you say, GRRM is much lore excited about that than he is about characters and story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 21, 2019, 07:08:38 PM
Tormund was great.

The rest of the episode was semi-meh.

But not terrible.

Also, the fact that the actress playing Arya looks like she is 14 made things a bit creepy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 21, 2019, 07:15:36 PM
She’s like 21 or 22.  And will always look 12.  I have no idea how she’ll cope with that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 21, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
She’s like 21 or 22.  And will always look 12.  I have no idea how she’ll cope with that.

The guy who played jojen reed is almost 30 and he looks younger than her, but they are both actors so they can always play younger characters.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 21, 2019, 07:21:20 PM
Jojen will always be Ferb to me.  But I was thinking more how she dates anyone who isn’t some creepy pedophile.

Edit: creepy pedophile is redundant, is it not?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 21, 2019, 08:37:55 PM
She’ll eventually end up looking old enough to not be mistaken for someone in jr high. Kinda like Christana Ricci.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on April 21, 2019, 10:03:52 PM
As long as Dany doesn't end up on the throne I'm happy. I'm convinced she is one of the worst options, well below Cersei and Robert for that matter.

The scene with Sam really clinched it for me, but even re-reading the books, she just isn't a good leader at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on April 21, 2019, 11:25:39 PM
Also, the fact that the actress playing Arya looks like she is 14 made things a bit creepy.

All of Reddit split 50/50 between men feeling creeped out and protective, and people debating whether or not it was her boobs (according to an interview, she did do the scene).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2019, 09:46:28 AM
She did seem way more stacked that I would have thought.  That threw me off balance......

 :why_so_serious:

Ok, they've literally setup everybody to say goodbye this episode.  We have a fantasy league, but for fun, lets see who we all think are the most likely to die each episode.  I propose that between every episode, we pick our top three to die for that particular episode.  6 points for your first pick, 3 points for your second, 1 for your third.  Or whatever, it really doesn't matter, lets just have fun seeing who can call the deaths most accurately.

On top of that, we do have at least one outstanding prophecy.  Who will kill Cersei:
Quote
Cersei: Will the king and I have children?
Maggy: Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you. Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds, she said. And when your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you.

And finally, predict now who will sit on the Iron throne at the end.  White Walkers are an acceptable answer.

My death predictions for next episode:

1.)  Jaime.
2.)  Theon.
3.)  Ed from the Nights Watch.

Long term:
Cersei death:  Killed by Zombie version of Jaime.
Throne Victor:...... I need to think on this more.  Will post later.

We can break this off to its own thread if we want.  But this is going to be the only time for a long time where we will have a group TV show that's this big, where we are calling who will violently die next.  May as well make it a thing while we can.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 22, 2019, 10:24:15 AM
Next episode:

1 Grey Worm, come on the dude was making post war plans with his girl, that's a fucking death sentence
2 Beric Dondarrion, not important and not much of a fan favorite, easy kill
3 Podrick Payne, someone we actually care about has to die


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 22, 2019, 10:26:14 AM
I don't want Dolorous Edd to die, he's like the Wedge Antilles of the show.  Always there playing wingman, never getting respect.

(Note that I don't consider becoming Lord Commander of the Nights Watch largely out of nobody else wanting to do it to be respect)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2019, 10:54:06 AM
1. Ser Brienne - She had way too much character growth last episode to survive much longer. At least she'll die a knight.
2. Bran - If this is the episode the Night King dies, Bran's probably going to have to die too.
3. Lyanna Mormont - Arya is the only teenage girl likely to survive the battlefield.

Cersei: I think living Tyrion kills her.
The One King To Rule Them All: I think Jon and Dany end up married, ruling as King and Queen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on April 22, 2019, 11:10:23 AM
1. Sir Brienne (saving Jaime?)
2. Greyworm (nice I'm about to die speech there)
3. Tormund (doing something grand)

Arya kills Cersei

An as of yet not born child ends up on the throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 22, 2019, 11:21:58 AM
Longer version of "Jenny of Oldstones" sung by Florence + the Machine. (https://youtu.be/eTa1jHk1Lxc)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 22, 2019, 11:46:53 AM
1. Theon - He's on a redemption arc and that will probably see him sacrificing himself for Bran.
2. Grey Worm - He might as well have said "I'll sign the life insurance papers after the battle."
3. Lyanna Mormont - She and Jorah said their goodbyes.

Bonus predictions: Podrick, Beric, Tormund, Dolorous Ed was heavily foreshadowed. I think we'll lose at least one major cast member but I'm having trouble saying who. My gut tells me Brienne's arc is complete so she's a good contender to go out heroicly.

Cersei kill: Jamie kills her while Arya and the Hound chop the Mountain down to size.

Throne: I'm rooting for Sansa and Tyrion to share it. Dany is on the verge of going Mad Queen Dany. Jon doesn't want it. If it's not Sansa and Tyrion I don't want anyone to get it. I want Fallout: Westeros to be the ending in that case.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2019, 11:59:52 AM
I want it to be literally anyone other than Sansa. She's at the top of my "I want them to die but they probably won't" list.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 22, 2019, 12:01:59 PM
I want it to be literally anyone other than Sansa. She's at the top of my "I want them to die but they probably won't" list.

She was there for me in the early seasons but she's gone through hell and has only become stronger and smarter for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Stewie on April 22, 2019, 12:09:30 PM
I'm totally rooting for Darth Sansa as well!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 22, 2019, 12:39:07 PM
I want it to be literally anyone other than Sansa. She's at the top of my "I want them to die but they probably won't" list.

She was there for me in the early seasons but she's gone through hell and has only become stronger and smarter for it.

Shes absolutely not become smarter, the show is just begging us to pretend she has. Like talking shit to Dany when they literally have zero way to back up her bullshit, if the bitch with two dragons and multiple armies wants you to kneel you kneel. The entirety of what the north has left fits inside Winterfell, with room for the entire rest of the cast.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 22, 2019, 12:50:20 PM
Sansa sucks. I'd love her to die.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 22, 2019, 03:25:22 PM
Honestly I don't care anymore. Brienne is still nice, but with the rest of the characters I am really done.

I have to admit Jamie and Tyrion sitting together talking about Cersei as if she were Sauron kind of rubbed me the wrong way.

I'd hope for anyone but Danaerys but eh... Edit: Strike that. Dany can have her throne if I get a dead Tyrion instead.  :-)

Edit2: How often did someone say the crypts are safe? Is this a double-feint? Because if not the writers need to be more subtle.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 22, 2019, 04:57:42 PM
Too much emphasis not only on the crypts being safe but also on who specifically was going to be in or out for it not to be a key plot point next episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 22, 2019, 05:14:25 PM
If Brienne and Tormund don’t at least hook up before death I will be a very grumpy old man.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2019, 05:24:37 PM
Oh god, yeah, I forgot about Grey Worm.  He should be number one on all list, they foreshadowed so much.  He may as well as said he was 3 days to retirement.

Going to keep my (admittedly unlikely) prediction up just because. 

Oh, and who takes the throne:  white walkers.  As in they destroy kings landing and even after being defeated, there is something new afterwards.  Nobody sits on it in the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 22, 2019, 05:32:51 PM
He sits on it, and his frozen ass shatters it.

Edit: Night King, that is.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2019, 05:50:09 PM
Yeah, if the Walkers do take Kings Landing, I'm expecting some dramatic scene of him shattering it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 22, 2019, 06:50:03 PM
If Brienne and Tormund don’t at least hook up before death I will be a very grumpy old man.

I went between "shame they made a comic relief character" and "d'awww his earnest clapping is so cute".






Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on April 22, 2019, 07:05:38 PM
If Brienne and Tormund were going to hook up, I think this was the episode for them to have done it. I'd honestly be surprised if more than one of Jaime/Brienne/Tormund survives the battle of Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2019, 07:16:34 PM
Yeah, I put Tormund pretty high on the deadpool.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2019, 07:50:46 PM
Also, just noticed that the guy who directed the Battle of The Bastards will be directing next episode.   :drill:

Also directing episode 5.  I guess we know which episodes will have all the deaths.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 22, 2019, 08:10:29 PM
If Brienne and Tormund were going to hook up, I think this was the episode for them to have done it. I'd honestly be surprised if more than one of Jaime/Brienne/Tormund survives the battle of Winterfell.

I get what you’re saying but it’s still the one goofy thing I didn’t know I wanted from GoT :heart:

My own theory is actually Brienne lives, but has to make a choice that causes the death of Jaime or and or Tormund (both if they’re paricularly cruel to her character.  And has to live with that choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on April 22, 2019, 08:28:59 PM
Dead People Ep 3:
Grey Worm
Theon
Gendry

Cersei killed by: Arya while Jaime and The Hound shiv up The Mountain.

Throne sat on by: Jon but Daenerys is dead by that time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2019, 08:48:27 PM
They can't kill Gendry, he needs to be the last one left with Royal Blood to claim the throne after everybody else dies!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 22, 2019, 11:35:43 PM
1. Grey Worm.  And he better go out heroically, as my fantasy team depends on it.
2. Beric.  He is a 3rd tier character anyway.  But also see above.  He better kill dozens of walkers and light up that sword at least once.
3. Theon.  As said by someone else, seems likely he will die saving Bran from the NK or something.  Redemption complete.

Better not be Tormund.  I think he will die in King's Landing saving Brienne or something.

Jaime will kill Cersei.  It is simultaneously the worst thing that could happen to her, the best thing he could do AND it would make him the motherfucking QUEENSLAYER.  And Arya is going to wreck the Mountain, probably heroically saving the Hound in the process, because that would be fucking awesome and also close that circle in a satisfactory way.

Nobody will sit on the Iron Throne.  Either Jon or Dany (depending on which of them lives) will stand in front of it with Drogon, and while appearing to contemplate taking a seat, will instead utter a quiet "Dracarys" instead, and Drogon will melt it into slag.  Roll credits.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Wasted on April 23, 2019, 01:26:15 AM
My predictions pulled from my ass.

After a costly battle at Winterfell the Dead head south.  Dany follows, the dead take Kings Landing (the Golden Company or Euron takes any money and flees) and Cersei is holed up in the palace.  Dany flies in with friends, Cleganbowl happens, Tyrion kills Cersai, Dany gets burned by Wildfire, crawls to the throne to die whilst the dragons go crazy.

Jon heads north with Bran, some lore-jumbo will happen and Jon will sacrifice himself by replacing the Night King somehow and be doomed to a cold eternal rule of the dead, but his control of the dead will end the war.  Zombie Jon destroys the iron throne, makes a new one out a dragon skull or something more symbolic than I can think of and appoints probably Sansa Queen.  As he leaves he warns them to do a better job this time than the last, if he has to come south again the dead will follow.

Bran becomes a tree thing.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Spiff on April 23, 2019, 01:39:00 AM
- Grey Worm is obviously worm food.
- Theon should seppuku if they don't give him a heroic 'self-sacrificial' death.
- Tormund obviously is never getting with Brienne, going out trying to save her is all that's left (kinda hoping it's in vain and she gets it anyway).

Who I really hope doesn't make it, but probably will:
- Bran, he fingered little-finger, spilled the beans about Jon; really no point in keeping him around. He's not even a character anymore really, he's a crystal ball with wheels and I really hope they don't keep milking the all-seeing-eye bit.
- Tyrion; honestly he should have died escaping the Red keep after killing Tywin (: greatest character in the entire show and the only one that was worthy of sitting on the Iron Throne).
I wish he'd get a ridiculously pointless death as well, to wrap up his pointless arc; like he stumbles on the stairs on the way to the crypt or something, chokes on his wine when headless Ned rises.

Not related to any deaths really, but I do hope Dany backstabs the bally lot of em and ditches halfway through the battle (after seeing the unsullied get massacred or losing another dragon), I'm going to be mightily disappointed if there's not even a little backstabbing/deserting in the battle for Winterfell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 23, 2019, 03:49:34 AM
Backstabbing doesn't make any sense though.  Like, literally everybody there acknowledges they are all probably about to die and came anyways.  Nobody can back stab and cut a deal with the night king, and fleeing from Winterfell into the blizzard is a worse idea than hiding in it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 23, 2019, 04:06:23 AM
I don't think there is any of that kind of backstabbing coming either, at least not for the coming battle....unless of course Bronn shows up and decides to kill a Lannister or two.  Which, while we are at it, I do not think he will do.  Bronn likes his gold, but it has always felt like they are trying to show his true heart of gold just like they have with Jaime.  Or I could be wrong and that is one of the shockers to be revealed.

Any figurative backstabbing at this point might be more likely to come from Sansa.  They have put her out there as one of the few still truly playing the Game, and the scene with her and Dany did nothing to remove that notion.  And so conveniently, the horns sound before one or two more sentences could have resolved the matter one way or the other.  Either Dany agrees and disolves the 7 Kingdoms (which I think she will, see my prediction about Drogon melting the Iron Throne), or Sansa is going to do something.  Arya might help her.  As would a number of Northmen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 23, 2019, 06:29:07 AM
My assumption is that next week is about showing beyond doubt you can't win by conventional means - but maybe identifying how they can win, and also killing some dudes.

I'm interested in what they do with Bran. It doesn't seem practical for him to survive, but equally seems odd to not have him involved in the real final showdown. Him in the godswood might be more than a scenic choice - maybe he escapes into the weirnet - maybe what we've seen so far isn't all that is meant by him 'flying'.

Backstabbing at this point would just be irritating and undermine the central point that swords can't beat global-warming allegories. End of next week they need the main dudes to all accept that military power is irrelevant.

I can definitely imagine the throne being literally destroyed. Dany can't rule shit - it is her tragedy and has been beaten to death for 7 years. TV Dany even had a vision of a destroyed throne room in winter (but not book Dany). I'm not even sure the post Night king settlement is going to get explained on TV. But if I were to make a guess about it, it would be that people in the books don't incessantly refer to 'Bran the Builder' for no reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on April 23, 2019, 07:28:05 AM
Arya takes the throne and raises her son, a Baratheon heir, to be the next king.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 23, 2019, 08:29:59 AM
Upcoming Battle of Winterfell deaths:

1) Grey Wurm - as everyone said, he had the tropiest tropey foreshadowing that ever troped.
2) Theon - 100% chance he dies protecting Bran then comes back as a zombie right quick, because he has a face for zombie
3) Both the Mormonts - they have nowhere else to go
4) Brienne - dies saving her true love Jamie and tells him with her dying breath - the tropiest death
5) Gendry dies trying to fight off the zombies in the crypt because yeah, that shit has been made too obvious
6) At least one of the dragons dies
7) Whether in Winterfell or after, Jon and Dany will die fighting each other, hopefully each from their own dragon - maybe Jon's riding the zombie dragon

Sansa and Tyrion end up sharing the power of a North-South union kingdom each with equal power and Queen of the North and King of the South.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 23, 2019, 08:45:33 AM
You know, just because he gave the "cop about to retire" speech doesn't mean they can't fuck with that by killing Missandei instead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 23, 2019, 09:24:48 AM
This feels like the right place to point out that Missandei is stupid hot and she cannot be allowed to die as a result.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 23, 2019, 10:08:39 AM
This feels like the right place to point out that Missandei is stupid hot and she cannot be allowed to die as a result.

It means she will die in the most horrible fashion, dude.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 23, 2019, 06:30:21 PM
Anybody else bugged by the half assed "lol, white people hate black people" thing they've forced on with Grey Worm and Missandi?  It just seems like a waste of time, and also doesn't make sense given we have zero historical context about race relations in Westroes.  They are trying to slap modern sensibilities and race issues of earth into a medieval fantasy world with zero context, I guess to be edgy?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 23, 2019, 07:14:45 PM
I think you may be reading more into that than there is. It's just as easy to say that the Northerners look on anyone connected to either the Southerners or people from outside the continent of Westeros, and their skin tone would only be a little part of that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 23, 2019, 07:23:32 PM
The Us vs Them stuff is all the fuck over the place in this story. It has little to do with skin tone and a lot more to do with “they are from the other side of the hill/river/lake/bog/sea”.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 23, 2019, 07:32:32 PM
They've made it a big deal for them specifically, with people staring at them (and obviously because they are different looking), and Grey Worm saying "we have no place here".  Here not just being the north, since they serve a queen who is going to rule over all the lands.  I mean, maybe I am reading too much into it, but they've been showing that they specifically are being hated on because of how they look, and how uncomfortable that makes Missandi.  Took that to mean a racial thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 23, 2019, 07:38:05 PM
They've made it a big deal for them specifically, with people staring at them (and obviously because they are different looking), and Grey Worm saying "we have no place here".  Here not just being the north, since they serve a queen who is going to rule over all the lands.  I mean, maybe I am reading too much into it, but they've been showing that they specifically are being hated on because of how they look, and how uncomfortable that makes Missandi.  Took that to mean a racial thing.

A) They are invaders from another land
B) The Northerners just aren't super welcoming to outsiders lately what with years of war with the rest of the continent.

I didn't get a racial thing from it at all. I got more of a "You aren't from around here are you?" vibe. As a white person I've gotten that same look in some small towns in my own state.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on April 23, 2019, 10:42:04 PM
They've made it a big deal for them specifically, with people staring at them (and obviously because they are different looking), and Grey Worm saying "we have no place here".  Here not just being the north, since they serve a queen who is going to rule over all the lands.  I mean, maybe I am reading too much into it, but they've been showing that they specifically are being hated on because of how they look, and how uncomfortable that makes Missandi.  Took that to mean a racial thing.

I just think it is a narrative short-cut because it is so obvious with those two. It's lazy, and I can see what you are getting at, but I think they have to establish quite a bit in not a lot of screen time left.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 23, 2019, 11:33:03 PM
Yet more stupid can’t-sleep wishes:  Euron captures Melisandre (or she lets him) —she has a task to perform before she dies, right?  Lord of light sets her on fire (she’s got it coming) and chars his hands (since there’s no Victarion in the series).  No reason for it or to be that complicated but a nice nod to things left out.

Oh and he’s another little brother to Balon and Iron islanders tie in nicely with the drowning reference in the prophecy, although I think they left that part out of the show?  But as liable to murder her anyway just because.

Goddamit brain go to sleep.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 24, 2019, 01:53:24 AM
They've made it a big deal for them specifically, with people staring at them (and obviously because they are different looking), and Grey Worm saying "we have no place here".  Here not just being the north, since they serve a queen who is going to rule over all the lands.  I mean, maybe I am reading too much into it, but they've been showing that they specifically are being hated on because of how they look, and how uncomfortable that makes Missandi.  Took that to mean a racial thing.

Suspect the TV writers are dodging it being specifically racism because it is almost impossible to do that justice in a weird context like this, but sure, this is no different to Mereen - and no different to all the worrying about the idea of a Khalasar in the 7 kingdoms early on. Dany and her army fit in nowhere. Nor does Jon by the way.

We aren't getting a repeat of Mereen because there is no time, but hypothetically if Dany won the throne, it would go have to go down the same way. I guess Dany and Jon realise this eventually.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 24, 2019, 02:27:26 AM
No need to overthink any of it.  Only Northmen fit in in the North, that has been clear from the beginning.  A castrated, dark-skinned warrior from another continent and an exotic beauty from Naath just stand out even more.  Northmen are just casual bigots, move along, nothing to see here.  Everyone else in this world is too, just maybe not quite to the same extreme.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 24, 2019, 02:47:22 AM
They've made it a big deal for them specifically, with people staring at them (and obviously because they are different looking), and Grey Worm saying "we have no place here".  Here not just being the north, since they serve a queen who is going to rule over all the lands.  I mean, maybe I am reading too much into it, but they've been showing that they specifically are being hated on because of how they look, and how uncomfortable that makes Missandi.  Took that to mean a racial thing.

I just think it is a narrative short-cut because it is so obvious with those two. It's lazy, and I can see what you are getting at, but I think they have to establish quite a bit in not a lot of screen time left.
Fair enough, that's probably more it.  It seemed really weird to be trying to force in, so they probably are just doing something else badly.  Though doing a quick google now, I am by far not the only person who thinks all the children in Winterfell are racists.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 25, 2019, 12:57:34 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ZlGPZoX.jpg)

Tee Hee.

But seriously, Tyrion murders his own father. F13: "Meh"
Tyrion chockes Shae to death like medieval Patrick Bateman. F13: "We love you Tyrion!"

Everything Cersei ever did, from the start of the show, was in self defense of her and her own.

If Robert is allowed to start a war that killed endless amount of innocents just because someone stole his bride - and remember, Lyanna loved Rhaegar, it wasnt an abduction - then Cersei having to endure him for 17(!) years and then doing what...give him just a bit stronger wine and he ends up killing himself, is literally nothing.

And Danaerys: She was "I will rule and destroy everyone in my path" long before she knew of withe walkers. So don't give that "She is doing that for the children" crap. As proven again in the scene with Sansa: They are fighting an undead zombie army, Danaerys is already promised the throne, Sansa asks for the North to be independent, Danaerys: "I do care about the living and the world not ending, but not so much that I would give up 1 of my 7 kingdoms"

"But the Sept of Baelor", you say. Oh, fuck off. If the entire High Sparrow storyline had happened in Essos with Daneyrs we all know it would have ended with "Dracerys! *dragons burn the entire faith militant"*. And everyone would have cheered.

Seriously, what would you have wanted her to do? House Tyrell killed her son. Should she have gone on a revenge war like Robb, with tens of thousands of battle deaths? Or do equivalent of taking out the leadership with a targeted cruise missile?

Cersei is disliked because in a world in which is all about power she dares to want power too, for powers sake. She doesn't hide it behind a cover story "I was forced into it by circumstance" "They killed my family, I only want revenge" and that's a "crime". She sees a bunch of guys playing something called Game of Thrones and goes "What are you playing here? Can I join?" and for that you hate her.

To close: Cersei is the ultimate feminist hero of the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 25, 2019, 01:20:42 AM
Um.  Okay.

While I admire her feminist plight, Cersei is an actual psychopath.

To be fair and balanced, however, I generally agree with most of what you have said in the past about Tywin.  Aside from being a cunt towards his shortest child, he was actually a reasonable character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on April 25, 2019, 02:01:04 AM
Now to be fair, early on at least Cersei's biggest fault is a failure to control Joffrey, although the other two kids are good people. Jamie (whom a lot of people like) pushed Bran out a window. Yes, Cersei was complicit in the act and when Bran turned out to not be dead, she seemed to strongly hint that she wanted some unfortunate fate to befall him.

The Lannisters were assumed to be behind the death of Jon Arryn, which set pretty much everything in motion and set the Lannisters up as the villains (backed up by the attempted child murder), but of course as it later turns out, they weren't actually responsible for Arryn's death. Cersei doesn't want Ned executed. It's been a while since I rewatched most of the seasons or read the books, but up until the Sept, I'm having a hard time thinking of things she actually did herself that were full-on evil. Even then, by the time she blows up the Sept she's had to deal with two of her kids being murdered.

I don't know if I'm at the point of calling her a feminist hero yet, but I can see the case Calapine is laying down. I think there's more nuance, especially early on to her character than the Bond villain she's become in recent seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 25, 2019, 02:18:31 AM
Sure, there is nuance, and no, she didn't start murdering people from day one.  But she is still a psychopath as of right now.  We don't have to define the exact point in which that became true.

I totally love Cersei and the actress that plays her, so none of this is meant in the negative   :awesome_for_real:  She eats up the screen.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 04:02:02 AM
Heh.

I admit its hard for me to separate book Cersei from TV Cersei having read them long before the TV started, so its hard for me to view her only from the actions she's done on TV (and I'm assuming this is perhaps why you have such a take on her) as I can't mentally separate all that I know about her from that.

Cersei is probably the most vile terrible human in the entire Song of Ice and Fire world short of Ramesy Bolton and The Mountain (who are just over the top).  Even at a young age, she murdered her best friend at age 11 by pushing her down a well and listening to her scream and cry until she died, just because they both heard an old women tell a prophecy Cersei didn't want to come true.

She has been vindictive, petty, and backstabbing her entire life.  She had some of Roberts bastards who lived in Casterly Rock killed and the mother sold into slavery.  Even Jaime pushing Bran out the window was as much by her insistence as anything, as he hesitated, asked his age, and looked towards her.  Her son was a ruthless psychopath and she did everything to let him keep being one.  Being crazy protective of your Children is not a positive trait (note, I have a mother who has done some insane things to 'protect' me when she thought I was being slighted, so maybe I'm more sensitive to that.  A good parent would have sent him to the wall like Sam, or just drowned him).  I do like that GRRM turned tropes around by making her turn out to be completely incompetent when it comes to ruling and even scheming.  They were setting her up in the first book to some stereotypical grand evil woman schemer, and then it turned out she was only good against ultra goody two shoes Stark (again, another trope turner, showing that being heroically good is actually a good way to get everybody killed).  She has completely fucked up everything she has done since then, and Vary's even murders Kevan and Pycelle in the books so they won't stop Cersei from actively fucking up the entire kingdom, so it easier to conquer.

The latest TV break off has her murder her entire in-law family, including the wife of her son, just because the son was listening to his wife more (which is a good thing, because both in the books and the TV show Magyery is by far a better ruler and person than Cersei) and not being so dependent on Cersei anymore.  This act also ends up killing her son.  Also killed several members of her own family (uncle and cousin).  She did all this to save herself and keep her son from listening to anybody but her (insane mother).

I want to repeat.  She murdered her own sons wife just because he truly loved her.  Cersei is a psychopath and vile person.

This also ignores things again happening in the books not shown on TV, such as Cersei sending any maid she thinks might be spying for Margaery (as well as anybody else she doesn't like) down to the dungeon where Qyburn has his lab setup.  He grabs them and then dissects them alive for his experiments.  Bit fuzzy, but pretty sure its implied she's had dozens killed this way, on top of just sending vagrants and others to keep Qyburn happy.

So in short, I've been wanting her to die very painfully and violently for the last 20 odd years, and this season better deliver!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 25, 2019, 05:26:03 AM
I am only commenting on TV Cersei, as that's what I know.

I want to repeat.  She murdered her own sons wife just because he truly loved her.  Cersei is a psychopath and vile person.

You mean the Tyrell that just murdered her other son? Who only became wife by murdering her first husband?

What would you have Cersei do at that moment? What would stop Olenna who just went "I wont let Magery marry that psychopath Geffory, I'll poison him" go "Hmm, as long as Cersei is alive Magery wont be safe, I better poison her too"? Can you point out any path going forward that would not have ended up with one of the houses wiping each other out?


And I actually have to defend Margery on this. Don't infantalize her, she wasn't some dumb 12 year old being married of. She intelligent, choke full of ambition. Her slutty facade was as much as an act as her innocent behaviour with Tommen. She married fucking Goffrey. Do you think it was out of love? Or that was she ignornat of the danger that put her in with him being so volatile? No, she knew. She made a decision as player in Got in her own right, in the same way Robert made a descion when he started his rebellion and put himself in danger when facing Rhaegar Taygarian (one of the best swordmen of the time) in single combat..

It's actually spelled out directly in the show:

Littlefinger: "Do you want to be queen?"
Margery: "No, I want to be THE queen."

Margery was never "Tommen's wife", she was an player of her own, in the same league as Stannis, Renly, Goffrey. And like Stannis, Renly and Goffrey she lost.

Robert smashing Rhaegars skull at the Trident - WAR
Olenna poising Goffrey at the Wedding - WAR
Cersei blowing up Margery at the Sept - WAR

You don't need a dick to have ambition, and you need a sword and go the Brienne-I-pretend-to-be-a-man way to be a warrior. There is more than one way to fight. If I fuck and poison my way to the top that's as legimate as if I reach it by stabbing and slashing.

You probably don't think so, but that's because you are an chauvinistc asshole.*





(*I kid, I kid  :wink:)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 06:15:52 AM
Did TV Cersei know the Tyrell's had poisoned her son?  I thought that was still unknown, but things are fuzzy.  I recall Jaime being shocked when Olenna told him after she drank the poison.  If they did know, ignore what follows, and apologies.   :awesome_for_real:

If not, what War was Cersei waging?  Yes, Margery was very ambitious.  But that ambition was to be the queen.  They pulled that off through negotiation and arranged a marriage, and she got her goal.  Cersei doesn't have her head on a pike because of that agreement, which caused the Tyrell army to come save her and her family at Kings landing.  They didn't need to kill Joffery to get it, but after they quizzed Sansa on what he was like, they made the very morally correct decision to poison his ass so he wouldn't torture and rape Margery daily.  So then she married Tommen.  Now, if Cersei didn't know they had poised her other son, what crime has she done at this point against to get Cersei mad (and again, I think the Tyrells deserve the award for defenders of the realm for killing him, because that was probably the best thing that could have happened to Westeros).  Joffery had to marry somebody, so its not like him getting married was some dire threat to her family.  Margery was very shrewd, charming, and all around would have made a great co-ruler for him.  There was literally nothing else she needed to do.  Cersei, on the other hand, became jealous that her son was listening to his wife (the actual fucking queen) and not her, so she drummed up charges on her to get her arrested by the faith.  That of course back fired badly, so she just went with out right murdering her sons beloved wife.

Which caused a reaction only a psychopath could not see coming.  She really doesn't seem to love her family as much as she says she does.   :grin:



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on April 25, 2019, 06:19:40 AM
If I remember correctly, Cersei was still blaming Tyrion and Sansa for poisoning Joffrey for ages. Yeah, just looked - Sept of Baelor blows up s6e10. Olenna admits to killing Joffrey s7e3. So it was pretty much all about controlling Tommen (and getting revenge on the Sparrows)

Margery (and Olenna) certainly had ambition - it just never occurred to them that Cersei would do something as blunt as blowing up half the city to rid herself of her enemies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 25, 2019, 06:34:49 AM
I am only commenting on TV Cersei, as that's what I know...

...You don't need a dick to have ambition, and you need a sword and go the Brienne-I-pretend-to-be-a-man way to be a warrior. There is more than one way to fight. If I fuck and poison my way to the top that's as legimate as if I reach it by stabbing and slashing.

Bunk is correct that Cersei didn’t know it was Olenna, but it doesn’t change the basic argument that the characters are almost universally monsters doing whatever they can to protect what they see as theirs, regardless of the cost to others.  Collateral damage be damned.  Calapine isn’t wrong.

Edit: but due to the prophecy Cersei’s the one character we KNOW dies, so we’re free to speculate on who does it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 06:38:42 AM
That line of reasoning puts everybody in the show as the moral equal to Ramsey Bolton, who was just doing whatever to protect what was his.  Which is silly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 25, 2019, 06:41:57 AM
Put me firmly on the side of "Cersie is one of the most evil characters in the entire show/book series." She's fun to watch and I love the actress but Cersei deserves every bit of hate she gets. She blew up the Sept of Balor because she was convinced that Margery was the younger, more beautiful queen that the prophecy had foretold. She is responsible for Tommen's death and she has never owned up to that. It is her actions, as much as anyone else's that set the events of the show in action, let's not pretend otherwise. She essentially had Robert murdered and put her psychopath of a son on the throne who then executed Ned Stark instead of letting him take the black as was promised. Because of her actions hundreds of thousands of people have died.

Tywin is one of the few characters who is probably worse than she is. He was utterly ruthless and if you think the Mountain smashing baby's heads against the wall wasn't something he approved of you're naive. A large part of how twisted and evil Cersei is comes directly from Tywin. She wanted his respect and in return he tended to treat her like little more than a bargaining chip to gain more power for the House.

I'm sorry, but trying to make excuses for Cersei and Tywin is just laughable.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 25, 2019, 06:48:22 AM
Joffery had to marry somebody, so its not like him getting married was some dire threat to her family.  Margery was very shrewd, charming, and all around would have made a great co-ruler for him.  There was literally nothing else she needed to do.  Cersei, on the other hand, became jealous that her son was listening to his wife (the actual fucking queen) and not her, so she drummed up charges on her to get her arrested by the faith.

You are mixing up the timeline, by the time the faith charges happend Joffrey was dead. So she couldn't have been a "great co-ruler" for him, because he was murdered by the Tyrells by then.

If you mean she would have made a good co-ruler for Tommen: It was perfectly obvious in the show that Tommen was weak and she would Magery would have totally controlled Tommen. With potential were grave consequences for Cersei. Let alone the fact that the goal is to have Lannister's rule, not Tyrells.

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this. You obviously don't like her and look for reasons to make her fail. I approach it from the point of "What if I am Cersei and my goal is to rule the 7 kingdoms and establish a 1000 year Lannister dynasty how my father would have wanted"

Btw, I never said that Cersei is always wise and doesn't make rash and or unmoral decisions that backfire. The point is, it doesn't matter.

Was it wise decision when Robb ditched an alliance because he followed his dick and got himself killed?
What's moral about Danearys starting a war for the throne? (At a time that Robert was still king, not Goffrey)
Was it wise when Renly desiced to take arms against his own brother, who had the right on the throne, instead helping him against the Lannisters?
Was it wise or moral when Stannis decided to burn his own daughter?
Was it moral of Tyrion to murder Shae who was no threat to him and only a pawn in this game?

The men in Westeros are do shit for sex, start wars because they want power, start wars against their own family members, kill their own family members, kill innocents and go to totally overboard with revenge.

Cersei has every right to be as lustful and revenge-filled and make the same dumb mistakes as them. That doesn't make her a moral rolemodel to be followed, but I never claimed she was. 

Edit: But I guess better lets stop here before this turns into a neverending "But he, but she". We obviously don't agree.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 25, 2019, 06:53:47 AM
That line of reasoning puts everybody in the show as the moral equal to Ramsey Bolton, who was just doing whatever to protect what was his.  Which is silly.

No, because Ramsay actively enjoys what he’s doing.  He commits evil because he wants to do it.

Danaerys is showing signs she could go as all mad-king evil aseher father, her only saving grace so far is she’s been willing to listen to others at times and not always act on first worst impulse.  But those advisors are still all cheering her on to murder thousands to sit on a chair I’m not sure she’s ever even seen but insists belongs to her.

A chair “stolen” by a man who started a war based on a complete lie, out of jealousy and pride.

A chair made centuries ago by others who murdered relentlessly with dragons to take the lands of others.

Lands which had been conquered by those owners.

Don’t think that manyof us today aren’t capable of this kind of thing if pushed (watch the news.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on April 25, 2019, 06:59:30 AM
That line of reasoning puts everybody in the show as the moral equal to Ramsey Bolton, who was just doing whatever to protect what was his.  Which is silly.

No, because Ramsay actively enjoys what he’s doing.  He commits evil because he wants to do it.

Danaerys is showing signs she could go as all mad-king evil aseher father, her only saving grace so far is she’s been willing to listen to others at times and not always act on first worst impulse.  But those advisors are still all cheering her on to murder thousands to sit on a chair I’m not sure she’s ever even seen but insists belongs to her.

A chair “stolen” by a man who started a war based on a complete lie, out of jealousy and pride.

A chair made centuries ago by others who murdered relentlessly with dragons to take the lands of others.

Lands which had been conquered by those owners.

Don’t think that manyof us today aren’t capable of this kind of thing if pushed (watch the news.)

Yeah, that.

And: Cersei didn't blow up the Sept because she thought "Sunday is a good day to kill some", she did because if not she would have faced a trial that would have, so I assume, ended in her death.

After what happened when she was imprisoned, psychologically tortured and then made her walk naked through the town, did you want her to walk into the Sept and say "Dear High Sparrow, I submit to your judgment."?
Would you have done that?

Also people here have this revenge fantasies for her: "I've been wanting her to die very painfully and violently" ~Teleku

Do you not realize that sounds exactly as repugnant as what Cersei did? They killed her daughter and when the time came she got her revenge on Sand in a "very painful" way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 25, 2019, 07:32:19 AM
Cersei told Jaime to throw Bran out the window like three episodes into the first season. She admitted to arranging the murders of children early in the first season as well.

There really aren’t any powerful characters in this series that aren’t shitty human beings. But she is way far away from being the most endearing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 07:32:40 AM
Before I move on here, just point of order.  I simply mistyped that, and meant to say Tommen instead of Joffery.  Somebody needed to marry either of them, so again, the act of marrying one of them is no threat to the mother, unless the mother is a psycho.   :awesome_for_real:

Between what she and the Lannisters did to the Starks (Ned/Sansa/Arya), to Tyrion, and then the Red Wedding.  Yes, ever since I read all that in the late 90's, there have been fewer characters I've wanted to see killed off in literature more than her.  Tywin going out at the end of Storm of Swords was very nice, but its been so long.  She has literally been murdering people since she was 11, and in the last book, sending young women off to be dissected alive by Qyburn.  Also, specifically doing it because she wants to manipulate her son and not somebody else (again, I'm sensitive to psycho mothers).  All of my opinion comes from the books on this, which again, I first read over 20 years ago, which gives a whole lot of time to cement hate.  Ramsey hasn't been killed in the books yet, and he ranks #1 in wishing to die terribly (thank you very much TV series, that was great!), but she's a close second in people I want to see die of any fictional character.  I also always play super pure good dudes in RPG's though, and the shock turn around of the usual Epic Fantasy tropes GRRM did back then hit me hard enough to make an impression and want revenge I suppose.

You're right it appears we wont see eye to eye on this.  I can sort of understand where you're coming from, but the character is too tainted for me after all these years, haha.  Even in the TV series, she's probably the last truly bad person left that hasn't died off (I guess the mountain is somewhere in between).  I actually don't have a problem with her killing off the sand snakes as she did for killing her daughters.  That's totally fine!  They were terrible evil fucking people, it was good.  On the flip side, shes so vile I'm happy they went all out and had all of her children die just to twist the knife in her.

Edit:  All stupid nerd fight fun and games right?  Don't hate me!!!   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 25, 2019, 08:02:33 AM
I keep thinking Calapine is doing some kind of satire and we're all just missing it. I can't figure out how anyone can find anything redeeming in Cersei beyond "She loved her children." That's really her only redeeming feature. She is worse in the books as Teleku points out but she is still awful in the show as well. She's so bad in both sources that she sort of breaks the whole "I like characters in shades of gray" thing that GRRM talks about. There's very little gray in Cersei. Even Jamie has finally seen her for what she is and he's been in love with her for his entire life.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 08:14:47 AM
Oh, and since I didn't see them posted before, heres the Imgur stream of the guy who recaps every episode with his own subtitles.  Hilarious as usual.

Episode 1 (https://imgur.com/gallery/Qhq2Cu6)

Episode 2 (https://imgur.com/gallery/dSYAaEb)



(https://i.imgur.com/qp7GnY6.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/dOPMwvZ.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 25, 2019, 08:15:37 AM
Cersei stuff.

Psycho.  :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious:

You have to remember though - THERE ARE NO FUCKING GOOD GUYS. Nobody in this should be thought of as a good guy. The closest we get is Brienne, Sam, Ned Stark and Jon Snow. And I say they are good guys because in the end, they do not seek out power. Sansa would be tops of the list of "victim good guys" - i.e. people in this show who were fucked over by someone else and now seek power only to protect their own. Cersei is only more "evil" than Sansa in her cruelty - whereas Sansa has only been cruel to those who were cruel to her (Ramsey Bolton and Littlefinger), Cersei tends to be cruel to anyone and everyone that gets in her way, often just to show that "she has the bigger dick."

I get what you are saying and that's certainly one interpretation of the events. Dany gets more credit because even from the get-go, she has shown a willingness to rule differently - abolishing slavery in conquered kingdoms where that has existed. Cersei doesn't want to rule to change anything, she just wants to rule because she's been told she can't. Dany wants to rule because she's been told from birth that her family is entitled to the throne. The difference is Dany actually does in some way care about "the people" while Cersei just sees them as the spoils of power, the rewards for winning the game.

EDIT: I'll say 2 other things about Cersei. One, she has been actively supporting a goddamn necromancer doing experiments with the living and the dead in her basement for years now. On top of that, when faced with the very real fucking threat of the goddamn walking dead munching their way through her kingdom, her first thought is not "we're ALL fucked if I don't help," it's "these zombie fuckers can weaken my enemies so that I can cement my grasp on the throne and even if I can't beat the dead, at least these other fuckers didn't take my throne!"

That's some quality level psychopathy there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 25, 2019, 08:28:57 AM
Cersei stuff.

Psycho.  :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious:

You have to remember though - THERE ARE NO FUCKING GOOD GUYS. Nobody in this should be thought of as a good guy. The closest we get is Brienne, Sam, Ned Stark and Jon Snow. And I say they are good guys because in the end, they do not seek out power. Sansa would be tops of the list of "victim good guys" - i.e. people in this show who were fucked over by someone else and now seek power only to protect their own. Cersei is only more "evil" than Sansa in her cruelty - whereas Sansa has only been cruel to those who were cruel to her (Ramsey Bolton and Littlefinger), Cersei tends to be cruel to anyone and everyone that gets in her way, often just to show that "she has the bigger dick."

I get what you are saying and that's certainly one interpretation of the events. Dany gets more credit because even from the get-go, she has shown a willingness to rule differently - abolishing slavery in conquered kingdoms where that has existed. Cersei doesn't want to rule to change anything, she just wants to rule because she's been told she can't. Dany wants to rule because she's been told from birth that her family is entitled to the throne. The difference is Dany actually does in some way care about "the people" while Cersei just sees them as the spoils of power, the rewards for winning the game.

I don't think Sansa was particularly cruel to Littlefinger. I mean, she ambushed him in that "trial" sure. Then she presented his crimes and had him executed. Considering he is responsible for many of the events in the early seasons, he got off pretty light. Though it's arguable how much she knew. Her brother is Westeros Wikipedia though so she might know quite a lot.

Ramsay, yeah, she was cruel to him. But I think Mother Teresa might've made an exception and been cruel to Ramsay. That dude was pure evil on a scale that even puts Cersei to shame. In the modern day, he'd have been a sadistic serial killer, in GOT, he was basically just a really bad version of a Bolton.

I'd put most of the surviving Starks in the "good guy" camp from the standpoint of "on balance, they've done more good than evil." Arya comes closest to tipping that scale. Bran is just...well...something else so he doesn't count. In D&D he'd be a pure Neutral character.

Dany is I think teetering on the precipice of madness, and if she falls over, I think she'll "break bad". Also, you left off Podrick and Tyrion from your list of good people. Yeah, Tyrion murdered Shae though I think since she'd helped get him convicted of treason it's understandable though not justifiable by modern standards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 25, 2019, 08:29:51 AM
You mean the Tyrell that just murdered her other son? Who only became wife by murdering her first husband?

If Cersei thinks Margaery killed Joffrey (which she didn't, btw), why does she try to set Tyrion up for it?  There was never any hint whatsoever that anyone blamed Margaery for Joffrey's death.  We do learn later than Oleanna was responsible (Margaery was not involved, even if she was the motivation) but the first time that's revealed to anyone outside the family is well after Cersei has already gone full Mad Queen and burned everyone alive.

Also who in the history of ever thinks that Margaery killed Renly?   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 25, 2019, 08:42:57 AM
Dany's not a good comparison.  She's endured a lot of horror, including the same utter contempt for the idea of a woman being unfit for rule just because of what is(n't) between her legs.  The difference is, she's had the power and influence of her dragons to bully her way through.  Also literal plot magic (not being harmed by fire).  And a lot of men who love/lust after her willing to do her bidding (which isn't ok for Cersei?).

Take that away, and in a few years you could easily have Cersei 2.0, marginalized but still fighting to protect her son "The Stallion Who Mounts The World" as the Dothraki proceed to make Westeros an even bigger and less stable shithole than it was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 08:49:26 AM
Dany wants her birthright back, but thinks she can make things great when she rules.  She's had a lot of the naivety knocked out of her in her journey that's made her more cynical, but even now, you can't argue she doesn't want to make peoples lives better, even as she threatens force to take back what she thinks is hers

Cersei wants to violently torture and kill anybody who insults her family or might possibly disrupt her total control over her children.  The state of the realm, the well being of anybody else, doesn't matter to her.  She will happily order the painful death of anybody who she thinks may have wronged her, and cares zero about running the realm.  Maintaining alliances that will keep her house alive don't matter.  Long term planning for anything doesn't matter.  She wants what she can get now, and will just kill or steal to get it no matter the cost.

Surely, these things seem fairly different to you?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 25, 2019, 08:59:08 AM
Dany has shown definite tendencies towards ruthlessness and autocracy, and they're getting stronger.  But the plot has given her a power base that Cersei never had, less time to get jaded, and conveniently no children to affect what she wants (I have two.  It totally has an impact)

Turn the question around.  Put Cersei in Dany's shoes 20 years ago, with people who support the idea of her ruling and want to help, and what would you get?

Edit: as Schild likes to point out, it's us old sumbitches that cause all the trouble  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 25, 2019, 09:05:54 AM


Turn the question around.  Put Cersei in Dany's shoes 20 years ago, with people who support the idea of her ruling and want to help, and what would you get?


We're getting into a bit of a nature vs nurture quagmire here. I believe Cersei is a psychopath and would likely just have been worse had she gone through what Dany went through and gotten ahold of Dragons. She sure as hell wouldn't be helping Jon right now. She'd be razing King's Landing to the ground with her dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 09:10:59 AM
A loving husband to Robert who would have helped him guide the realm to better peace and prosperity over his own base urges?

No seriously, any evidence that would not have happened?  We have the current outcome because Cersei is a psychotic murdering bitch who hates and distrusts almost everybody and tried to undermine Roberts marriage from the get go because she wanted to marry her brother.  Robert had all his own baggage coming into the marriage, but Cersei was damaged goods long before that.  Dany in a similar situation could have flowered for all we know because she's not a born psycho.

Edit:  Lol, I somehow read what you wrote as them swapping places, not Cersei in Dany's situation specifically.  I'll leave what I wrote.  As for the turn around, I agree with Riggswolfe.  Cersei would have committed genocide 10 times over across Essos at this point, before going to Westeros with her dragons and making people beg for the good governance of the White Walkers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 25, 2019, 09:28:22 AM
A loving husband to Robert who would have helped him guide the realm to better peace and prosperity over his own base urges?

No seriously, any evidence that would not have happened?  We have the current outcome because Cersei is a psychotic murdering bitch who hates and distrusts almost everybody and tried to undermine Roberts marriage from the get go because she wanted to marry her brother.  Robert had all his own baggage coming into the marriage, but Cersei was damaged goods long before that.  Dany in a similar situation could have flowered for all we know because she's not a born psycho.

Edit:  Lol, I somehow rad what you wrote as them swapping places, not Cersei in Dany's situation specifically.  I'll leave what I wrote.  As for the turn around, I agree with Riggswolfe.  Cersei would have committed genocide 10 times over across Essos at this point, before going to Westeros with her dragons and making people beg for the good governance of the White Walkers.

We'll never know, because it wasn't written that way anyway :P  But I'll stop with saying a lot of what goes wrong is our inability to look at someone who's done something and say, "under those circumstances can I assert I wouldn't do that?" and at least judge from a point of empathy.  It's tough to do at times, Cersei *is* broken but I kinda get why (as much as an old white dude can, anyway).  And there are a few monsters -- people like Ramsay or the Mountain -- who just can't be empathized with.


One hopefully-to-remain-hypothetical personal example (possibly TMI): my daughter wanted to go to China this summer with her school tour group.  My wife would not agree to let her go, without at least one parent along.  Not because of a fear our daughter might do anything too dumb -- she's pretty level-headed for a teenager -- but out of fear for her safety.   Part of the reason I was elected to go rather than my wife, is that she knows in that unlikely situation I will absolutely give zero fucks about going full Cersei for my kids.  And sleep well after doing it.

I got my passport back with the chinese visa, so if there's a meltdown in China in June you can all be prepared to make book deals  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 25, 2019, 09:34:10 AM
tv cersei is fucking garbage

everything she did was out of greed and egoism

there's no mental gymnastics that can be done to make her a good mother, woman, family member, or otherwise

she is a power hungry ghoul nightmare

edit: also, she's stupid - and that might be her biggest crime - she doesn't have masterstrokes, she only overkills - she has the subtlety of a sledgehammer and the long term effectiveness of stabbing a knife in your own fucking leg


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 25, 2019, 09:40:13 AM
I propose that if Cersei cared about her kids more than she cared about being queen of everything, they'd all still be alive.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 25, 2019, 09:44:57 AM
i propose that if cersei cared about anything she wouldn't work as a character because people that care about things don't fuck their siblings ever


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 25, 2019, 08:06:11 PM
I propose that if Cersei cared about her kids more than she cared about being queen of everything, they'd all still be alive.

If the price of a dead Joffrey is a dead Tommen and Myrcella I'm willing to pay that price.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on April 25, 2019, 08:17:17 PM
Cersei is used to being the smartest person in the room, unfortunately the other people in the room are generally morons. Tywin underestimated her because she's a girl; and pretty much everything she does can be set against that feeling of having to prove that she's worthy of respect in a male-dominated world where women are breeding machines/political trade tokens, and the men with power over her are invariably much less capable than she is.
She refused to be friendly with Margaery, not for political reasons or concern for her children, but because she recognised that Margaery was playing the same game that she was, in the same way, and there's only room for one Cersei at the top.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 25, 2019, 08:46:03 PM
When did Tywin underestimate her?  He pretty much came back, took control, and she was stuck running along and doing what ever he told her.  And of course Tyrion ran circles around her his entire time as the hand, along with Little Finger and Vary's.  Her biggest problem is always thinking she's the smartest person in the room, when it usually is the exact opposite, and everybody is able to manipulate her.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 26, 2019, 05:41:36 AM
Most obvious example is Cersei's role in diminishing Tyrion.

Tywin might never have been well disposed toward Tyrion, but away from Cersei he was perfectly capable of recognising that Tyrion would be an effective hand. Tyrion out cold for a few days is all Cersei needed to convince Tywin that he made no real contribution. Similarly my reading of the Tyrion's trial is that it goes differently without Cersei.

I think Tywin is the only person who does underestimate Cersei, and Cersei is the only person who Tywin underestimates.

 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 26, 2019, 06:07:14 AM
I suppose for me the thing with Cersei is that her hatreds and her actions make sense to me. Not that they are justified or that I am rooting for her, but she seems like a coherent character in emotional terms, in terms of her history.

Tywin made sense to me in that way. Tyrion did right up until he met Dany and then all the energy seemed to drain out of the character. (Better that than morose self-loathing Tyrion who ends up a circus act as per the last of the books published.)

Jamie kind of? His contradictions are at least kind of coherent matched with circumstance.

Sansa is one of the great swing-and-miss characters of the series where fans have consistently had a clearer idea of where the character needed to go than the showrunners. She may have arrived there now, but she didn't get there in a well-plotted or planned way.

Dany kinda makes sense, I guess; I don't know why everybody keeps going 'mad king! here she goes!'. Everything she's ever done more or less since giving the ok to having her brother's head melted down has been consistent with a justified and somewhat constructive will-to-power in a world where that's the only way not to be a victim. This isn't a nice world; there is no promise of reward for 'good men', as the show and books both announce when Ned Stark gets his head chopped off.

Jon Snow makes sense in the same sense that a potato makes sense: he's stolid, inert, predictable. He looks and acts like a ten-year old who has just taken cough medicine. He would make more sense to me if he was slightly more pissed off about having been murdered, slightly more calculating about politics, and slightly more appreciative of the fact that he gets quality ass twice.

I suppose the Hound makes sense. I suppose Arya does too: she's basically a picaresque heroine.

But Cersei scans really well to me in terms of the relationship between her past, her personality and her actions. I never find myself thinking, "Ah, the showrunners really screwed up this week with her characterization".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 26, 2019, 06:39:43 AM
Television Dany feels less prone to listening to advice.  One expects a ruler to mature, and admittedly they’ve made Tyrion weak, Jorah was gone, Ser Baristan dead but her first inclination is still sometimes over the top. For instance, she originally thought to just torch King’s Landing with the dragons if I recall.  Blowing up the sept pales in comparison.

Some of that is manufactured drama, the show needs conflict over who’s going to rule and over how many of the seven kingdoms because I don’t expect that to be decided until episode 6.  I don’t expect Cersei’s fate to be revealed until then either, but they have surprised me with their timing decisions before.  It’s such a major point it makes sense to hold it til the finale.

Television Brienne is the one I don’t entirely get, but I think that’s the inconsistency between her and the book.  Which is largely Tormund.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the addition of his infatuation, but it turns her into a bit of a hypocrite.  The woman who rails against society for not accepting her appearance and unconventional behavior does the same thing when approached by Tormund.  She chases golden-boy Jaime the perfect knight over gruff, rough Tormund the wildling even though he’s been written as completely supportive of her.  Which is entirely human, happens all the time IRL and I expect it to bite her in the ass this week. it’s not badly done, just hard to reconcile the two versions in my head.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 26, 2019, 07:53:45 AM
Cersei is used to being the smartest person in the room, unfortunately the other people in the room are generally morons. Tywin underestimated her because she's a girl; and pretty much everything she does can be set against that feeling of having to prove that she's worthy of respect in a male-dominated world where women are breeding machines/political trade tokens, and the men with power over her are invariably much less capable than she is.
She refused to be friendly with Margaery, not for political reasons or concern for her children, but because she recognised that Margaery was playing the same game that she was, in the same way, and there's only room for one Cersei at the top.

Cersei is rarely the smartest person in the room. She is smart and cunning but she constantly overestimates her own abilities. It's because of her own actions that she is barely holding on to the throne and getting the throne wasn't some grand plan on her part. She was just the only person left with a claim after she caused her own kid to jump out of a window.


Television Brienne is the one I don’t entirely get, but I think that’s the inconsistency between her and the book.  Which is largely Tormund.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the addition of his infatuation, but it turns her into a bit of a hypocrite.  The woman who rails against society for not accepting her appearance and unconventional behavior does the same thing when approached by Tormund.  She chases golden-boy Jaime the perfect knight over gruff, rough Tormund the wildling even though he’s been written as completely supportive of her.  Which is entirely human, happens all the time IRL and I expect it to bite her in the ass this week. it’s not badly done, just hard to reconcile the two versions in my head.

I totally get television Brienne. In her entire life, when someone reacts to her like Tormund has, it's been an act. Like the betting that took place in Renly's camp. She knows he's for real but has no clue how to react to it. It's the same reason she acts so oddly when Jaime says he'd be honored to fight under her command. She's not used to this from knights. She's used to them acting superior to her and now, the most arrogant knight she ever met is humbling himself before her.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 26, 2019, 08:57:42 AM
Cersei is the smartest person in the room about half the time. She's used to being considered completely and utterly devoid of thought and capability and agency by every man she's ever met, especially her father. As a result, whatever characteristic she thinks will get her respect/fear/obedience from whoever is in the room at the time is the one she overcompensates on, whether it be cunning or cruelty or seduction. Jamie is the only one who has ever treated her with any devotion that wasn't purely sexual, so despite how terrible their relationship was for her, she has clung to him to the detriment of both of them. And while I think in her own way she did love her children (because of that same kind of devotion to loving her that their father gave), she chose her own happiness and power over theirs when the opportunity presented itself. Faced with the prospect of her own power being diminished or removed by Margery (who was clearly a better queen), she chose murderous rampage rather than acceptance - which she had to know would distress Tommen, though she probably didn't think it would cause his suicide.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MrHat on April 26, 2019, 09:29:42 AM


edit: also, she's stupid - and that might be her biggest crime - she doesn't have masterstrokes, she only overkills - she has the subtlety of a sledgehammer and the long term effectiveness of stabbing a knife in your own fucking leg

That overkill bluntness is my favorite part of her character.  There's so much presumed scheming and gaming, when she just lets all that go and just goes straight sledgehammer it's super refreshing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 26, 2019, 10:16:50 AM
While fun, my main issue with that is how the political nuance is lost between the book and show.  In the book, that sledgehammer means she consistently fucks herself because she does big dumb obvious things that backfire in big dumb obvious ways.  This is why Tyrion runs circles around her and by the end she is left a bumbling drunk too afraid to face up to her massive failures as a ruler and a parent.  In the show they tend to just cut that stuff away to make her look better and be a bigger threat.  This latest wild fire bombing is the ultimate end result of that.  It's not in the books (yet), but its something that in the books would result in her head being paraded on a pike in short order.  She blew up the most holy place in the kingdom, killed the high sparrow and the church order who ALL of the people of King's Landing loved, and killed most of the family of her houses ONLY ally (all the other 7 kingdoms other than house Tyrell are actively working to kill house Lannister at this point in the books, who has also run out of gold).  In the TV Series, nobody in King's landing (who earlier were attacking the queen in the street and rioting over her sins in earlier episodes) seems to care at all, all of the Tyrell's banner-men and friends suddenly decide this is OK and they'll just break their sworn oaths on the fly to ally with the weakest player in the kingdom for reasons, Euron magically brings the Iron Island to ally with her for reasons, and in one sea battle Euron knocks the entire powerful kingdom of Dorne out of the picture permanently.

Like, I understand they just need to kill off random plot threads, but its hard for me to take her seriously as a legitimate threat when the writers have to twist the plot so hard to get her there.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 26, 2019, 09:38:53 PM


edit: also, she's stupid - and that might be her biggest crime - she doesn't have masterstrokes, she only overkills - she has the subtlety of a sledgehammer and the long term effectiveness of stabbing a knife in your own fucking leg

That overkill bluntness is my favorite part of her character.  There's so much presumed scheming and gaming, when she just lets all that go and just goes straight sledgehammer it's super refreshing.
no it isn't, because she thinks it's all masterstrokes of scheming and gaming

"this time i'll get them all hahahahaha"

it's wretched

she's basically a scooby doo villain in an r rated adaptation of scooby doo


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 26, 2019, 11:39:09 PM
she's basically a scooby doo villain in an r rated adaptation of scooby doo

And this one probably had a better villain.

(https://i.imgur.com/2ilS5Iw.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 27, 2019, 06:17:02 AM
no it isn't, because she thinks it's all masterstrokes of scheming and gaming

The worst part is the show treats it like it is. Same way they treat Sansa being a complete moron as if she's now a master game player.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 27, 2019, 07:55:08 AM
The only real masters have been Littlefinger and Varys.  The former being dead, that leaves Varys.  It is not beyond reason to think there is still a twist where he is concerned.  I kinda doubt there is time for it, and he is a bit too far in the backgound for that to feel plausible with only 4 episodes remaining.  But still.

Problem with twists and turns at this stage is we have a built in MacGuffin sitting creepily in the wings at all times.  Bran.  How can there be any major twists beyond this point that he does not credibly know about and inform people of?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 27, 2019, 10:49:58 AM
Same way he didn’t know about Rhagar and Lyanna.  He claims to be the world’s memory, but that’s only because he theoretically CAN see everything, not that he actually HAS.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 27, 2019, 11:13:00 AM
The only real masters have been Littlefinger and Varys.  The former being dead, that leaves Varys.  It is not beyond reason to think there is still a twist where he is concerned.  I kinda doubt there is time for it, and he is a bit too far in the backgound for that to feel plausible with only 4 episodes remaining.  But still.

Problem with twists and turns at this stage is we have a built in MacGuffin sitting creepily in the wings at all times.  Bran.  How can there be any major twists beyond this point that he does not credibly know about and inform people of?

Bran is less of a question mark than whatever the fuck Melisandre fucked with


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 28, 2019, 04:57:19 AM
Bran only sees what he tries to see, sure....but surely he would be looking specifically at people like Dany and Jon, like a lot.  But best not to peer to closely at what Bran can, cannot, should and should not do.  Way too easy to poke huge holes in it.

What about Melisandre?  Am I missing something?  I know she said she would be back in Westeros at some point, I just assumed it was a meaningless Goodbye statement.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 28, 2019, 06:43:39 AM
I think he means the Red God.  Some sort of magical being that brought Jon back to life to fight the walkers, keeps bringing Beric back and lighting his sword on fire, and is the last big mystery we have left in the series.

The TV series may chicken out and not try to address it, but what ever the fuck the Red God is, is the potential game changer for everything, and she's it's conduit in the TV show.  There is obviously a being of extreme power out there guiding things, that we don't know exactly what it wants.  Since I'm sure I'm only going to get a half assed "The Children of the Forest made them" as my origin story for the white walkers in the TV series, going to be really bummed if they don't reveal something about the Red God.  For all we know, its just an enemy of the White Walkers, and next week they'll defeat them, only to find that opened the door for the Red/Fire walkers lead by the Red God to be unleashed upon the world.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 28, 2019, 09:23:51 AM
I've always assumed the 'gods' of ice and fire are either the same thing, or they are being brought into the world by the same thing.

I'd bet nether the book nor show will ever tell us what they are, but at least the book and probably show will end when main characters work out what will make them fuck off.

Then bran gets to rebuild his wall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 28, 2019, 11:16:12 AM
It’s really late here and I’m going to bed, but GRRM said in previous interviews that the next book would talk all about what was up beyond the north farther than anybody has gone before, and how that is the big mystery of the series.  Mind you he can’t seem to remember how to write anymore and is possibly full of shit, but it seems he at least feels that the origins of the white walker and fire rivalry magic whatever bullshit is important and wants to talk about it.  Which is why the TV series is is probably my only chance to get any closure on that.

Anyhow, going to bed, next episode to start right as I’m going to work in the morning.  I’m calling Ed as being the first named characater to take an ice spear to the knee, so to speak.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 28, 2019, 02:21:44 PM
I've thought all along that what was on the page (or the screen) was shadows on the wall of a conflict between Gods, on a timescale where the Doom of Valyria is a recent event. All of the "gods" are expressions/faces of these forces in projections humans can understand, and at the same time actual things in and of themselves.

Because the story is told on a human scale, the actual conflict seems like a human one, but the real battle is so vast it looks like geography or climate.

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 28, 2019, 07:34:13 PM
Well that was a whole lot of bullshit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 28, 2019, 07:34:32 PM
I think that was probably the most expensive single episode of television to produce in history. Since it was like 100% special efffects shots.

Three episodes to go.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 28, 2019, 07:38:18 PM
I think that was probably the most expensive single episode of television to produce in history. Since it was like 100% special efffects shots.

Three episodes to go.

I dunno, they were probably able to keep costs down significantly by using pitch black lighting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 28, 2019, 07:57:06 PM
I think that was probably the most expensive single episode of television to produce in history. Since it was like 100% special efffects shots.

Three episodes to go.

Yeah, I'm sure they poured their hearts and souls into filming a battle we couldn't see.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 28, 2019, 08:07:01 PM
I'm shocked Grey Worm survived. They kept showing scenes where I was like "ok, this is when he dies". Specifically when the Unsullied were covering the retreat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 28, 2019, 08:17:37 PM
I'm shocked Grey Worm survived. They kept showing scenes where I was like "ok, this is when he dies". Specifically when the Unsullied were covering the retreat.

The second half of the episode were scenes like this for everyone that was fighting. Sam went down at least five times, and every time they focued on Brienne Jamie Pod or Tormund they were completely overwhelmed by zombies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 28, 2019, 08:48:55 PM
I thought it was fantastic. Some of the best TV I've seen, if for no other reason than sheer scale and "rule of cool" visuals.

Arya being the one to kill the Night King was something I didn't expect, but should have. Fan service it may be, it still had me cheering.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 28, 2019, 09:19:01 PM
I'm shocked Grey Worm survived. They kept showing scenes where I was like "ok, this is when he dies". Specifically when the Unsullied were covering the retreat.

The second half of the episode were scenes like this for everyone that was fighting. Sam went down at least five times, and every time they focued on Brienne Jamie Pod or Tormund they were completely overwhelmed by zombies.

Yes, but as we talked about during our predictions, Grey Worm had the tropiest conversation possible before a big battle. Maybe they were just screwing with us.

I thought it was fantastic. Some of the best TV I've seen, if for no other reason than sheer scale and "rule of cool" visuals.

Arya being the one to kill the Night King was something I didn't expect, but should have. Fan service it may be, it still had me cheering.

I did like the payoff of the knife drop move from her Season 7 spar with Brienne. I just hope the fight with Cersei doesn't feel anticlimactic after this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on April 28, 2019, 09:46:44 PM
In the After the Thrones segment it was interesting.  They were explaining how they picked Arya to kill the Night King, and not Jon or someone else.  I had assumed who killed the Night King was in GRRMs notes.  If something that basic hasn't been decided by GRRM then the books (if they are ever finished) are going to be totally different from the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Wasted on April 29, 2019, 03:48:58 AM
It was pretty good, the scene near the end with the slow music and desperate fighting as the Night King confidently strolls to Bran was earned and mostly perfect.

The start of the battle was equal parts frustrating and good, the Dothraki going out like bitches was bad, the Unsullied not making proper shield walls was bad, the rest was mostly good.  Obvious things where obvious, don't hide in a crypt when you fight the dead.

I wouldn't have picked Arya before the start of the episode but they quickly laid it on thick that she was the one.  The emotionless stares between Bran and the Night King managed to tell so much, then the cocked head as The Night King ponders what last gambit Bran has and boom she attacks was perfectly done.

But...

The dead should have marched on to King's Landing.  We go from prophesied end of the world to now just again mundane human vs human bullshit?  This is scouring of the shire levels of unwanted conclusions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on April 29, 2019, 05:24:18 AM
Was that Wun Wun that killed Lady Mormont?

Pretty awesome episode although the weight of numbers against the survivors really made me think that they should have been toast.

Theon's arc and redemption were completed nicely.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: pants on April 29, 2019, 05:33:43 AM
I'm feeling a bit meh - but one thing I did love was the walk the Night King did when he fell off his dragon, and Jon was running after him. The actor nailed it - absolute saunter through the piles of corpses around him, la de da, life is wonderful. Whoever the actor was for that scene, he nailed it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 29, 2019, 05:50:20 AM
I get why some people didn't like the visuals--if you had a monitor that wasn't able to handle black/dark well, you were proper fucked. I don't think it was perfectly done in technical terms, but the goal was sound--to give you a sense of a battle that was total chaos and terror against an uncanny supernatural enemy--it wasn't just zombies, it was Death, Darkness, Winter Everlasting. At times that worked pretty well. It also of course amplified the sense of "who is actually still alive in all this?" tension throughout.

In the end the crypts also weren't so bad a place to be--it's pretty damn clear than everywhere else was even less safe, and it was only a relative handful of intact corpses causing trouble down there.

I could have done without the completely stupid waste of the Dothraki. "Sure, you few thousand cavalry guys charge out there into the darkness against an unseen horde of zombies, that'll help a lot, except oh yeah you'll just get raised as dead and swell the ranks of our enemies." If you're fighting someone who can make your dead into his army, you don't *have* cannon fodder. I would have preferred to just see the Dothraki stay close so that when the dust settled, Dany had small groups of everyone of her allies left, just much reduced. Getting the Dothraki entirely off the board has a creepy underlying feeling to it--it's removing one of the complicated, interesting problems she was having to think about last season, which is what was she going to do with a horde of nomadic horsemen in a feudal kingdom based around agriculture?

I don't mind the way it ended. I wouldn't have minded Cersei having to pay a price of some kind for withholding her aid against the Dead but maybe that will still happen in some way or another. Winter isn't going to go away magically even if the NK is a bunch of ice fragments now. And the Wall is still breached, which may still have consequences.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on April 29, 2019, 06:18:28 AM
In the After the Thrones segment it was interesting.  They were explaining how they picked Arya to kill the Night King, and not Jon or someone else.  I had assumed who killed the Night King was in GRRMs notes.  If something that basic hasn't been decided by GRRM then the books (if they are ever finished) are going to be totally different from the show.

I get the feeling GRRM gave the TV people very little in the way of notes, probably not much beyond a few key plot points (Jon's father, the ending - but vaguely). It doesn't seem like he even talks to them much anymore since the TV series passed the books whereas before he used to be around doing screenplays for episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on April 29, 2019, 06:59:45 AM
Re the alleged darkness - I just watched it on an LG OLED with the screen set to "standard" (default) and it was absolutely fine. It's set in a blizzard; it's not going to be bright.

Enjoyed the episode. Not sure what happens now except:

CERSEI: Yahhh all your friends are dead and I have the Golden Company. Kneel before your queen.
ALLIES: Actually, you're fucked. We still have at least one dragon.
[Faramir marries Eowyn]
[Aragorn marries Arwen]
[Ice melts]
~ENDS~


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 29, 2019, 07:48:11 AM
I’m glad I added surround sound to the basement bar, we had to go down there to watch.  I only buy good quality TVs but there was too much ambient light in the living room to see detail.  With room light controlled it looked fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2019, 07:48:59 AM
Re the alleged darkness - I just watched it on an LG OLED with the screen set to "standard" (default) and it was absolutely fine. It's set in a blizzard; it's not going to be bright.

Enjoyed the episode. Not sure what happens now except:

CERSEI: Yahhh all your friends are dead and I have the Golden Company. Kneel before your queen.
ALLIES: Actually, you're fucked. We still have at least one dragon.
[Faramir marries Eowyn]
[Aragorn marries Arwen]
[Ice melts]
~ENDS~

Bronn did hurt Drogon with one single ballista, massed fire might be significantly more effective.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 29, 2019, 08:11:58 AM
I called that it'd be Arya when they were having the "if it bleeds, we can kill it" conversation in the war room.   :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 29, 2019, 08:40:41 AM
I called that it'd be Arya when they were having the "if it bleeds, we can kill it" conversation in the war room.   :drillf:

Anyhow, going to bed, next episode to start right as I’m going to work in the morning.  I’m calling Ed as being the first named characater to take an ice spear to the knee, so to speak.   :awesome_for_real:
And I'm pretty proud of that.  :p

Just saw it with friends.  It was a big fun mess, but not overall happy with how it turned out.  The White Walkers and magical impending doom while petty kings squabble over land is central to the plot.  Since the entire TV series has concentrated on dynastic disputes because Martin can't write anymore, it makes sense they'd just finish that entire thing off with one episode and get back to people playing games of thrones.  But now we just have dumb ass Cersei with her magically handed to her army and zero scheming skill coming out on top again.  If Euron doesn't shank her and he's the big bad at the end they fight, going to be sad.

Red women just deciding to die felt lazy.  Arya killing the Nights King by doing a flying leap through the darkness Hollywood dagger stab felt lazy (she's a shape shifting assassin.  You can't have her come out of nowhere being one of the white walkers, or Bran, or even Theon or something?).  Ending the entire undead plot in one episode felt lazy.  Bleh. 

Again, it was fun and I'll keep on watching, but with much less care.  Literally there is nothing about the books left they will answer to me, as I don't give a shit who takes the Iron Throne. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on April 29, 2019, 09:13:48 AM
Sooooooo ... if they clear the keep and move all their troops south, but leave Bran by the Weirwood and Arya hiding in the tree to ambush the Night King....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on April 29, 2019, 09:33:57 AM
Well HBO writers. You have two choices for the final villain of your series.

A. villain built up for 7 seasons, who is the leader of a supernatural race of necromancers that threaten to end the world thousands of years ago.
B. a woman that slowly poisoned her husband, raised 3 idiot children, and fucked her brother and cousin.

HBO Writers: Obviously it's going to be B.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 29, 2019, 09:37:05 AM
Lazy is how I would put it as well.  And safe.  Very safe.  No one of any importance died and no one did anything that was unexpected.

The Night King just wasn't an interesting villain.  After seven+ seasons you'd think we'd know more about him or his motivations beyond just wanting to kill everyone.  His death was unsatisfying not just because of the ease with which it occurred, but because he's gone and we didn't know much about him to begin with.  He was just another paper-thin plot device that got in line and died on cue to make a character look like a badass.

I enjoyed the episode as spectacle, but that's it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 29, 2019, 09:44:54 AM
I'm almost positive the Night King was never meant by either Martin or the showrunners to be the end all be all evil. He was an elemental force sweeping in from the North that makes the humans either band together or get fucked. In divine terms, he was the test from the Gods to see who was worthy to survive - the ones who put aside their petty squabbles to fight the greater threat, or the vindictive bitches who thought of it as just another way to rid her of her enemies?  Book White Walkers/Night King was always a background to the conflicts of the human characters - as Teleku said in Discord, the Night King has even been seen in any of the 5 books, he's only been mentioned in fables and old wives' tales.

There was never going to be more about the Night King. Fuck's sake, we got almost 90 minutes of very expensive battle scenes and dragon fights and zombie hordes. I thought there were some truly amazing visuals in there that you just wouldn't have expected to see on TV just five years ago (Dothraki charge, lighting the trenches, the wave of bodies washing over the Unsullied). It's only that things like the Red Wedding really set the bar so high that this might feel a disappointment.

Also, get over it. Martin ain't never finishing this fucking series. We get 10-20 years worth of Internet Nerd Theorycrafting about how the books would be so much better but the truth is that fat bitch ain't finishing those books before his death. And based on the last two books, we should probably be happy for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 29, 2019, 09:47:01 AM
I enjoyed the episode as spectacle, but that's it.

Yep.  :(

Like, who gives a fuck who wins the throne at this point.  All the actual smart and interesting people trying are dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 29, 2019, 10:38:04 AM
Overall I enjoyed the episode with two caveats:

1) The darkness and editing made it hard sometimes to tell who was fighting, let alone if anyone was about to die.

2) I quite liked Arya getting her moment but what happened to Azor Ahai and all that? That has been a thread running through the show (and books) from the beginning and at the end, it came to nothing. Even if Jon is the "Prince that was promised" as many think, at the end of the day he just hid from Viserion while Arya did the actual deed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2019, 11:10:47 AM

2) I quite liked Arya getting her moment but what happened to Azor Ahai and all that? That has been a thread running through the show (and books) from the beginning and at the end, it came to nothing. Even if Jon is the "Prince that was promised" as many think, at the end of the day he just hid from Viserion while Arya did the actual deed.

I think the point is that it was her.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on April 29, 2019, 11:20:22 AM
Arya could be Azor Ahai, the word prince isn't gendered in Valyrian.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 29, 2019, 11:40:00 AM
The prophecy is indeed gender neutral. Almost all signs of it point to Dany or Jon though.

Azor Ahai is born amidst salt and smoke. This part in particular could easily be Jon or Dany.
Azor Ahai is also born under a bleeding star. I'd assume that's a reference to the red comet. I'd need to check to see whether that appeared during either one's birth.
Azor Ahai will supposedly sacrifice a loved one to make a flaming sword.
Finally, the Prince that was promised was stated clearly to be from the Targaryen bloodline. Hopefully Arya isn't a secret Targaryen. I have no idea if the Starks have any Targaryen blood in them but I doubt it.

So, other than being the one to kill the Night King, she doesn't fit the prophecy at all. My issue with that is simply that they spent a lot of time building up the prophecy. It's an even bigger deal in the books. So it feels like it was all for nothing unless they pull some twist and have the Night King come back or something.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on April 29, 2019, 11:58:41 AM
I'm gonna guess that the Night King won't even exist in the books.  It seems like he existed just to make it possible to end the white walker conflict with a single dramatic stab.  The show hasn't really played up the Azor Ahai prophecy so much and it might be that giving it whatever payoff it was supposed to have in the books just isn't doable on the show but also isn't really integral to the other plotlines.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 29, 2019, 12:25:22 PM
It's entirely possible both the books and the TV show used that prophecy as a red herring, so it could be complete bullshit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: grebo on April 29, 2019, 01:08:27 PM
Excellent job by the director Miguel Sapochnik.  Beautiful, picturesque, haunting, desperate hot garbage. 

Fuck Martin for not caring anymore, and fuck Benioff & Weiss for thinking they have even 10% of his talent. 

I find this very telling:
https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2019/02/11/star-wars-trilogy-benioff-weiss/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 29, 2019, 02:51:51 PM
People are just NOW not expecting much from the rest of the series?  :uhrr:

Jesus, I have been at that point for at least the last couple of seasons.

The show runners are pretty terrible at writing a narrative above that of what a 14 year old autistic boy would as fan fiction. Once they got past the source material that was laid out in detail (and that source material itself started to fall apart before the end of the second book) their ability to do anything that wasn't just "schlock fantasy with more tits and gratuitous violence" was obviously lacking.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 29, 2019, 03:11:04 PM
So the episode, great.

If that is really the end of the global warming allegory, then... OK... but seriously....

Like the last two episodes, seems they are telling a story within their time limit and writing talent constraints. And that is fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 29, 2019, 03:17:26 PM
The prophecy is indeed gender neutral. Almost all signs of it point to Dany or Jon though.

Azor Ahai is born amidst salt and smoke. This part in particular could easily be Jon or Dany.
Azor Ahai is also born under a bleeding star. I'd assume that's a reference to the red comet. I'd need to check to see whether that appeared during either one's birth.
Azor Ahai will supposedly sacrifice a loved one to make a flaming sword.
Finally, the Prince that was promised was stated clearly to be from the Targaryen bloodline. Hopefully Arya isn't a secret Targaryen. I have no idea if the Starks have any Targaryen blood in them but I doubt it.

So, other than being the one to kill the Night King, she doesn't fit the prophecy at all. My issue with that is simply that they spent a lot of time building up the prophecy. It's an even bigger deal in the books. So it feels like it was all for nothing unless they pull some twist and have the Night King come back or something.

Azor Ahai doesn't specifically have to be the guy who kills the king though.

Also, it is far from clear that the night king is the cause of the night rather than a symptom.

In book terms it is an awfully large coincidence that the dragons emerge at the same moment as the others.

Book arya is fairly strongly marked for death, so I could definitely imagine her getting a scene like this, alongside other people having to do other shit to save the world.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on April 29, 2019, 03:42:02 PM
So the episode, great.

If that is really the end of the global warming allegory, then... OK... but seriously....

Like the last two episodes, seems they are telling a story within their time limit and writing talent constraints. And that is fine.

Their time limit seems self enforced, though. They could easily have made last season a full 10 episodes instead of 7 with less teleportation, and done the same with this one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 29, 2019, 04:03:03 PM
They actually split the last season into two shorter seasons. All of the principal shooting for season 7&8 was completed at the same time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 29, 2019, 04:03:36 PM
I imagine the time limit was imposed upon them by HBO rather than chosen by the showrunners.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 29, 2019, 04:55:32 PM
So the episode, great.

If that is really the end of the global warming allegory, then... OK... but seriously....

Like the last two episodes, seems they are telling a story within their time limit and writing talent constraints. And that is fine.

Their time limit seems self enforced, though. They could easily have made last season a full 10 episodes instead of 7 with less teleportation, and done the same with this one.

Not with their writing talent.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 29, 2019, 04:57:29 PM
I imagine the time limit was imposed upon them by HBO rather than chosen by the showrunners.

I get the impression HBO would sign up for season 10 but the showrunners want to move on before people notice they have been bad at writing for the last 4 years.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 29, 2019, 05:42:09 PM
Everyone involved, except HBO, wants to move on and do new things. Understandably. Hence the compression at the end of the story, I suspect.

I would fully credit, however, that Martin (and thus the show) are writing prophecies that they fully think are con games/misinterpretations. Martin has one deeper thing going on: violating your oath is a bad idea. But that doesn't take mysticism, it's basic drama and basic social reciprocity. The salt pledge is a basic game-theoretic thing: if we make a sacred pledge, and someone violates it, they ought to die horribly because otherwise nobody's ever going to have weddings or meetings where they're able to conduct basic business that might allow former enemies to make peace and get back onto an altruistic tit-for-tat pattern. The Godfather movies are about the same thing.

Beyond the "don't violate oaths: bad things happen because that's the point of an oath (look out Jaime)", I don't think Martin is seriously invested in the mystical side of prophecies as the accurate rendition of godly or non-human beings who see more than humans see. I think that's the point of the Three-Eyed Raven etc.: seeing more than humans see turns you into a spiritual and practical eunuch, unable to say or do much, as it naturally would. The more you can see the less you could say about what you'd want or what people should do. Think of this whole story: should Ned have said no to King Robert? Earlier War of the Seven Kingdoms, perhaps with catastrophic consequences (or not). Should Robert's wishes to assassinate Dany have been policy? Should Joffrey have been sidelined earlier (or murdered earlier)? What if Ned had been at the Wall with Jon as his loyal second-in-command? Etc. The more you can see of all the branches, the less able you are to say what's best: all choices lead to someone's ruin, and to someone's rise. Prophecies in this sense are stupid con-games. I doubt Melisandre or anyone else really "saw" the future up until the last moment; she was consistently wrong about what she thought would be true.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 29, 2019, 06:03:11 PM
I imagine the time limit was imposed upon them by HBO rather than chosen by the showrunners.

Completely the opposite, HBO was trying to get a few more seasons out of them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 29, 2019, 06:05:05 PM
Again, books and TV series are different, but prophecies are huge in the books.  There are a ton of them that have come true, so it would be really out of character for the biggest ones to be a 'con'.  And the Red Witch literally see's whats going to happen multiple times (though she does misinterpret what she see's other times).  Martin does like having prophecies that are fulfilled in unexpected ways, sure, but it still happens.

To get an idea of how many:

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Prophecies,_visions,_and_dreams


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 29, 2019, 06:21:16 PM
So final death toll for the episode:

Ed
Lyanna Mormont
Beric Dondarrion
Jorah Mormont
Theon
Melisandre
The Nights King

Oh, and her entire army of Dothraki and Unsullied.  Grey Worm made it though!

Calling 2 out of 3 aint bad I guess.  Miguel Sapochnik directs episode 5, so I guess we can assume next week will be all talking again, then episode 5 another big battle, then last episode all talking and narrating how every character lived happily ever after.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 29, 2019, 07:38:43 PM
It takes an entire episode to teleport everyone 1000 miles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Draegan on April 29, 2019, 08:27:15 PM
Remember, the fight in the North was just a side quest for Dany.

The war everyone else knows it the war for the iron throne.

They have no army, cersei has one. Something has to happen in the next three episodes. Unless summer just happens, something it's causing winter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 29, 2019, 08:30:08 PM


Book arya is fairly strongly marked for death, so I could definitely imagine her getting a scene like this, alongside other people having to do other shit to save the world.

I read somewhere that GRRM has said his wife has more or less threatened to divorce him if he hurts or kills Arya.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 29, 2019, 08:49:32 PM
this was gorgeous and worth watching just because it was uh

anyway

the arya stabbing was just the most contrived fanservice I've seen in a long long time

also, how inconsequential, 90 minutes and they killed jorah and uh, I guess melisandre and beric are finally dead

k

edit: oh, theon right how could i possibly forget theon, WWE character taken shape in an HBO drama

Remember, the fight in the North was just a side quest for Dany.

The war everyone else knows it the war for the iron throne.

They have no army, cersei has one. Something has to happen in the next three episodes. Unless summer just happens, something it's causing winter.
i beg to differ

arya has an army now  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 29, 2019, 09:01:54 PM
Yeah, not only did they just sort of make the entire White Walker threat actually inconsequential, they didn't even kill off many characters.  It was fun to watch, but a let down overall. 

And it still amazes me how afraid the writers of doing anything beyond the most basic TV tropes.  Arya jumping out and stabbing him is whatever.  But if you're going to do that, have the super stealth magic assassin do it in some super stealth magic tricky way.  This is easy, its a no brainer, and would have made for a fun moment.  Instead she comes running from behind out of the giant horde of ice monsters who can sense the warmth of humans who somehow missed her for 5 minutes, and just jump through the air at him like Thor.

You'd think the Red Woman would have given Beric a pity thank you resurrection before walking off into the snow.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 29, 2019, 09:41:51 PM
i wish bran had died

talk about a stupid looking moron that fulfilled his purpose


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 29, 2019, 09:51:26 PM
Yeah, Bran has been reduced to bait.  That's just how uninteresting his character is.

If the Night King had stabbed him and Arya jumped out and killed the Night King, just a hair too late to save him, it'd have been significantly better.  Though still not great. 

It ultimately doesn't feel like any of it mattered besides killing a lot of characters that had long passed their expiration dates.

But it was a beautiful and unique looking episode, which definitely isn't nothing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 29, 2019, 09:52:54 PM
EVERY character is long past their expiration dates.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 29, 2019, 10:10:01 PM
Very flawed episode, but great nonetheless.  Some of y'all just plain crazy.  We (humans i general) complain when they murder our favorite characters.  And then we complain when they don't.  Okay.

I get that Arya's role and that whole end sequence with the NK might have been a bit too easy.  But when I watched it real-time, after the drama with Theon and Jon's attempt to get past the ice dragon (he wasn't fucking hiding, jesus fucking christ), the anticipation was thick, and then....

Arya fucking leaps out of nowhere and I was like oh shit!  That's right!
And then the Night King caught her and I was like oh shit!  He is going to kill her!
And then she drops the knife, catches it and kills him and I am like oh shit!  Arya fucking killed the Night King!

Maybe I should have seen it coming, but in the moment I saw none of it coming and it was awesome.

The scenes with Melisandre were also great, and they way she went out was great.  I guess the Red God did have a card to play.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on April 29, 2019, 10:15:51 PM
We (humans i general) complain when they murder our favorite characters.  And then we complain when they don't.  Okay.

(https://i.imgur.com/YEbsOHL.png)

we understand the ways of westeros now


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on April 29, 2019, 10:16:14 PM
Quote
Arya fucking leaps out of nowhere and I was like oh shit!  That's right!
And then the Night King caught her and I was like oh shit!  He is going to kill her!
And then she drops the knife, catches it and kills him and I am like oh shit!  Arya fucking killed the Night King!

Basically my exact reaction. Loved it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 29, 2019, 10:18:57 PM
Oh, and Lyanna Mormont....that whole scene was terrible, right up until it was great.  Holy shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 30, 2019, 01:03:51 AM
Is tormund dead yet? He sort of just stopped getting scenes. I thought he was going to show up when the giant did, but that bit was great anyway.

Also how does Sapochnik have zero credits anyone gives a shit about outside GoT? The 4 watchable episodes across s5 and 6, then this, and then nothing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 30, 2019, 01:42:26 AM
Fairly sure Tormund made it.  I don't think they are killing any of the known characters off without making it quite clear.  They have only done that one time that I can remember, and I am still unconvinced of Stannis Baratheon's death  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 30, 2019, 01:44:17 AM
And more importantly, now that I lost Beric from my fantasy team, I need Tormund to kill hordes of people, perform magic, eat/drink, get named Hand and bang Ser Brienne whilst telling her witty stories.  Otherwise I am going to lose to whoever has Arya.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 30, 2019, 02:36:15 AM
Yeah, Sapochnik has been great.  They seem to only bring him in for battle scenes though (and his next episode lines up right when the next battle will probably be), so he may typecast himself into only ever being allowed to direct battles.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 30, 2019, 03:06:08 AM
His best episode doesn't even have a battle in it. But you are probably right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 30, 2019, 03:48:46 AM
I do not know which ones are his (maybe all of them), but the Battle of the Bastards, the battle where Jaime and Bronn are leading the army back from Highgarden, and the battle during the Long Night are some of the best battle sequences ever put to film.  TV or movie.  Battle of the Bastards is the single best sequence.  I was physically impacted by it, I can still feel my chest tighten up.  If that's all the guy will be known for, I'd say that is one hell of a CV.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on April 30, 2019, 04:42:39 AM
Hardhome, the Battle of the Bastards and then this episode.

He also did the last episode of s6 with the Sept explosion and Dany taking names on the way out of Mereen, and one of the least bad s5 episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 30, 2019, 04:49:08 AM
Hardhome was also really nice, though less impactful than the other two.  Pretty intense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 30, 2019, 05:43:09 AM
Quote
Arya fucking leaps out of nowhere and I was like oh shit!  That's right!
And then the Night King caught her and I was like oh shit!  He is going to kill her!
And then she drops the knife, catches it and kills him and I am like oh shit!  Arya fucking killed the Night King!

Basically my exact reaction. Loved it.

I watched some reaction videos on Youtube and this is how everyone seems to react. It's awesome seeing people get excited then freeze in place when he catches her. Some of them going "Noooo don't kill Arya!!!" then scream when she does the knife switch.

I was thinking about this episode last night. As near as I can tell only the following characters have any purpose going forward:

Arya
Sansa
Jon
Dany
Tyrion
(Maybe) Jaime
(Maybe) Sam

I'd have at least added Podric and Bran to the kill lists if I was the show writers. Especially Bran to symbolize both sides of the Old Ways (Children/NK and Green Seers) are gone. I'd also have been tempted to add Brienne to the kill lists and most definitely Grey Worm. Probably Missandei too.

Edit: Also, this episode probably will have a major impact on Dany. We were just shown how Jorah is a calming influence on her when he convinced her to keep Tyrion as hand and even talk to Sansa. She watched her Dothraki die and her Unsullied get decimated then Jorah dies in her arms. If she's going to go mad queen, I think they just set up the final push.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 30, 2019, 05:56:49 AM
The way that Bran's importance was described by Sam really sucked, I thought. The Night King wants to kill Bran because he's memory or whatever? What? Like, the previous Three-Eyed Raven was up there north of the Wall forever and nobody in Westeros, even the Night's Watch, knew about it. Even the Free Folk didn't really. So what fucking good was all that memory to anybody? So unless Bran suddenly says, "Ok, now that we're done with all that shit, I can tell you everything about Cersei's movements, I can tell you she has a dragon-killing crossbow in King's Landing, etc., I can tell you exactly what to do to win big time", who the fuck cares about him? He is the most useless McGuffin in the history of McGuffins and every single drop of screentime given over to him in the entire series has been a waste of time, even the Hodor stuff. Better that Theon actually burned him and Rickon way back when.

Now if Bran had explained to everyone that the NK was basically an ancient doomsday device built by the Children but that he was also the one vulnerability that the Dead had because he was the portal through which neverending winter and death came into the world of men, and that the goal was for anyone with a Valyrian weapon to get to him, by any means necessary, that could have shaped a really different episode and made Bran necessary to the narrative. Suppose Bran says: he has to stay somewhat close to the army of the dead and the Walkers, so we know he's here somewhere. Imagine a battle plan that's basically "Hunt the Night King", with a lot of deliberate suicide wave attacks and character deaths, the same sense of chaos and uncanny doom, where every Valyrian weapon on the battlefield is the only thing that really matters. Then you could have a situation where most of the Valyrian wielders are eventually defeated or killed or are imminently going to die, but Arya's been hiding and waiting for her chance--maybe the bait isn't Bran but is Jon, essentially, and you finish the same way. I love that Arya was the one who took him out; I loved some of the set pieces in the episodes; but the overall narrative framing really fell flat for me and retroactively makes a lot of the entire series seem sort of pointless.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on April 30, 2019, 06:14:07 AM
Sansa is going to kill Cersei with the dagger Arya gave her.  That's my hot take for the rest of the season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 30, 2019, 07:46:04 AM
The way that Bran's importance was described by Sam really sucked, I thought. The Night King wants to kill Bran because he's memory or whatever? What? Like, the previous Three-Eyed Raven was up there north of the Wall forever and nobody in Westeros, even the Night's Watch, knew about it. Even the Free Folk didn't really. So what fucking good was all that memory to anybody? So unless Bran suddenly says, "Ok, now that we're done with all that shit, I can tell you everything about Cersei's movements, I can tell you she has a dragon-killing crossbow in King's Landing, etc., I can tell you exactly what to do to win big time", who the fuck cares about him? He is the most useless McGuffin in the history of McGuffins and every single drop of screentime given over to him in the entire series has been a waste of time, even the Hodor stuff. Better that Theon actually burned him and Rickon way back when.


Bran is a walking, well rolling, Library of Alexandria. Anything you need to know he can look it up. If the Night King had killed him a lot of knowledge would have been lost forever. It wouldn't have doomed the human race necessarily, but it would have been a blow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on April 30, 2019, 07:48:24 AM


I watched some reaction videos on Youtube and this is how everyone seems to react. It's awesome seeing people get excited then freeze in place when he catches her. Some of them going "Noooo don't kill Arya!!!" then scream when she does the knife switch.

I was thinking about this episode last night. As near as I can tell only the following characters have any purpose going forward:

Arya
Sansa
Jon
Dany
Tyrion
(Maybe) Jaime
(Maybe) Sam

I'd have at least added Podric and Bran to the kill lists if I was the show writers. Especially Bran to symbolize both sides of the Old Ways (Children/NK and Green Seers) are gone. I'd also have been tempted to add Brienne to the kill lists and most definitely Grey Worm. Probably Missandei too.

Edit: Also, this episode probably will have a major impact on Dany. We were just shown how Jorah is a calming influence on her when he convinced her to keep Tyrion as hand and even talk to Sansa. She watched her Dothraki die and her Unsullied get decimated then Jorah dies in her arms. If she's going to go mad queen, I think they just set up the final push.

I suspect they kept Bran around as a convenient way to keep dropping exposition (expositing? Is that a word?) on whats going on in the magical side of things. They'll use him to answer a few more of the lingering background questions.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on April 30, 2019, 08:01:13 AM
I have a feeling GRRM gave the show runners the write up for Bran's arc, but it includes all sorts of extra stuff they didn't have time for so they are just dumbing it down in a way that seems really weird.  Like, The Three Eyed Crow probably reveals how being the memory of the world is vital for its continued survival, what the old gods were, how white walkers came about, ect.  All sorts of critical stuff about what actually drives the world and how it will all fall apart and become eternal winter if they do not keep up their eternal watch (and a recent failure on their part is why the Others have returned now).  But since they needed to speed things up and wiped out the entire Children/3ER crew, they're just like "Bran's the memory of the world, that's important for reasons we don't need to explain.  GRRM used the phrase memory of the world in his description, so he's that."

Honestly, now that the entire WW threat is gone, I don't actually care what happens much next.  Who actually 'took' the throne in the end was never of interest to me.  I mean, I always assumed they'd die when the White Walkers came streaming down because the 7 kingdoms destroyed themselves fighting internal wars instead of facing a great threat.  That's what's been hinted at all along.  But regardless, all the interesting people are dead.  Already mentioned how I dislike this version of Cersei, and we know she's going to die anyways.  The only way this might get interesting is if Euron pulls a double cross and seizes the throne, and its him they are dealing with.  Don't have much hope they have any sort of clever resolution to this in store.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 30, 2019, 08:45:38 AM
Yeah, not only did they just sort of make the entire White Walker threat actually inconsequential, they didn't even kill off many characters.  It was fun to watch, but a let down overall. 

And it still amazes me how afraid the writers of doing anything beyond the most basic TV tropes.  Arya jumping out and stabbing him is whatever.  But if you're going to do that, have the super stealth magic assassin do it in some super stealth magic tricky way.  This is easy, its a no brainer, and would have made for a fun moment.  Instead she comes running from behind out of the giant horde of ice monsters who can sense the warmth of humans who somehow missed her for 5 minutes, and just jump through the air at him like Thor.

The White Walkers have ALWAYS been inconsequential. It's why Cersei just ignored them when she was shown they existed. It's a Northern problem, not a Lannister problem. They were a plot device to get characters to recognize how unimportant the Iron Throne is in the overall scheme of things. Who cares about this petty squabble for power and influence when fucking Winter is coming? I submit it was mostly there as an allegory and to make it a fantasy story, but A Song of Fire and Ice has always been about the humans, not the fantastical stuff.

As for Arya jumping out and stabbing him, she's a Faceless Man. She has some kind of magical ability to disguise herself. If they'd shown like 2 seconds of her magically disguised as an undead fucker then leaping out, there'd be no quibble there (or at least there shouldn't be). I just assume that's how she did it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: luckton on April 30, 2019, 09:00:31 AM
Nah, see, Three-Eyed Raven did his voodoo thing and flew Arya in on a murder of crows.

Yeah  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on April 30, 2019, 09:07:03 AM
Bran's "library of Alexandria" is completely irrelevant to all of Westeros. Nobody knew that library was there, nobody drew upon it, nobody consulted it. Not even the Free Folk. Losing it would mean effectively nothing to anyone BUT the Children of the Forest, who might all be dead now anyway. There's an actual library of Alexandria in the Citadel and that's actually kind of useful. Losing Bran is losing something that has been entirely irrelevant except to Hodor, whose life was changed for the worse, and except for Jon, but he learned about his parentage from another source anyway.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on April 30, 2019, 09:18:58 AM
He was instrumental in determining that Jon was a Targaryen.  But beyond that....yeah, I agree.  Still, a few episodes to go, he might do something meaningful.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Miguel on April 30, 2019, 09:37:49 AM
Not sure if everyone knows this, but the music composer of Game of Thrones (Ramin Djawadi) is the same one as does Westworld - that entire episode had that same feeling, which was totally awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on April 30, 2019, 10:03:35 AM

The White Walkers have ALWAYS been inconsequential. It's why Cersei just ignored them when she was shown they existed. It's a Northern problem, not a Lannister problem. They were a plot device to get characters to recognize how unimportant the Iron Throne is in the overall scheme of things. Who cares about this petty squabble for power and influence when fucking Winter is coming? I submit it was mostly there as an allegory and to make it a fantasy story, but A Song of Fire and Ice has always been about the humans, not the fantastical stuff.

As for Arya jumping out and stabbing him, she's a Faceless Man. She has some kind of magical ability to disguise herself. If they'd shown like 2 seconds of her magically disguised as an undead fucker then leaping out, there'd be no quibble there (or at least there shouldn't be). I just assume that's how she did it.

There's a somewhat hilarious debate on Reddit about the whole sequence. If you go back to the last shot of Jon in front of the Dragon, when he stands up and yells at it, it sounds very much like "GOOOO! GO, GO, GO". Then a few moments later we see the breeze rustle the walker's hair, and Arya leap out of the darkness. So people are trying to force in this idea that Jon really did contribute to the downfall of the Night King, as opposed to him just getting pissed off and committing suicide in the dragon's face.

Either way, I don't think the inference was that she was disguised - it was simply that she was fast and stealthy (a fact referenced multiple times), and they were all distracted by their Boss about to kill their version of the big bad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on April 30, 2019, 10:05:58 AM
Either way, I don't think the inference was that she was disguised - it was simply that she was fast and stealthy (a fact referenced multiple times), and they were all distracted by their Boss about to kill their version of the big bad.

I'm ok with either interpretation just because "rule of cool." The scene was utter fanservice but shit it made me cheer so I don't give a fuck how it happened.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on April 30, 2019, 10:55:54 AM
Not sure if everyone knows this, but the music composer of Game of Thrones (Ramin Djawadi) is the same one as does Westworld - that entire episode had that same feeling, which was totally awesome.

That piano sequence during the night king scene did sound very west worldy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on April 30, 2019, 11:00:08 AM
I really liked the fact that there was almost zero dialog in the last 30 minutes. They just let the music and visuals carry the mood.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Miguel on April 30, 2019, 11:06:44 AM
Link to music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1frgt0D_f4

It has that same gut-wrenching build up that Westworld does.  He is definitely the next up-and-coming John Williams or Hans Zimmer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on April 30, 2019, 11:35:42 AM
If there is one thing that sums up my disappointment with Season 8 so far. Is that for a show that prides itself on engaging its audience.  Is now demanding we turn our brain off and watch the pretty pictures in order to enjoy it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Draegan on April 30, 2019, 12:28:59 PM
Not sure if everyone knows this, but the music composer of Game of Thrones (Ramin Djawadi) is the same one as does Westworld - that entire episode had that same feeling, which was totally awesome.

That piano sequence during the night king scene did sound very west worldy.

My wife and I looked at each other and said the same exact thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Draegan on April 30, 2019, 12:29:53 PM
If there is one thing that sums up my disappointment with Season 8 so far. Is that for a show that prides itself on engaging its audience.  Is now demanding we turn our brain off and watch the pretty pictures in order to enjoy it.

The show has always had elements of bad ass dragons, tits, knights and swords and cool shows. Where the hell have you been.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on April 30, 2019, 01:38:32 PM
The composer did the Game of Thrones theme (and most of the other music) long before Westworld was on the air.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Miguel on April 30, 2019, 01:51:21 PM
The composer did the Game of Thrones theme (and most of the other music) long before Westworld was on the air.
True, but this was the first GOT episode (perhaps there were others) where the music was essentially the only dialog for the last 30 minutes of the episode, and really defined the entire feel of the scenes...like great music really should.  What was striking to me was just how much that episode *felt* like watching Westworld. :)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on April 30, 2019, 01:58:52 PM
If there is one thing that sums up my disappointment with Season 8 so far. Is that for a show that prides itself on engaging its audience.  Is now demanding we turn our brain off and watch the pretty pictures in order to enjoy it.

The show has always had elements of bad ass dragons, tits, knights and swords and cool shows. Where the hell have you been.

The show being Cool != the show being Dumb. We can have a cool and smart show. We don't have that now, but we used to and I can lament that loss while enjoying the pretty action sequences.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Zetor on April 30, 2019, 02:20:34 PM
The composer did the Game of Thrones theme (and most of the other music) long before Westworld was on the air.
He also did the slow/moody tracks for System Shock 2 (the techno tracks were written by another dude), and I think those tracks were pretty significant in setting up the (spooky/oppressive) atmosphere...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on April 30, 2019, 07:17:18 PM
The composer did the Game of Thrones theme (and most of the other music) long before Westworld was on the air.
True, but this was the first GOT episode (perhaps there were others) where the music was essentially the only dialog for the last 30 minutes of the episode, and really defined the entire feel of the scenes...like great music really should.  What was striking to me was just how much that episode *felt* like watching Westworld. :)

Bringing in the piano was reminiscent of the opening to the episode where Cersei blew up the Sept which was the first time the instrument had been used on the show and similarly used here to underscore a long series of events cut together.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 30, 2019, 07:51:32 PM
This is a great write up of the battle. It's a sort of tongue in cheek military analysis.

https://www.wired.com/story/game-of-thrones-winterfell-battle-tactical-analysis/ (https://www.wired.com/story/game-of-thrones-winterfell-battle-tactical-analysis/)

Quote
Instead, the Dothraki are ordered forward into an attack before the enemy situation is even known. This move, sometimes known as a “Custer,” predictably ends in ruin for the Dothraki cavalry, who get chewed up and spat out in an unsupported frontal attack.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on April 30, 2019, 08:11:03 PM
Instructor at Army War College analyzes both sides:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/battle-winterfell-military-analysis-tactics.html


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 01, 2019, 01:00:52 AM
He is too kind on the cavalry charge.

Aside from that, 'try to stay alive until Jon and Dany find a way to murder the king' was probably the only strategy available, but the godswood bait element wasn't well integrated with the rest of that plan.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 01, 2019, 01:17:31 AM
Quote
This move, sometimes known as a “Custer,”
He is too kind on the cavalry charge.

Yep this one was a Custerfuck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 01, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
He is too kind on the cavalry charge.

Aside from that, 'try to stay alive until Jon and Dany find a way to murder the king' was probably the only strategy available, but the godswood bait element wasn't well integrated with the rest of that plan.

While it was unfolding on the screen, I chose to ignore the problems with the whole baiting idea in the godswood, but on recollection it really didn't make sense at all.  As if the whole strategy was to lure the Night King to Bran and then..........what exactly?  Have Theon and a dozen iron born get slaughtered?  Good trap, guys.  I get that it was never the point to have a real trap sprung there, but they could have at least tried to pretend as if there was one.  Like they did when lighting up the trench (Dany was supposed to light it, Melisandre did instead).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 01, 2019, 04:51:17 AM
Nah, I actually like his defense of the cavalry charge.  I mean, he still criticized it, but he made some good points about its strategic purpose.  Also, a Dothraki horde on foot trying to defend is mostly useless, so honestly the only real gambit was to fire them off like preemptive rocket strike and hope for the best:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 01, 2019, 04:57:00 AM
Well, and having their swords lit on fire....the bigger problem with that scene, IMO, is that that they went out way too easily.  People did just fine inside the keep without fire swords, there is no reason a Dothraki charge on horseback with flaming swords wouldn't have been extremely effective, at least to the extent that they should not have been snuffed out in 30 seconds.  It was just a simple plot choice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 01, 2019, 05:44:33 AM
Hah, that the night king died was not totally but somewhat (it was an mentioned option, just people said: Cant do that, you cant built a threat for 8 episodes and then just kill it in one episode)  made sure I will end the show on a happy note.

Cersei is gonna die, but she did better than I would have expected. Who would have thought in season one, that the ultimate evil, the terror the realm unites again, is an border-line alcoholic with a reputation of being a shitty schemer. (Again, I am not defending her, I like her because her faults).



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 01, 2019, 06:00:17 AM
Who would have thought in season one, that the ultimate evil, the terror the realm unites again, is an border-line alcoholic with a reputation of being a shitty schemer. (Again, I am not defending her, I like her because her faults).

Thing is, she doesn't seem very credible in that role even now. When it was 'she might screw you over as a result and the others could kill us all' I got that. But our heroes just beat the night king and if Cersei is on her own as the final boss... it doesn't sound impressive.

Also Cersei, not borderline. She has had a drink in hand practically every scene she's has outside of prison for two and a half books now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 01, 2019, 07:58:21 AM
The purpose baiting the Night King to the Godswood with Bran was that Dany and Jon wouldn't really join the battle until he revealed himself in the Godswood, then they would roast him with dragon fire (which wouldn't have worked we know now, but they didn't know that). Dany lost her nerve when she saw the Dothraki decimated and went into the battle prematurely with Jon following in his typical Jon way (this is what the actual show runners said).

Strategically, the use of the Dothraki was super dumb - yes, they are better fighters on horseback so you would expect them to be used to charge. But you either use horsemen like that 1 of 2 ways - as skirmishers to inflict attrition and disruption of formations (if they had bows or ranged weapons) or you use them in a charge, preferably in a flank or rear attack on an already engaged line in order to destroy the enemy's morale. The only problem is that the army isn't really much subject to attrition that matters, it has no morale to weaken or destroy, nor does it rely on tight, structured formations. It is a literal wave of bodies that gets stronger the more enemy it kills and it will never break without losing its animating force, i.e. the Night King. The Dothraki were kind of the worst army to use against it in any capacity because none of the weaknesses it can attack exist in an undead army.

But goddamn did that charge look cool with the fiery catapult rounds flying overhead like meteors.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 01, 2019, 08:05:22 AM
So I think I've fully processed why this isn't a satisfying end to the NK/Dead storyline. It's not Arya: that was great. If it was going to be a one-shot, having her do it is something the series has fully built up to in a very good way. But the thing is: the menace of the Dead has been a major, maybe the major, driver of one major portion of the overall narrative. ALL of the Night's Watch content was about it, and that's a lot of storyline. Meanwhile, the "fire" thematic has also used up a lot of real estate.

For that to end with one stab seems to make most of that thematic unworthy of the time spent on it.

Unless.

Unless the next episode catalyzes it. If the characters just walk away saying, "Phew, that was a close one", it was pointless. But if they say, "The Dead very nearly overran the living, and that's because the Seven Kingdoms have been paralyzed by pointless civil war but even before that, because the vanity of monarchs and lords led to the slow stripping of support from the Night's Watch, because we forgot our own histories, because the madness of kings and the greed of nobles made us all weak. We came together here and survived: now we go to break the wheel and make a completely new society". Ok! That would make the whole thematic pay off--it is the narrow escape from never-ending winter and death that convinces everyone to join a new crusade, to put aside all the vanity of power-seeking that dramatizes the need for change.

If next week is just "back to the Game of Thrones, who will sit on the Iron Throne", then it really was kind of a waste.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 01, 2019, 08:11:54 AM
charge was dope

existed to be dope

got rid of 2 armies that were barely part of the story and one army that spent 8 seasons building only to be stabbed out by arya

i think we can all admit they trivialized the horror to a degree no one could have expected


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 01, 2019, 08:38:07 AM
Unless the next episode catalyzes it. If the characters just walk away saying, "Phew, that was a close one", it was pointless. But if they say, "The Dead very nearly overran the living, and that's because the Seven Kingdoms have been paralyzed by pointless civil war but even before that, because the vanity of monarchs and lords led to the slow stripping of support from the Night's Watch, because we forgot our own histories, because the madness of kings and the greed of nobles made us all weak. We came together here and survived: now we go to break the wheel and make a completely new society". Ok! That would make the whole thematic pay off--it is the narrow escape from never-ending winter and death that convinces everyone to join a new crusade, to put aside all the vanity of power-seeking that dramatizes the need for change.

I'm expecting that's where it ends, but not until Jon and Dany kill each other and their dragons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 01, 2019, 11:08:14 AM
Strategically, the use of the Dothraki was super dumb - yes, they are better fighters on horseback so you would expect them to be used to charge. But you either use horsemen like that 1 of 2 ways - as skirmishers to inflict attrition and disruption of formations (if they had bows or ranged weapons) or you use them in a charge, preferably in a flank or rear attack on an already engaged line in order to destroy the enemy's morale. The only problem is that the army isn't really much subject to attrition that matters, it has no morale to weaken or destroy, nor does it rely on tight, structured formations. It is a literal wave of bodies that gets stronger the more enemy it kills and it will never break without losing its animating force, i.e. the Night King. The Dothraki were kind of the worst army to use against it in any capacity because none of the weaknesses it can attack exist in an undead army.

But goddamn did that charge look cool with the fiery catapult rounds flying overhead like meteors.

From what I remember, in the books the Dothraki are much more badass, elite horse archers - full mongol style, the kind that obliterated European and Asian armies of all flavours in the medieval ages.  In the TV show they are portrayed as more of a mindless barbarian rabble. Those book Dothraki would have still been very useful dismounted as archers and then full capable of hand to hand fighting when it came to that (they had knight-level combat training, being immersed in war from a young age). You really can't expect anything beyond lame hollywood bs at this point, then you won't be disappointed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 01, 2019, 11:24:39 AM
Strategically, the use of the Dothraki was super dumb - yes, they are better fighters on horseback so you would expect them to be used to charge. But you either use horsemen like that 1 of 2 ways - as skirmishers to inflict attrition and disruption of formations (if they had bows or ranged weapons) or you use them in a charge, preferably in a flank or rear attack on an already engaged line in order to destroy the enemy's morale. The only problem is that the army isn't really much subject to attrition that matters, it has no morale to weaken or destroy, nor does it rely on tight, structured formations. It is a literal wave of bodies that gets stronger the more enemy it kills and it will never break without losing its animating force, i.e. the Night King. The Dothraki were kind of the worst army to use against it in any capacity because none of the weaknesses it can attack exist in an undead army.

But goddamn did that charge look cool with the fiery catapult rounds flying overhead like meteors.

From what I remember, in the books the Dothraki are much more badass, elite horse archers - full mongol style, the kind that obliterated European and Asian armies of all flavours in the medieval ages.  In the TV show they are portrayed as more of a mindless barbarian rabble. Those book Dothraki would have still been very useful dismounted as archers and then full capable of hand to hand fighting when it came to that (they had knight-level combat training, being immersed in war from a young age). You really can't expect anything beyond lame hollywood bs at this point, then you won't be disappointed.

Seriously, actually putting archers on their fucking wall would have been a huge improvement over anything they did.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 01, 2019, 11:35:50 AM
They had archers on the walls.  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 01, 2019, 12:32:15 PM
There was room for a lot more than they had up there.  Also, I believe the fact that their siege engines could have been kept inside the walls has been adequately covered.

Shame Jaime couldn't bring that anti-aircraft gun up from King's Landing so they could fit it with dragonglass bolts and conceal it in the godswood as part of their cunning trap that didn't actually exist.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 01, 2019, 12:36:36 PM
They had archers on the walls.  :headscratch:

A tiny amount.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 01, 2019, 12:37:25 PM
like 13, tops


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 01, 2019, 12:37:46 PM
Talking about the battle at work and my general argument is that the Living was going to lose. Impossible for them not to lose. But there is a way that they lost which makes these types of conflicts interesting and memorable rather than pure mindless spectacle. The difference between the battle of helms deep and a transformers movie. There was several things that could have been done to make it look like the Living side did the best they could which would have made their loss more tragic and less comical.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 01, 2019, 01:06:32 PM
The show hasn't had much in the way of tactics since they left the books behind anyway.  It's just been about spectacle, armies charging straight into each other and something coming out of left field (surprise cavalry charge from new army, teleporting Arya, etc)  to win it for the good guys.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 01, 2019, 01:12:15 PM
That's probably why the battle of the black water is the best battle scene in game of thrones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 01, 2019, 02:02:52 PM
I can forgive the Dothraki charge at least. Because A) having horses do lots of stuff would have probably ate up way more of the budget that was worth investing in them B) those fuckers are not heroes, they don't deserve a heroic "charge of the Rohirrim" type scene, they are just a bunch of assholes that Dany had to basically force to follow her by strength alone and C) the flaming charge and the lights slowly going out really was pretty fucking cool.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 01, 2019, 03:05:22 PM
Charge: Not a big deal, but since Ironwood brought it up. I agree it looked dumb. Charge in the side when they are engaged with the unsullied phalanx. Or at least near your other forces.

Even if you didn't expect them to be extinguished like a candle in the wind (reminded me of Princess Di's Dothraki charge against the White Tunnel Pillar):

Everyone was super scared oft the White Walkers, so they obviously didn't expect the Dothraki to win, so why send them alone in. Best case they take out a lot in the first impact, then get bogged down in the mass of undead and need to hack they way out and maybe 50% come back.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 01, 2019, 03:09:21 PM

Unless the next episode catalyzes it. If the characters just walk away saying, "Phew, that was a close one", it was pointless. But if they say, "The Dead very nearly overran the living, and that's because the Seven Kingdoms have been paralyzed by pointless civil war but even before that, because the vanity of monarchs and lords led to the slow stripping of support from the Night's Watch, because we forgot our own histories, because the madness of kings and the greed of nobles made us all weak. We came together here and survived: now we go to break the wheel and make a completely new society". Ok! That would make the whole thematic pay off--it is the narrow escape from never-ending winter and death that convinces everyone to join a new crusade, to put aside all the vanity of power-seeking that dramatizes the need for change.

If next week is just "back to the Game of Thrones, who will sit on the Iron Throne", then it really was kind of a waste.

I don't disagree really, but on the other hand, the "break the wheel" narrative has been hinted on so often by now that it sort of feels like the default ending by now. On the other other hand I can't come up with a really good conclusion either.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 01, 2019, 03:13:32 PM
So I think I've fully processed why this isn't a satisfying end to the NK/Dead storyline. It's not Arya: that was great. If it was going to be a one-shot, having her do it is something the series has fully built up to in a very good way. But the thing is: the menace of the Dead has been a major, maybe the major, driver of one major portion of the overall narrative. ALL of the Night's Watch content was about it, and that's a lot of storyline. Meanwhile, the "fire" thematic has also used up a lot of real estate.

I mentioned that before, but that was the opinion on Reddit why this couldn't/shouldn't happen: "You can't tease us so much about the exeistinal thread and then stab-nightkind-all-dead-dead"

Hah, I betting some hard core fans wondering "Who is the night king? What was his plan? What was his relationship with the wider universe (the seasons, the endless nights) are pretty annoyed now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 01, 2019, 03:16:21 PM
Apparently we're getting a prequel series that will explain it.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Miguel on May 01, 2019, 03:33:45 PM
My take was that the Winterfell leaders all basically decided that they had to lose in order to win:  the Night King wasn't going to put himself at risk until the castle looked like it fell.  That's why he hung around in mid-air unseen the entire first half of the fight.  If the Dothraki charged and managed to slaughter the undead army then there wouldn't have been any reason for him to make an appearance at all.  His plan all along would be to re-raise everyone that had been killed until only Bran was left, whom he wanted to kill himself (for reasons?).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 01, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
Just on the "we have archers on the walls" thing, they fucking didn't. Witness everybody's mad scramble for the walls on a retreat. Dothraki would have been way better on that. Fuck, stuffing the courtyard and every available room with Dothraki would have been better. Just send the horses out with molotov cocktails attached to the side or something if you want a starting strike.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 01, 2019, 05:32:28 PM
They had archers on the walls. They tried to light the trench with flaming arrows. Arya picked off a deadite as he was going to hit The Hound with an arrow from the wall. There is also a specific scene once the dead get past the trench where they swap out the archers for melee people when the dead start to scale the walls.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 01, 2019, 05:51:58 PM
We know they had archers up there, a tiny amount.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 01, 2019, 06:00:44 PM
Well the part of the army that would have archers (northerners and wildlings) have been pretty beat up even prior to this battle.  Gotta roll with the forces you have.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 01, 2019, 10:08:12 PM
The more I think about how this episode went the more I'm convinced of two things.

1) The Night King was never meant to be the big bad. It actually makes a lot of sense. GRRM was never interested in a black and white good vs evil story and that's what the Night King is. I think his sole purpose narratively was to weaken Dany's army and force the North and Dany to work together.

2) The notes GRRM gave the show runners are much more vague than I originally thought. They came up with Arya killing the Night King on their own which tells me the notes are probably something like "The Night King dies at Winterfell.  They kill Cersie somehow. So-and-so ends up on the Throne." Which doesn't surprise me because I don't think GRRM himself really knows exactly how he is going to end things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 01, 2019, 11:44:12 PM
The title "Game of Thrones" has always sort of implied that it was always going to be about the iron throne, and that the Night King is just a prop device that massively stirs the pot.  Unless we are supposed to believe it has always been about a fight for the throne between perhaps the Night King and the Red God, but that seems a stretch.  Or we can look at Martin's title "Song of Ice and Fire".  Which is Dany and Jon.  Or at a stretch, the Night King and the Red God. 

I think it is ultimately about Dany and Jon, everything indicates so.  That doesn't mean either of them end up on the throne.  I guess I don't understand why anyone is upset that there is more to come and it didn't end with the Night King.  I am far more interested in what happens next.  What will Bronn do.  What will Jaime do.  What happens to the Hound and the Mountain.  What will Sansa do.  How will the situation between Dany and Jon resolve.  These are all more interesting questions than what would happen with Bran and the Night King.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2019, 12:31:25 AM
The more I think about how this episode went the more I'm convinced of two things.

1) The Night King was never meant to be the big bad. It actually makes a lot of sense. GRRM was never interested in a black and white good vs evil story and that's what the Night King is. I think his sole purpose narratively was to weaken Dany's army and force the North and Dany to work together.

2) The notes GRRM gave the show runners are much more vague than I originally thought. They came up with Arya killing the Night King on their own which tells me the notes are probably something like "The Night King dies at Winterfell.  They kill Cersie somehow. So-and-so ends up on the Throne." Which doesn't surprise me because I don't think GRRM himself really knows exactly how he is going to end things.

Problem with all this talk is that the books aren't supporting any of it right now.  I seriously think almost all of this was made up by the TV series since they found Martins notes either to vague or decided they just couldn't follow the plot with how many seasons they had left.

There is no Nights King in the book, but maybe he'll be introduced in the Winds of Winter.  But based on fairy tales about him, he came about long after the Walkers appeared and would just be another one of them.  I'm honestly not sure they will introduce the "kill a walker and the zombies die" mechanic.  I don't think that exists in the books at all yet from the few they've killed.  Killing the Nights King with one Lucky stab wont make them all die, and I got the feeling that as with most things in the books, the origins and motivations of the Walkers is going to be a lot more complex.  Not necessarily straight on one sided evil bad guys.  Hell, maybe the Children had nothing to do with their creation, since in current lore, the Others first appeared thousands of years after the war between the First Men and Children ended.  That could be just a TV thing as well for all we know.  There is a lot of speculation that a bargain was made between them, and failure on the human/children side to honor the bargain may be causing all this.

And now, in the books, we have an entire army that's successfully landed and taking control of the Stormlands, lead by the actual true heir to the Iron Thone, Aegon (not Dany).  He might be a fake, or maybe they'll have it fail, but I'd love for it to all be true.  Dany has spent the entire series being built up for her grand return to take the Throne, and it turning out her relative with a better claim beats her to it, would be amazing.  In contrast to the TV series, as this army is now threatening Kings Landing, at the same time is where Meeren has gone to shit and Dany just got dropped off out in the grasslands by her Dragon.  Even if they copy what she did in the TV series, she's not getting over to effect current events for many months, if not over a year, book time.  And I don't think things are going to play out the same way anyways (especially if Aegon does take the throne).  Also as this army is marching, Cersei is awaiting her trial, and the Tyrells are keeping their entire army close and not sending them off towards the threat till their daughter is cleared and released.  If Cersei blows up the fucking sept at this time, she's going to make a ton of lords switch sides to this new true heir leading the golden company.  Not to mention Dorne still ready to take its completely fresh army up to support.

Or in short, shits about to turn into another cluster fuck in the south where everyside kills each other, weakening them more.  Remember, the name of the series is A Song of Ice and Fire.  Game of Thrones is just the title of the first book where everybody is playing a game and positioning, and then open war breaks out in the second book.  I still think the fight between Ice and Fire is the more important focus of the story, and not who gets the Iron Throne.
  



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 02, 2019, 02:37:46 AM
The long night is the big bad in the books. Not the night king specifically.

But the TV guys have made a decision (probably) that the long night is not the big bad on TV.

I mean, we might start the next episode and everyone is all like 'cool, dead king but it is still eternal winter and the wall fell down'. I doubt it, but possible.

Seems likely that the show has decided the war of the roses is the main event, not global warming. Cool. I'm cool with this. Seems more likely the last 3 episodes will be more watchable if they scale back the literary ambition. Also makes the show feel more like its own separate thing rather than the bad fan fiction of most of s5, 6 and 7.



As for the books, my guess is GRRM knows exactly how he wants to end it, but can't figure out the plot to get everyone where they need to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Selby on May 02, 2019, 04:57:30 AM
When you sell your book rights to guys who do TV/movies and you’ve yet to finish the series (much less write a new book in almost a decade) you sort of lose the ability to be the one driving the story anymore. I have no idea what Martin actually intends to be the end of the books but considering he still hasn’t finished them and the TV show has reached the end (with or without whatever notes he may or may not have provided) the TV show is the one everyone except some book fans will remember and go by. It’s nice to go back and forth about what is or is not intended, but considering Martin will likely die before finishing the series, it’s likely that the TV show resolution is what will be considered accurate.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 02, 2019, 05:05:17 AM
As I probably said a hundred pages ago:

- The books are quite popular, but fairly niche all things considered.
- The TV show is a cultural phenomenon like has never been seen before
- The TV show has generally been the exception to the usual rule, where the show is actually better than the source material

So why anyone still gives a shit about what GRRM intends, is or is not doing....it makes no sense at all.  HBO has made this what it is, not Martin. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 02, 2019, 05:21:33 AM
As I probably said a hundred pages ago:

- The books are quite popular, but fairly niche all things considered.
- The TV show is a cultural phenomenon like has never been seen before
- The TV show has generally been the exception to the usual rule, where the show is actually better than the source material

So why anyone still gives a shit about what GRRM intends, is or is not doing....it makes no sense at all.  HBO has made this what it is, not Martin. 

As much shit as this forum gives the show the last book was almost unreadable. It wasted so much space on entirely new characters. And don't get me started on Griff...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2019, 05:32:30 AM
I was responding more to the hypothetical intent of GRRM and saying that I think a hell of a lot of what we are seeing is just them running with their own thing.  

Also, the series is not better than the source material.  The first four seasons were a great adaptation and improved several aspects of the story, but also cut a number of things I felt would have fleshed out the world better at the expense of just another episode or two worth of time a season.  The best result is something in between, though if they had kept up the same quality of writing through all seasons, I'd probably agree with you.  However, the series has gone on just as bad of a downward spiral from season 5 on as the books did from season 4 on.  I've had fun going along with the ride, but its been meandering fan fiction un-creative writing for 3 seasons now.  Still great entertainment (as there are about 20 other shows of great entertainment active right now), but nothing compared to the quality of the first few seasons.  

With the major threat gone, I have a hard time caring what happens to most of the surviving characters.  Whats left to fight over just feels so minor after the epic battle against the apocalyptic menace that was the White Walkers.  Maybe Bran should get the throne?  He just sits.  He could sit there and maybe get intertwined with it like the Three Eyed Raven was with the tree.  Become one with the Iron Throne, ruling all the kingdoms as an undying and all seeing wizard for eternity.

Edit:  I mostly felt the same way about the last book Riggswolfe, but I've come around on Grif.  Like, if he actually is the prince that was promised and comes out of nowhere to take the throne because Dany was to busy fucking up trying to rule in the east, would be the best subversion of a trope ever.  I actually root for that now.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 02, 2019, 05:45:27 AM
I personally don't agree with the assertion that it is in a downward spiral.  I thought it was better than the books in the beginning, and also here at the end.  I wonder what the average Joe thinks about that exact point.  Quick view on IMDB would indicate that the recent seasons are just about as popular as the early seasons.  4 of the top 5 episodes are from the last 4 seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2019, 05:58:54 AM
And a quick google shows me that The Big Bang series has been the number one or number two top rated TV network TV series for the last 7 years.   :oh_i_see:

We all know the average Joe is a moron.  I'm talking realistically about people who care a little more, like on this forum.  Most people paying attention, IMO, would feel the quality of writing has dropped drastically the second half from the first half.  That's not to say the show still isn't fun!  Some great moments have happened in the last few seasons, and the entire series is still better than most things out there.  But the show has such hype now, of course its going to have big ratings no matter what they do.  We are going to watch it no matter what.  It's sort of the Star Wars effect.  I thought Last Jedi was terrible and think the next movie is going to completely suck, but I'll still be there opening night.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2019, 07:21:15 AM
There is a huge drop in quality in the show right at the moment they ran out of book stuff. It is such a stark difference that I don't understand how people don't see it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 02, 2019, 08:06:24 AM
I think one thing that's already in the books that the show simply wasn't prepared to do is for winter to be as overwhelming and despairing as it has already started to be, and for the Walkers to be much more "winter given form" and much less "death and darkness incarnate". What happens to Stannis on the road to Winterfell is way nastier in terms of weather than what appears in the show, and I think it's because visualizing that kind of extreme winter conditions and making them cover everything in Westeros is impossible for the show-runners--can't be done with either practical effects or CGI. That alone will make the Walkers mean something different in the books if he ever writes them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 02, 2019, 09:41:27 AM
So why anyone still gives a shit about what GRRM intends, is or is not doing....it makes no sense at all.  HBO has made this what it is, not Martin. 

See, as a writer, I think Martin got a great deal out of the series, royalty-wise. He had to have. Otherwise, he would have wrote the shit out of the last 2 or 3 books to make sure they got released while the show was on TV. What better form of marketing for selling your books is there than a popular TV or movie series? Book 6 and 7 would have flown off the shelves, even more than Book 5 did. So clearly the money he was getting from HBO just allowed him to do what the fuck ever (like buying an arthouse theater) and just not really worry about doing anything more strenuous than dick around with those last books.

If that's me, I'm writing the shit out of some books while that show is on, because the gravy train may not last past the end of the series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 02, 2019, 11:10:28 AM
As an expert on procrastination, I think GRRM has simply given up on the books but can't bring himself to admit to it for various reasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 02, 2019, 11:32:58 AM
GRRM can always say that "no no no I have the only true ending to this story." The fat fuck can say that to as many people that will listen but he will most likely die before he finishes game of thrones on his terms. And that is why no one cares if he does have a "final directors cut". Because if he had one he wasted so much time that diabetes will kill him before the winds of winter gets on amazon.

Regarding the spirally drop in quality and no one noticing and caring. Well I think game of thrones was accessible enough to attract people who normally don't watch high fantasy or think that all fantasy sounds like LotRs to watch it. A lot of those people aren't bothering to read the books and if you honestly never read the books you don't have that compare and contrast. And if your normally approaching this as a "smarter than average fantasy show" and throw around words like "deconstruction" to describe it than its already starting from a higher pedestal and it takes a literal shark to knock it off.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 02, 2019, 04:15:43 PM
What happens to Stannis on the road to Winterfell is way nastier in terms of weather than what appears in the show, and I think it's because visualizing that kind of extreme winter conditions and making them cover everything in Westeros is impossible for the show-runners--can't be done with either practical effects or CGI. That alone will make the Walkers mean something different in the books if he ever writes them.

Maybe, but the blizzard during the last episode seemed like what the books are aiming for.

But once you accept that the show is intentionally running a shorter story more focussed on the main characters, then I think what they've done overall makes sense for the show - and as you say it makes sense for the walkers to be something different.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 02, 2019, 04:35:59 PM
There is a huge drop in quality in the show right at the moment they ran out of book stuff. It is such a stark difference that I don't understand how people don't see it.

Because the books had a sharp drop in quality after the 3rd one and because it's a lot harder to resolve plot threads than it is to just keep throwing new ones in. Also because for all the talk about how GRRM is great at subverting tropes, really that mostly amounts to unexpectedly killing off major characters, which has since become a trope itself and becomes less subversive each time you rely on it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 02, 2019, 04:51:48 PM
There is a huge drop in quality in the show right at the moment they ran out of book stuff. It is such a stark difference that I don't understand how people don't see it.

Because the books had a sharp drop in quality after the 3rd one and because it's a lot harder to resolve plot threads than it is to just keep throwing new ones in. Also because for all the talk about how GRRM is great at subverting tropes, really that mostly amounts to unexpectedly killing off major characters, which has since become a trope itself and becomes less subversive each time you rely on it.

The wobbles of book 4 doesn't account for the last 4 seasons of television. However book 4 is the weakest most meandering thrones book and gives me no faith that GRRM has any idea how to end this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 02, 2019, 06:13:47 PM
There is a huge drop in quality in the show right at the moment they ran out of book stuff. It is such a stark difference that I don't understand how people don't see it.

Because the books had a sharp drop in quality after the 3rd one and because it's a lot harder to resolve plot threads than it is to just keep throwing new ones in. Also because for all the talk about how GRRM is great at subverting tropes, really that mostly amounts to unexpectedly killing off major characters, which has since become a trope itself and becomes less subversive each time you rely on it.

There was a stark (harr) drop in quality after the first book, it was just not nearly as precipitous as the later one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2019, 06:15:35 PM
I actually thought each book got better than the last, up through the third one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 02, 2019, 06:37:10 PM


Yeah, but you also like Sublime.  :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 02, 2019, 07:02:22 PM
I actually thought each book got better than the last, up through the third one.
Yeah, but you also like Sublime.  :drillf:
i'll allow it


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 02, 2019, 07:13:08 PM
I've said it before, but the fundamental thing here is that Martin's subversion of every trope etc. ran its course in the last book he wrote. He made a trap for himself and he can't go forward. It's really not that he's lazy or that he has writer's block or whatever. He knows he's got no way out. He can keep shifting the viewpoint characters to try and produce some sense of narrative surprise (look at the announced list for Winds of Winter) but he already knows he played that card in the last book with Quentyn Martell and it was a catastrophic storytelling turd that stank up the entire book. There's no escape: he's created a situation where Jon Snow has to resurrect, where Jon has to be revealed as a secret Targ, where Jon and Dany have to get together and fuck, where the Dead have to be beaten, where Bran has to reveal all the secrets, where Arya has to be an awesome little assassin and kill the Freys, etc.

He fought the tropes and the tropes won. Past a certain point in the whole saga and you either have to pay off some shit or you have to be a fucking asshole who just keeps multiplying viewpoint people who are trivial red herrings in order to pretend that anything can happen. He lost his mojo for writing this once he saw that he'd written himself into this hole.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 02, 2019, 07:28:28 PM
There is a huge drop in quality in the show right at the moment they ran out of book stuff. It is such a stark difference that I don't understand how people don't see it.

Because the books had a sharp drop in quality after the 3rd one and because it's a lot harder to resolve plot threads than it is to just keep throwing new ones in. Also because for all the talk about how GRRM is great at subverting tropes, really that mostly amounts to unexpectedly killing off major characters, which has since become a trope itself and becomes less subversive each time you rely on it.

The wobbles of book 4 doesn't account for the last 4 seasons of television. However book 4 is the weakest most meandering thrones book and gives me no faith that GRRM has any idea how to end this.

It's not just the wobbles of book 4 though. There are signs even early than that which suggest GRRM a) maybe isn't as good at the actual war stuff as he might think, and b) isn't great at resolving things.

Take a look at the War of the Five Kings. It's almost entirely resolved by surprise assassinations (Red Wedding, magical Vag Demon, "fell off a bridge", and most hated man in the world not having a food taster). Winterfell suffers with Robb gone, but aside from that most of the military action doesn't amount to much. The Battle of the Blackwater results in no notable casualties (for all those complaining about the lack of notable deaths this last episode), and the status quo being upheld (Lannisters still in control of King's Landing, and Stannis returns to Dragonstone).

Or look at the fact that it's GRRM and not the TV writers who came up with the plot of magicking people back from the dead. And while it hasn't been used to undo the most recent surprise death in the books, I'd be very surprised if Jon Snow being brought back was an idea original to the TV show. Unless you're writing a superhero comic, that's about as hacky as hack writing can get. That's an example of the direction the writing was going in when the show writers had to start making their own way.

In fact a large part of the problem with the series, and why the quality started suffering, is that by design magic started featuring more and more prominently as the story went along and there's no indication that GRRM knows exactly how to handle it. Melisandre and the Lord of Light, the White Walkers, and the Three Eyed Raven, all start to become more important to the plot, but their origins, powers, and ultimate motives are all still currently left mysterious in the books. It makes for a much less interesting story than the human drama that preceded it and drags the story kicking and screaming from "this was inspired by the War of the Roses", to "this was inspired by every generic Fantasy novel". Even going back to Renly's shadow vag demon death, that felt like a cheat to literally just magically eliminate one of the major factions in the war. Robb at least is partially at fault for his own fate but Renly was just the victim of an unstoppable magic spell.

I'm still entertained by the show, maybe because I don't really see this as a dramatic decline in quality. If anything I'm at least grateful they dramatically cut down on a lot of the superfluous plot threads GRRM had been adding lately, but aside from that it seems pretty consistent with where he's likely going with things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 02, 2019, 07:38:37 PM
I've said it before, but the fundamental thing here is that Martin's subversion of every trope etc. ran its course in the last book he wrote. He made a trap for himself and he can't go forward. It's really not that he's lazy or that he has writer's block or whatever. He knows he's got no way out. He can keep shifting the viewpoint characters to try and produce some sense of narrative surprise (look at the announced list for Winds of Winter) but he already knows he played that card in the last book with Quentyn Martell and it was a catastrophic storytelling turd that stank up the entire book. There's no escape: he's created a situation where Jon Snow has to resurrect, where Jon has to be revealed as a secret Targ, where Jon and Dany have to get together and fuck, where the Dead have to be beaten, where Bran has to reveal all the secrets, where Arya has to be an awesome little assassin and kill the Freys, etc.

He fought the tropes and the tropes won. Past a certain point in the whole saga and you either have to pay off some shit or you have to be a fucking asshole who just keeps multiplying viewpoint people who are trivial red herrings in order to pretend that anything can happen. He lost his mojo for writing this once he saw that he'd written himself into this hole.

Eh, I always though from the beginning it was still going to end up following tropes (because only a psycho path likes reading 10,000 pages of people failing).  The first three books were about breaking tropes and surprises (good guys do everything good guys usually do, but end up fucking up everything and dying for it).  In the aftermath of that, the next three books were going to be the glorious return and play out more as expected.  We have the Stark kids who were all going to come back leveled up and awesome (Arya: Assassin, Bran: Wizard,  Sansa: Master of Intrigue).  Like, I was confident of that when I originally read the third book almost 20 years ago.  I guess maybe his U-turn away from the original idea (5 year gap or something in between the first three and second three) was caused because he wanted to avoid tropes, which would be a mistake.  But I don't think he's tied up on it.  Literally for 20 years ago he telegraphed exactly what would happen with each character.  I'll actually be pissed if it doesn't work out this way in the books.

Also, Jon being a Targ was already figured out by anybody paying attention in the books a long time ago.  It hasn't technically been revealed yet, but everybody reading the books knew it back in the 90's even, so of course they're going to have to come back to that.  He obviously had that planned as a big thing since book 1.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 02, 2019, 10:40:31 PM
I have a whole bunch of baseless points I was going to make, which I won't, but here is something to consider:  As a general rule, humans like the beginnings of things and get tired of, annoyed and downright hostile towards those same things as they reach their ending point.  Of course there are exceptions, but I think we tend to get tired of shit and maybe that colors our ability to be objective about what we are experiencing.  On the other hand, the writers, directors and actors also get tired of this shit, so maybe it impacts the product they create despite their best efforts.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 03, 2019, 03:30:10 AM
Episode 4 Trailer

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksTqLXLUvQ4


I can't stop thinking that the entire Dany part would work a lot better with different acting. Her lines are supposed to be badass but the delivery and her facial expressions just fails that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 03, 2019, 04:29:38 AM
I don't really like movie trailers, no way I am going to watch a GoT trailer.  They are inherently spoilers by definition.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 03, 2019, 06:02:19 AM
It's the same thing they showed at the end of the episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 03, 2019, 09:07:12 AM
It's a lot of shots of Daenerys telling everyone how much she wants to smack Cersei. It's in no way a spoiler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 03, 2019, 09:32:40 AM
I get this on HBO, and there is no pre-view at the end of the last episode.  And it is a spoiler on some level.  I don´t want to know ANYTHING. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 03, 2019, 09:44:45 AM
It's a lot of shots of Daenerys telling everyone how much she wants to smack Cersei. It's in no way a spoiler.

Wait, you mean Dany and Cersei got beef with each other?  This changes everything!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 03, 2019, 10:02:26 AM
I get this on HBO, and there is no pre-view at the end of the last episode.  And it is a spoiler on some level.  I don´t want to know ANYTHING.  

Your HBO must be different than other people’s HBO. I know people who watched it on the TV HBO and saw the preview clip.

I use HBONow and they show the “next time” stuff before the “behind our stupidity” segment with the show creators.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 03, 2019, 10:45:14 AM
Certainly varies by country.

I've never seen these spoiler trailers for any show anywhere outside the US. (or on the Internet if I go looking obv)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 03, 2019, 10:47:33 AM
I mean, they aren't really spoilers but some people seem to react like they are - which has always been my assumption of the reason why different markets use them or not.

That, or they think they're better off advertising something else if they are confident GoT viewers in their country are likely to remember they like watching GoT without the aid of the trailer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 04, 2019, 02:51:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/1eyQKiv.jpg)

  :heart:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 04, 2019, 03:01:40 PM
Sadly she didn’t get the elephants she wanted.  Maybe Qyburn can build one for her?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 04, 2019, 06:00:29 PM


I'm still entertained by the show, maybe because I don't really see this as a dramatic decline in quality. If anything I'm at least grateful they dramatically cut down on a lot of the superfluous plot threads GRRM had been adding lately, but aside from that it seems pretty consistent with where he's likely going with things.

Amen. The first 3 books are great but if you want to talk about a decline in quality, you don't have to look at the show. Look at books 4 and 5 where the plot meanders with lots of new characters at least one of whom consumes several chapters only to die stupidly with all the indications that his chapters were nothing more than page fillers. Ugh. The last book especially felt like GRRM went to the Robert Jordan school of writing. "I'm going to throw in lots of pointless bullshit to pad this out because I have no idea where to take the story next."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 04, 2019, 06:39:49 PM
Sadly she didn’t get the elephants she wanted.  Maybe Qyburn can build one for her?  :ye_gods:

Undead elephants would be awesome. Hell, right about now I'd pay money for Qyburn (sp) to sneak into Winterfell, raise the undead and WW and watch them slaughter every character with plot armor, then nuke them all Sept style leaving Cersei on the throne.

Cersei vs Dani - both are autocratic fuckups. Jon is a dithering idiot. Sansa is possibly the only remaining character who is even worthy, but fuck the Starks, if ever a bad decision was to be made, they would make it.

Actually, I really want Bran to be an avatar of the red god who has played the GoT at god level, allowed the stupid humans to achieve his goals by destroying the night king and will now make humanity pay. It would explain Mel's role in the Dothraki charge at least


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2019, 04:43:00 PM
Wonder what kind of bullshit plan they will come up with that's not "Arya easily sneaks into the red keep using assassin magic and murders Cersei" which would be the easy and obvious thing to do, but now can't happen since she already took down the NK.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 05, 2019, 07:28:18 PM
Thank you for joining us for this week’s episode of the Young and the Restless.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 05, 2019, 08:09:40 PM
Man, you can REALLY feel how much the showrunners are like "We don't know what to do really, we just have this outline on a napkin with some pulled pork and wine stains on it, help".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 05, 2019, 09:06:23 PM
Yup, that was pretty lame. I almost dozed off twice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rasix on May 05, 2019, 10:15:06 PM
That was really awful. Character motivations brought to you by words "roll int check" and "failed".

So, they're just going to make Dany fucking crazy, I guess. Yay. Go team. 



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 05, 2019, 11:53:36 PM
i have some alternative theories for why this season is eight episodes long


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 06, 2019, 01:10:27 AM
It's six episodes long.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 06, 2019, 03:34:32 AM
Resolving a story in a meaningful way is one of the most challenging things to do as a story teller. It's also that most writers are infatuated with writing the first and second acts because they are the most interesting parts to write. You can flesh out your universe, open up dozens of interesting conflicts, pose lots of interesting philosophical and moral quandaries and so on. Wrapping things up is boring and tough by comparison and a lot of writers have no idea how to resolve all of the build up that they crafted over a series of books in the final act.

That's also why a lot of genre fiction is now a mess of 10+ book anthologies with hundreds of plot threads dangling in the air until the author runs out of steam and they either completely abandon their work or hastily wrap it up so that they can get to the next interesting world building part in a new universe. Robert Jordan may be a prime example but he's not he only one. It's unfortunately very common that writers - be it for books, or TV and movies - have no idea how they want to wrap up their story in the end because they are much too infatuated with the beginning and middle parts.

You can only subvert story telling tropes for so long, at some point you need to start resolving things and that is usually boring and classical. You have a central conflict and so either one side or nobody wins, you have a power struggle and so either one person will become the ruler or no one will. It does not have that much potential for subversion of story tropes. Especially when you have to somehow live with the expectations of your fan base. You could potentially have Cersei rule over a corpse-ridden frozen post-apocalyptic landscape after everyone either died during the final conflict or starved or froze to death later as some sort of ironic phyrrhic victory and even that would be a major story trope and also would probably royally piss off your fans.

You can not make that part be novel, best you can hope for is that it's interesting.

In TV writing land it's also the fact that most staff writers never get to wrap up a story anyway given that most productions get cancelled half way through and usually don't plan that far ahead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 06, 2019, 04:09:01 AM
Whatever.

The guys running this show are hacks. The only good writing they have done recently is a handful of mostly Tormund (and that is probably as much down to the actor and his delivery) one liners.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 06, 2019, 04:18:17 AM
They seem to have given up on more than just writing. Latest episode prominently features a Starbuck's paper cup that someone had forgotten on a table and that no one in continuity and production or during editing has noticed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 06, 2019, 05:22:50 AM
That was really awful. Character motivations brought to you by words "roll int check" and "failed".

So, they're just going to make Dany fucking crazy, I guess. Yay. Go team. 



Her madness has been hinted at since at least last season. But they did just take our her emotional support system in the space of two episodes. (Jorah and Missandei)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2019, 05:25:56 AM
Terrible stuff. They might as well have just have the two showrunners come on and go "And then Brienne and Jamie have the sex. Then we try to find a way to make Dany and Jon edgy with each other. Then, well, we want people to see Dany is going crazy, we don't really know how to show that though. Then a dragon dies! Just like that!"

Euron and his magical omnipotent plot boats fucking annoy me. That and the fact that it now takes about three hours in the middle of winter to go from one end of Westeros to the next on horseback or boat.

And Tyrion and Varys? What the fuck was all of that? How is Varys the guy who has always been looking out for the realm? During all the years he was letting the Mad King go mad? Or Robert Baratheon be a drunken idiot who mismanaged everything? What is it Tyrion and Varys are reacting to? That civilians might die in an attack on Cersei, especially now that she's gone full Hamas and made them come close to the Red Keep? Since when the fuck do even the most enlightened lords of Westeros let that stop them from doing what they need to do? Ned Stark fought in a war that killed not just knights and soldiers but many civilians, but he thought it necessary. The Night's Watch had a long-standing deal with a rape-monster who impregnated his own daughters. Tyrion used incendiary weapons to kill thousands of sailors. It's like we suddenly switched into the Disney Channel version of Li'l Game of Thrones. I mean, ok, I can deal with the two of them thinking it is a realpolitik mistake to kill too many civilians in King's Landing and even having moral qualms about it. But the idea that because Danerys is pretty much determined to go after Cersei whatever the cost, she's gone mad and has to be replaced with Jon Snow? Where did that come from? It's 100% unearned.

That was just bad.

Honestly, if they wanted to get all these plot points going, what they should have done is after The Long Night, have some feasting and some immediate business resolved (Jamie and Brienne screw, Gendry gets made Lord of Whatever) and then have Cersei announce that her troops and dragons are going to winter up in the Riverlands, where there's enough food to support them. Have Sansa and Arya hear the news about Jon after he and Dany have had their conversation. Then Dany & Co depart. Freefolk say they're going to winter at Castle Black, which still has stores. Most of the Northern banners head back slowly and painfully to their own castles. Then we see Euron and Cersei and she tells Euron her bun in the oven is his. Then she turns to Qyburn and says, "Build all the ballistas, whatever it takes. Grind the taxes out of the people. Euron, you take to the Narrow Sea as a pirate. Bring me back riches from Essos so I can keep paying the Golden Company. We will be ready when the Dragon Queen comes."

Then: screen goes black. ONE YEAR LATER.

Yes, one year of winter later. We open with a raven announcing the coming of spring. Armies are getting ready to march. Brienne and Jamie have spent all that time together. They're content. Maybe she's had a baby. Arya and the Hound left the castle in the late winter. No one knows where they went. Jon and Danerys have been having hot aunt and nephew sex all winter but she's become increasingly restless, angry, volatile, moody. Jon's been training her troops, and she can see that even the Unsullied and Dothraki love him. The dragons have been semi-hibernating but they've been flying off now for days at a time, and they've heard reports that they may have killed people and livestock again. The countryside is moody. Some of the Seven Kingdoms have been sending ravens questioning whether they will swear fealty to Danerys--the Vale, the Iron Islands--and she's getting really pissed at the idea she'll have to conquer everything. Tyrion and Varys were told by Arya, not Sansa, before she left with the Hound and they're starting to wonder if Jon Snow isn't a better horse to back, particularly because Danerys seems so unwilling to act like a ruler of Westeros. They head south; there's an ambush of ballista and one dragon dies, Missandei is taken captive. Jamie stayed behind but when he hears the news, leaves, with Brienne sobbing. Cue the final scene from this actual episode.

So you get to the same place more or less but with the time jump, it all makes some kind of sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 06, 2019, 06:08:32 AM
Don't start complaining now casuals. Just ride the wave. :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 06, 2019, 06:19:08 AM
"Dracarys" = "Burn them all". So yes, into madness and the Queenslayer.

Then Meera Reed takes the Iron Throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 06, 2019, 06:19:58 AM
I'm so tired of you guys bitching and whining about travel times. The show has X amount of time. So they simply imply travel times. It's like you guys want constant black screens that say "6 months later" every time a character arrives at a new destination or in a 6 episode finale season you want 3 of the episodes to be nothing but traveling.

I enjoyed this episode. It established the stakes for next episode pretty clearly. I like that Tyrion truly appealed to Cersei in the only way that looked like it might work. I'm sure some people think she made a dumb decision but I think from her point of view it was the only one.

1) She probably doesn't believe Dany would let her live so she figures she is dead if she surrenders. Dany probably would honor her word but I'm pretty sure Cersei would wake up some morning to see Arya standing over her bed.
2) She figures with only one dragon that the ballistas have neutralized that threat. She may be right. I think Dany turned away from the attack on Euron's fleet because she was scared for Drogon and that may cripple her in this "Last War"

Finally, I find this laughable:


 But the idea that because Danerys is pretty much determined to go after Cersei whatever the cost, she's gone mad and has to be replaced with Jon Snow? Where did that come from? It's 100% unearned.



You must not be watching the show. Or you're simply too busy compiling your list of bitches to pay attention. It is totally earned. As for your gripes about Varys. We don't know what he was doing during the reign of the Mad King. I wouldn't be surprised if he was working to arrange an assassination to put Rhaegar on the throne then Robert's rebellion happened. He probably was content to let Robert be a drunken idiot because he wasn't causing much trouble for the realm. But once Robert died, I think it's easy to see that Varys's actions have been primarily focused on trying to get someone more stable than Cersei's children on the throne. It is literally there in the show though it's somewhat subtle. They're low on episodes now though so have jettisoned that subtlety.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Sir T on May 06, 2019, 06:36:21 AM
Deux Ex Arya only takes 2 seconds.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hoax on May 06, 2019, 06:36:40 AM
If you watched that ep and Dany's characterization is what bothered you not the dragon death circumstances...

Dany has never been that nice or that stable or that good. She also hasn't actually burned Cersei or civilians or whatever alive. Odds are she won't because she is a beloved character and I don't know if they have the balls. But yeah its possible they are setting up the tragic ending where Dany and Jon can't coexist anymore. That's one of the better possible endings available is it not?

Finishing up something like this was going to be a mess and that will be doubly so if GRRM tries to do it ever he has 5x the threads going nowhere the show did. Euron and his magic ships are annoying. Sadly there just isn't enough show to fit in Euron being some mystical crazyfuck borderline magical sea captain /and/ Arya becoming a 1-girl death machine background I guess. I think Euron for how pivotal he's turning out to be is a huge mistake in the casting/writing/costume dept. That and really the entire Iron Islands idea in the books never added up quite right either. Result is Euron has never stood out enough so whenever he pulls off some shit it feels unearned as all hell.

I didn't have a problem with the ep, its never going to be amazing sandwiched between two huge consequence battle eps (seemingly, I don't watch the annoying next ep spoiler fiestas, turn it off once hbo logo appears post credits).

Lastly crying about travel times not the fact that war wariness would be a thing and also where are we even finding living fighting age males at this point anymore?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 06, 2019, 06:37:21 AM
While people getting bent out of shape about things stretching the bounds of verisimilitude might be a bit obnoxious at times, being “Oh this show is so amazingly awesome I loved every bit and everyone who didn’t is a moody bitch” is even more so.
 :drillf:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 06, 2019, 06:43:07 AM
It's six episodes long.

doesn't change my theories


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 06, 2019, 07:05:24 AM

Finishing up something like this was going to be a mess and that will be doubly so if GRRM tries to do it ever he has 5x the threads going nowhere the show did. Euron and his magic ships are annoying. Sadly there just isn't enough show to fit in Euron being some mystical crazyfuck borderline magical sea captain /and/ Arya becoming a 1-girl death machine background I guess. I think Euron for how pivotal he's turning out to be is a huge mistake in the casting/writing/costume dept. That and really the entire Iron Islands idea in the books never added up quite right either. Result is Euron has never stood out enough so whenever he pulls off some shit it feels unearned as all hell.



Euron definitely is lacking in setup. No question. That said, I always hated the Ironborn chapters in the books. They always felt like they dragged the plot progress to a screeching halt. Though so did Dorn. Or Griff. Or, well, lots of BS he put into the last two books. Not sure if you're implying Arya's skills weren't developed or not. If you are, I mean, they spent 7 seasons showing her learning her skills. I think she did get a bit of a power bump from Season 7 onwards but I think it comes down to them running out of time. I suspect GRRM is going to have a similar problem if he ever actually writes another book unless he decides to do a time jump after all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2019, 07:32:48 AM
The travel time thing is annoying because it utterly mocks SEVEN seasons of build up to "Winter is Coming". So now Winter is Here and it's no big fucking deal.

In any northern society, winter is a time that armies stop moving around because it's nearly fucking impossible to keep them supplied and because they're risking freezing to death or getting stuck. It happens but it's a tremendous risk.

The entire idea of the show is built around these dramatic seasons and yet here we are at the end and it's completely who cares, we need to get off the air.

But they're also just throwing every characterization they've established to the wind more or less. Dany isn't nice, but this is not a world where "not nice" means "not qualified to be ruler". Tywin Lannister was a pretty good ruler of his own lands and then a good near-regent while being the world's worst father and being a horrible human being ethically. Khal Drogo led an army of rapey murdering plunder-barbarians and nobody said, "holy balls, he can't be a khal, he's too barbaric".

Shit, the show pretty much eventually confirmed that Danerys was if anything too nice to the rulers of the cities of Slavers' Bay--once she let up and tried to play nice with them, they tried to kill her and then they tried to kill her again, and it was only when she burned their ships and killed their emissaries that stuff got settled.

Varys and Tyrion's conversation makes zero fucking sense, and there is no way in which Danerys has shown unusual or extraordinary signs of madness or instability compared to every other powerful person in this show except for Ned Stark, Barristan Selmy and maybe Jon Snow, including characters we have clearly been meant to see as competent and basically admirable people like Jeor Mormont. If they wanted us to think that she was genuinely unstable, etc., then they needed to have been building that up really steadily since the last part of her rule in Meereen; instead, pretty much every time Lord Friendzone or Barristan or Tyrion delivered a Father Knows Best lesson, she's followed their advice (and often paid a price for having done so). Unstable people with power are known for being arbitrary, grandiose and erratic in a way that gets steadily worse over time. None of that groundwork has been laid.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2019, 07:56:30 AM
I loved the first half of the episode. I think it only went off the rails in the 2nd half, which yes needed either another 1-2 episodes of time to tell, or at least some titles telling us "One year later" or something to give us a sense of time. It felt rushed and it was very dumb that Dany never thought "Hey, they had ballistas before that almost killed one of my dragons, I bet they've made more of those." There wasn't a very good staging of the sea battle to let us know this was an ambush, so it felt very out of nowhere.

They really did need a full 10 episodes for this part of the season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 06, 2019, 08:00:05 AM
I feel like winter is over now that they've killed the Night King. It certainly didn't look snowy down in King's Landing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2019, 08:04:33 AM
Varys and Tyrion's conversation makes zero fucking sense, and there is no way in which Danerys has shown unusual or extraordinary signs of madness or instability compared to every other powerful person in this show except for Ned Stark, Barristan Selmy and maybe Jon Snow, including characters we have clearly been meant to see as competent and basically admirable people like Jeor Mormont. If they wanted us to think that she was genuinely unstable, etc., then they needed to have been building that up really steadily since the last part of her rule in Meereen; instead, pretty much every time Lord Friendzone or Barristan or Tyrion delivered a Father Knows Best lesson, she's followed their advice (and often paid a price for having done so). Unstable people with power are known for being arbitrary, grandiose and erratic in a way that gets steadily worse over time. None of that groundwork has been laid.

I disagree with what you said. Varys in particular was characterized the way he should have been. As for the madness of Dany being out of nowhere, that's just not true. She's always been headstrong and brutal but in all her time away from Westeros, she was never intentionally cruel to THE PEOPLE. She burned slavers, she torched armies and lords, but when it came to the citizens of cities under siege, she bent over backwards to save them. The fact that she's even contemplating torching King's Landing with all those innocents in it should be a pretty good indication that something's off. Whether it's her father's madness or just her grief, it's not like her. And Varys would know that because he observed the Mad King's worst excesses, and if I remember correctly, he helped get the Lannisters in position to kill the Mad King when it was clear that the King was going to torch the whole city rather than give up his power.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2019, 08:08:21 AM
It's never looked snowy there really, just slightly bleak.

The superballistas are just really damn stupid in general, even before we get to them being on Euron Grayjoy's magical fleet that is always waiting to fuck up Danerys' forces but that somehow no one can see.

So, like: a ballista. That has a max arc of what, 45 degrees maybe? That has to be hand-wound after being fired, unless Qyburn has invented steam engines as well. The dragons can go straight up to the cloud layers, we've seen that. So all Danerys has to do is go straight up and then go straight down over the ships. If Drogon has to fly off after dive bombing, fly off in the direction that the ships *aren't* already pointing--it's not like you can turn a boat around completely in ten seconds.

If Martin has it in mind to have Victarion do roughly the same shit in the books, at least he's going to have a magical horn to do it with. That would make more sense than Cheesy McMustache Greyjoy and his plot-powered Boats of Selective Doom.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 06, 2019, 08:11:39 AM
ships sneak attacking a fucking dragon that has sight from the sky is the dumbest shit ever


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2019, 08:18:31 AM
Varys has served rulers who have been perfectly ready to fuck with the people. He didn't do fuck-all about Joffrey, that was left up to someone else. The idea that he would suddenly be ready to toss over the ruler that he'd been searching for because she was contemplating just taking Cersei out regardless of the costs is just silly. That is something that almost any ruler or powerful person might be contemplating--it is more or less the same issue that modern governments face when an enemy leader or force nestles itself among civilians intending to use them as human shields. Varys is not Gandhi: he's shown himself perfectly willing to use subterfuge, violence and injustice to achieve his ends (book Varys even more so). The idea that he and Tyrion would instantly talk about treason simply because Cersei was contemplating doing something that any leader might contemplate makes no sense. What would Not-Mad Danerys be saying right now? "Oh, I guess we'll just have to sit here and wait for Cersei to run out of money, because we can't go out on the water due to Euron's magic boats, and we can't actually go to King's Landing because civilians. Thank you, my kind advisors. I will now go and hug a peasant."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hoax on May 06, 2019, 08:34:48 AM
ships sneak attacking a fucking dragon that has sight from the sky is the dumbest shit ever

this is what i'm saying

Euron definitely is lacking in setup. No question. That said, I always hated the Ironborn chapters in the books. They always felt like they dragged the plot progress to a screeching halt. Though so did Dorn. Or Griff. Or, well, lots of BS he put into the last two books. Not sure if you're implying Arya's skills weren't developed or not. If you are, I mean, they spent 7 seasons showing her learning her skills. I think she did get a bit of a power bump from Season 7 onwards but I think it comes down to them running out of time. I suspect GRRM is going to have a similar problem if he ever actually writes another book unless he decides to do a time jump after all.

yeah the ironborn are stupid, its unclear what value they provide the other six at all iirc. dorn the show did a much better job with despite the fact that dorn had no point at all to the larger story. i'm saying if euron is this badass he needed some of the arya skill development screen time. that he had zero screen time at all besides showing up and tossing an utterly worthless and stupid character off a bridge and getting a crown makes everything he does feel unearned.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 06, 2019, 08:42:34 AM
Varys has served rulers who have been perfectly ready to fuck with the people. He didn't do fuck-all about Joffrey, that was left up to someone else. The idea that he would suddenly be ready to toss over the ruler that he'd been searching for because she was contemplating just taking Cersei out regardless of the costs is just silly. That is something that almost any ruler or powerful person might be contemplating--it is more or less the same issue that modern governments face when an enemy leader or force nestles itself among civilians intending to use them as human shields. Varys is not Gandhi: he's shown himself perfectly willing to use subterfuge, violence and injustice to achieve his ends (book Varys even more so). The idea that he and Tyrion would instantly talk about treason simply because Cersei was contemplating doing something that any leader might contemplate makes no sense. What would Not-Mad Danerys be saying right now? "Oh, I guess we'll just have to sit here and wait for Cersei to run out of money, because we can't go out on the water due to Euron's magic boats, and we can't actually go to King's Landing because civilians. Thank you, my kind advisors. I will now go and hug a peasant."

You're being intentionally obtuse here. The other option is a siege. Not "I'm going to go home and pout and roast marshmallows." But Dany isn't patient and she's made it clear she wants Cersei gone at all costs. That comes down to doing exactly what her father was going to do with wildfire before Jaime put a sword in him.

As for Varys and Joffrey. Joffrey served Varys's purpose. He wanted the Houses weakened to prepare for a Targaryen to come back because he thought it was better for the realm. Just because he theoretically has the best interests of the "little people" at heart, doesn't mean he's not willing to make short term (relatively speaking) sacrifices to insure things go well in the long term. I get the feeling you're either not paying attention to what has been going on for the last 7 years or, again, you're intentionally being obtuse.


yeah the ironborn are stupid, its unclear what value they provide the other six at all iirc. dorn the show did a much better job with despite the fact that dorn had no point at all to the larger story. i'm saying if euron is this badass he needed some of the arya skill development screen time. that he had zero screen time at all besides showing up and tossing an utterly worthless and stupid character off a bridge and getting a crown makes everything he does feel unearned.

Dorn in the books is almost intolerable so I agree the show did it better. I still got impatient everytime it focused on those worthless characters (with the exception of Oberyn) but it was still better than GRRM wasting tons of book pages on it. I think the problem with Euron, and the book has this problem too, is that all of his character development is off screen. He spends years off being a pirate or whatever and I think we're supposed to assume he became a total bad ass naval guy in that time but we don't see it so it just doesn't feel right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 06, 2019, 09:30:02 AM
Dorn in the books is almost intolerable so I agree the show did it better. I still got impatient everytime it focused on those worthless characters (with the exception of Oberyn) but it was still better than GRRM wasting tons of book pages on it. I think the problem with Euron, and the book has this problem too, is that all of his character development is off screen. He spends years off being a pirate or whatever and I think we're supposed to assume he became a total bad ass naval guy in that time but we don't see it so it just doesn't feel right.


I kind of liked the Ironborn and Euron in the books. His legend is derived first from some big victories he won in the Greyjoy rebellion a decade or two before, he comes back and to become king he completely outmanouevers his niece again showing his capability, and after that he orchestrates a very successful and well planned assault on the wealthy southwest coast, threatening Oldtown so I think his story as kind of a half insane, mystic dread pirate is credible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 06, 2019, 09:50:16 AM
It's just WTF is going on with the nuclear-powered ballista bolts?  In the books it's clearly explained that dragons are fully armored and extremely hard to kill.  If all it took was ballistas on a fleet or a castle wall to repel an attack by dragons then all of the dragon lore and related history in GRRM's books is complete bunk.  Things like Harrenhal wouldn't have happened.  Because I do believe in an era that dragon attack was a constant threat they would have the best anti-dragon countermeasures there were.

Plus entire ships getting completely demolished by ballistas?  18th century cannons didn't destroy ships that quickly or completely.  We're supposed to believe a hand-cranked ballista is going to do that?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Miguel on May 06, 2019, 09:58:50 AM
My prediction: they are going to pull some stupid 'circle of life'/'the wheel cannot be broken because people are stupid', where Cersei is essentially backend into a corner, so she'll instruct Qyburn to raise an army of 'Mountains' as she is being destroyed, to mirror the plot line of the Children creating the White Walkers at their moment of destruction.  #historyrepeatsitself

It's just WTF is going on with the nuclear-powered ballista bolts?  In the books it's clearly explained that dragons are fully armored and extremely hard to kill.  If all it took was ballistas on a fleet or a castle wall to repel an attack by dragons then all of the dragon lore and related history in GRRM's books is complete bunk.

Those scenes gave me flashbacks of this:

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/LTTS2.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 06, 2019, 11:28:47 AM
ships sneak attacking a fucking dragon that has sight from the sky is the dumbest shit ever

Yeah. And machine gun ballistas, "omnipotent plot boats" as Khaldun said.

Not commenting on the points you raised as I agree mostly. So to introduce a new angle:


How did anyone think that meeting-Cersei-at-the-gate would work like it did?

I know...parley, honor, blah blah. But I was Cersei I had put everything and everyone on them. End it right there.

And I especially would have not hesitated killing Tyrion. I don't understand why Cersei let him live.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 06, 2019, 11:39:35 AM
My prediction: they are going to pull some stupid 'circle of life'/'the wheel cannot be broken because people are stupid', where Cersei is essentially backend into a corner, so she'll instruct Qyburn to raise an army of 'Mountains' as she is being destroyed, to mirror the plot line of the Children creating the White Walkers at their moment of destruction.  #historyrepeatsitself

IMHO anyone expecting a big twist is going to be disappointed. It's going to end how it looks its going to end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 06, 2019, 11:54:16 AM
It's just WTF is going on with the nuclear-powered ballista bolts?  In the books it's clearly explained that dragons are fully armored and extremely hard to kill.  If all it took was ballistas on a fleet or a castle wall to repel an attack by dragons then all of the dragon lore and related history in GRRM's books is complete bunk.  Things like Harrenhal wouldn't have happened.  Because I do believe in an era that dragon attack was a constant threat they would have the best anti-dragon countermeasures there were.

Plus entire ships getting completely demolished by ballistas?  18th century cannons didn't destroy ships that quickly or completely.  We're supposed to believe a hand-cranked ballista is going to do that?

Bronn reloading a heavy crossbow in one second also like it was a bolt action rifle was pretty laughable.

I'm way beyond expecting anything from this bunch though. Looking forward to a future 200 page thread on the F13 movie forum as they shit up a new star wars trilogy.

Gotta wonder if GRRM sized these guys up as total assclowns, got fed up and began to deliberately hold out on them with a plan to publish after the series wraps so he can get the final canon word in. Whether he actually can pull it off or not before he croaks is another story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 06, 2019, 12:36:23 PM
And I especially would have not hesitated killing Tyrion. I don't understand why Cersei let him live.

It’s partly TV writer plotting.  Wiping them all out as a sensible person would do ruins the last two episodes (other than Jon the Boring isn’t there yet)

Cersei is feeling confident and feels she can savor her victory.  It’s a bit of a failing but not out of character I don’t think.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 06, 2019, 12:50:36 PM
How did anyone think that meeting-Cersei-at-the-gate would work like it did?

I know...parley, honor, blah blah. But I was Cersei I had put everything and everyone on them. End it right there.

And I especially would have not hesitated killing Tyrion. I don't understand why Cersei let him live.
I agree, I don't know why she didn't just order them to open fire. They had the dragonbane crossbows ready for Drogon; just go full-on Chaotic Evil and murder the lot of them. There's a decent chance Jon might have just given up and went to be King in the North while leaving the south to Cersei if Dany had died along with The Last Dragon (tm) and the rest of the Unsullied.

Speaking of the Unsullied, are there supposed to be more of them alive than what we saw? I couldn't tell if that was just a token honor guard or if there were only a hundred or so left.

Edit: words are hard


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 06, 2019, 01:02:29 PM
It's just WTF is going on with the nuclear-powered ballista bolts?  In the books it's clearly explained that dragons are fully armored and extremely hard to kill.  If all it took was ballistas on a fleet or a castle wall to repel an attack by dragons then all of the dragon lore and related history in GRRM's books is complete bunk.  Things like Harrenhal wouldn't have happened.  Because I do believe in an era that dragon attack was a constant threat they would have the best anti-dragon countermeasures there were.

Plus entire ships getting completely demolished by ballistas?  18th century cannons didn't destroy ships that quickly or completely.  We're supposed to believe a hand-cranked ballista is going to do that?

Bronn reloading a heavy crossbow in one second also like it was a bolt action rifle was pretty laughable.

I'm way beyond expecting anything from this bunch though. Looking forward to a future 200 page thread on the F13 movie forum as they shit up a new star wars trilogy.

Gotta wonder if GRRM sized these guys up as total assclowns, got fed up and began to deliberately hold out on them with a plan to publish after the series wraps so he can get the final canon word in. Whether he actually can pull it off or not before he croaks is another story.

It was a “double barrel” all he did was (I assume) click the firing mechanism to release the other side next time. You can see there were two bolts initially and then one after his shot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2019, 01:07:05 PM
If in fact Cersei's forces equal Dany's forces at this point in time, a siege is specifically NOT an option. Especially not a walled city with a port, where sieging it means preventing anything from coming in via sea or land. You have to have many times your opponent's garrison forces for that to work--and clear naval superiority, which is impossible as long as Euron has his magic nuclear death-boats.

Doesn't mean of course that the showrunners couldn't magically declare that she's sieging them because that is the wise and temperate and non-mad thing to do, but just in case you're unclear on the concept, sieging a walled medieval city is not an act of beneficient kindness. If you're not going to attack the walls at all because of the poor civilian people inside, what you are doing is starving the poor civilian people inside to death, and maybe hoping that they'll riot and kill the city rulers. If you let food and medicine go in without constraint, you're not sieging, you're just picnicking outside for months and months.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2019, 01:17:01 PM
Without their fleet, they can't blockade King's Landing anyway. Their only shot is the dragon being able to roast the city, but of course it can't do that because of balista. I'm not sure what they think they are going to be able to do now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Selby on May 06, 2019, 01:32:18 PM
I'm not sure what they think they are going to be able to do now.
The smart solution is nighttime dragon air raid under cover of fog or not-full-moon conditions to take out balistae (and Euron's boats too), but that would be smart tactics and if there's one thing that this show has shown us it's that no one left alive is a smart tactician.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2019, 01:41:14 PM
The smart thing to do is wait until the show-runners say it's safe to do it, because nothing is working even remotely close to anything that would actually make sense and besides anybody doing it will be called mad if they're the wrong person doing it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 06, 2019, 01:43:12 PM

Gotta wonder if GRRM sized these guys up as total assclowns, got fed up and began to deliberately hold out on them with a plan to publish after the series wraps so he can get the final canon word in. Whether he actually can pull it off or not before he croaks is another story.

Please...GRRM isn't holding out on them. He just has no clue how to resolve all the shitty plot threads he started up in his books and so is writing as slowly as possible in hopes he figures it out over time.


The smart solution is nighttime dragon air raid under cover of fog or not-full-moon conditions to take out balistae (and Euron's boats too), but that would be smart tactics and if there's one thing that this show has shown us it's that no one left alive is a smart tactician.

I don't see how Dany and Jon win in a straight fight. If their forces are even then assaulting the city is suicide. Ironically, the best solution is just to wait for Arya and the Hound to make a guerilla raid and kill Cersei and the Mountain. The show runners may in fact go with something similar. I can see this type of discussion:

Tyrion: Hey Varys, remember when you sneaked me out of the city straight from the red keep through those tunnels?
Varys: Yeah? Ohh....yeah.

Jon, Tyrion, Arya, the Hound, Jaime and Grey Worm sneak in through the sewers.
Dany does strafing runs while the army attacks.

Arya and the Hound die taking out the Mountain. After Cersei dies at Jaime's hand, Dany is shanked by Varys. Jon executes him for treason then exiles himself to the far North. Tyrion and Sansa take the crown. Roll credits.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 06, 2019, 01:44:37 PM
The smart thing to do is wait until the show-runners say it's safe to do it, because nothing is working even remotely close to anything that would actually make sense and besides anybody doing it will be called mad if they're the wrong person doing it.


Very much this.  This plotting at the end of the series is just awful.  I was looking forward to this before the season started but now I'm just enduring it until it ends.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 06, 2019, 01:50:19 PM
Welcome to the club!

(I have been in that boat since I think the gratuitous Bolton wedding night rape scene.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 06, 2019, 01:55:25 PM
The smart thing to do is wait until the show-runners say it's safe to do it, because nothing is working even remotely close to anything that would actually make sense and besides anybody doing it will be called mad if they're the wrong person doing it.


Very much this.  This plotting at the end of the series is just awful.  I was looking forward to this before the season started but now I'm just enduring it until it ends.

Yeah. Of course that was always sort of the case. But now it's so head-on-nose. Anything can happen, cause-and-effect just doesn't apply anymore.

Edit:

Episode 3: White walkers THE threat for 7 seasons, welp, deus-ex-dagger finnished them.

Episode 4:  Dragons, badass, put Taygariens on the throne, Harrenhall showed that stone melts, they are unstoppable, welp, now a ballistisa is a hard-counter

Episode 5: 25,000 mercenaries, the largest walls left in Westeros, impossible to siege, welp, doesn't matter because ...............


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2019, 04:58:57 PM

I don't see how Dany and Jon win in a straight fight. If their forces are even then assaulting the city is suicide. Ironically, the best solution is just to wait for Arya and the Hound to make a guerilla raid and kill Cersei and the Mountain. The show runners may in fact go with something similar. I can see this type of discussion:


Wait, I thought you were "the non-mad plan is to make a siege, of course, so the fact that Dany isn't doing that is what proves she's crazy and unbalanced and deserves to be overthrown."

I suppose in Star Wars, "Send Obi-Wan to kill General Grevious" is a battle plan. But up until they lost the detailed books as a guide, that was very much not the world-building that Martin was doing. If your leaders get decapitated, it's because they walked into it; and when they do, the battle isn't over (as in the Hundred Years War, War of the Roses and most other wars).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 06, 2019, 05:19:57 PM
Sansa swore an Oath in the godswood and broke it.  By the rules of world, she’s marked for death!   :grin:

Agree with what everybody is saying.  We’re reaching Xena levels of TV tropes here.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 06, 2019, 07:16:36 PM

I don't see how Dany and Jon win in a straight fight. If their forces are even then assaulting the city is suicide. Ironically, the best solution is just to wait for Arya and the Hound to make a guerilla raid and kill Cersei and the Mountain. The show runners may in fact go with something similar. I can see this type of discussion:


Wait, I thought you were "the non-mad plan is to make a siege, of course, so the fact that Dany isn't doing that is what proves she's crazy and unbalanced and deserves to be overthrown."

I suppose in Star Wars, "Send Obi-Wan to kill General Grevious" is a battle plan. But up until they lost the detailed books as a guide, that was very much not the world-building that Martin was doing. If your leaders get decapitated, it's because they walked into it; and when they do, the battle isn't over (as in the Hundred Years War, War of the Roses and most other wars).

Here you go again...

Seriously, try to discuss things in good faith. It'd be a refreshing change.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 06, 2019, 09:42:34 PM
*The more I watch the entire fleet-sneaks-upon-dragon sequence the more ridiculous it is.

*The Sansa-Dany rivalry just seems forced at this point.

*Dany's descend into madness: The problem is all the crazy burning she did was ages ago (like the locked dothraki) and was presented decidly positive.

Now, after she wasted her army fighting for the better good and personally charged in when she saw her Dothraki riders being slaughtered, she suddenly is portrayed as dangerous. It feels out of the blue and rushed.

*Does Cersei even know that Melisandre is important? I think Eurions line was literally: "We killed a dragon, sunk thr fleet and captured Melisandre". Cersei's answer should have been Melisandre who? Felt sort of breaking the 4th wall.

*What was the entire Bronn assassin subplot about? It's like the show runners don't know what to do with the character anymore.


Sorry for the rambly style, am on phone.
Thoughts? Am I making sense?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 06, 2019, 10:18:44 PM
Missandei I think they just killed as I sorta predicted partly just to fuck with the Grey Wurm announcing retirement shtick, and also they’ve made her totally “RAR DRAGON QUEEN BEST!” the last couple episodes.  It’s more forced-plot BS to set up the Jon/Dany divide.  She’s all “light these fuckers up” while the rest are saying “No, think of the peeps.”  I think Khaldun is right that no ruler ever would give two fucks about burning a few commoners to finish the fight, but it does kinda go against how they’ve tried to categorize Danaerys.  Plot is just a mess right now.  I hope we at least get awesome cinematography (and Cleganebowl) next week to allow me to disengage the thinky parts of my brain.

Bronn? I kinda get him, he’s been promised castles and wives and such but it keeps not materializing due to the Lannisters not quite paying their debts.  He’s liable to start murdering people unless he gets what he feels he’s earnes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 06, 2019, 10:23:36 PM
Yeah Calapine, those (plus many others) are the complaints everybody in the world is screaming right now.  Or in other words:

(https://i.imgur.com/iwOnwBb.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/DSLOQsJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xMlWhPZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/z2vSHP1.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WlvP4ZI.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Gimfain on May 06, 2019, 10:57:41 PM
Before the show jumped between different location and now we get a straight story. It was no problem to fill the void during travel with sub-plots from other locations, there could have been lots of dialogue with cersei but she already wiped out all opposition so they don't have much to tell anymore. The fling between jaime and brienne would have lasted a season in the early parts of the show but now it felt like they jumped to bed and then Jaime left. This is why you get the feeling of instant traveling but just adding filler wouldn't make it better.

Daenerys the Conqueror has been long in the making, bend the knee or taste dragon fire. Before she landed at westeros she was a liberator and loved for it. Her advisors warned her about being viewed as another tyrant seeking the throne and she has failed gaining true support from other houses, they only join her out of necessity. She is jealous of Jon Snow because he is the person she wishes to be, loved among the westerosi.

I'm still annoyed because it feels like they could have done a lot better job, its rushed with with some parts feeling like they were written on a napkin, its how you get stupid things like stealth ships and Cersei the TV villain.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 06, 2019, 11:42:57 PM
(https://i.redd.it/bpzeohh4dpw21.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 07, 2019, 01:11:22 AM
Episode was fine for what this show now is.

Travel time was not a problem because other scenes were not locking down just how quickly shit was happening. Who says Dany wasn't at sea for 3 months? It could easily have been made clearer but this is nothing like s7.

The broad arc of Dany is fine. This shit happens to every relevant Targaryen. Nutter and Clarke did good work challenging her sanity, and making her realise that she has no westerosi allies inside one episode - people have telling her this would happen for years. Yeah the writing is bad, who knew?

Books make a lot of effort to tell us that Aerys was not mad before Duskendale, Dany's frustration all seemed to play into that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 07, 2019, 02:43:29 AM
Tyrion figured out that Cersei was pregnant last season when he crept into the Red Keep for the secret meeting with her. Assuming that it's the same pregnancy now as back then, Cersei can't be more than 2-3 months gone because she's not showing yet. She was pregnant enough that she knew it when she met Tyrion - so at least a few weeks, maybe a month. That means there can't be more than a month or so between the last episode of S7 and now. This also means that Euron is a moron if he really believes that Cersei's child is his.

Edit: Cersei tells Jaime that she's pregnant in Episode 5. That's right after Daenerys lights up the Lannister army for the first time and just before Jon, Beric, Hound and co go north of the wall to capture a Wight. So 3-6 weeks in total for everything from the expedition north of the wall up to now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 07, 2019, 03:02:53 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/XWYtgKR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/R99rLji.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uoRNoBA.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 07, 2019, 04:01:53 AM
(https://i.redd.it/bpzeohh4dpw21.jpg)

If I could like I would.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 07, 2019, 04:19:42 AM
I always assumed she was lying about the pregnancy to manipulate the morons that worship her motherhood.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 07, 2019, 04:53:54 AM
I always assumed she was lying about the pregnancy to manipulate the morons that worship her motherhood.

Tyrion guessed it before she told him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 07, 2019, 05:03:45 AM
The only good part of this episode was the Hound and Sansa (plus Arya). It was good writing compared to the rest of the episode, they actually felt like human beings, unlike the rest of it including the Brienne/Jamie/Tormund rubbish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 07, 2019, 05:06:51 AM
The costumes of Margery Tyrell.

24 minutes but very interesting. The fashion is one of the strong points of the show. https://youtu.be/7XmRbDZUNDQ
========
I always assumed she was lying about the pregnancy to manipulate the morons that worship her motherhood.

Tyrion guessed it before she told him.

Guys.... 🙄 IF she is lying that's the way to do it. Not say "I am pregnant, believe me!" but make him thinks he figures it out himself. This flatters his vanity and is a more subtle way of lying.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 07, 2019, 05:48:16 AM
Can we change your name to Calapine Lannister?  :grin:

Sadly there’s no gold with the promotion; they are broke now since the mines dried up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 07, 2019, 07:11:07 AM
Now, after she wasted her army fighting for the better good and personally charged in when she saw her Dothraki riders being slaughtered, she suddenly is portrayed as dangerous. It feels out of the blue and rushed.

That's because it IS rushed. The whole season (going back to last year) is rushed because they've decided that it has to end with X number of episodes when they really needed X + 4 or more. We had 2 episodes of preparation and building tension for the fight with the Night King, and now we literally have 1.5 episodes (this episode was over an hour) to do the same amount of moving pieces around the board to set up the big battle in episode 5. Some of this is a result of the curse of their own success. Everybody loved the great big battle scenes from previous years and so they felt they had to put that in there. The same goes for some of the plot armor on the characters. Guys like Tormund and Bronn probably don't really have a place in the story at this point but they were fan favorites so they had to be given something to do.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 07, 2019, 07:47:31 AM
It's basically "we have x million of budget per season and so we can only do 6 episodes". They blow 13 million on a single battle heavy episode. That's like 8 episodes worth of budget for a normal TV drama.
They basically screwed themselves out of a better build up. The production values cost a lot of money, this limits the number of episodes they can do and all of the contracts are up at the end of this season and would have to be re-negotiated.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 07, 2019, 07:52:11 AM
It's basically "we have x million of budget per season and so we can only do 6 episodes". They blow 13 million on a single battle heavy episode. That's like 8 episodes worth of budget for a normal TV drama.
They basically screwed themselves out of a better build up. The production values cost a lot of money, this limits the number of episodes they can do and all of the contracts are up at the end of this season and would have to be re-negotiated.

Pretty much, its the reason dire wolves got basically written out and the big battle scene happened at night (i bet you the big battle next episode also happens at night). Its why the dothraki had to be wiped out in the first minute of the battle and basically off screen. Remember all the bitching in season one when the big battles happened off screen? welp, here we are.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 07, 2019, 08:16:38 AM
From what I understand, it's not a budget issue - HBO will throw money at this shit all day long - but a lot of the core actors have other commitments now and they want to wrap this up and get on with things. I heard that basically two short seasons with a year gap between them was the only way to get everyone on board to finish the series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 07, 2019, 08:18:30 AM
Yeah, from everything I'm reading, the budget has been increased almost every year, and is significantly higher than the first season.  Not only that, they've made all the episodes longer.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 07, 2019, 12:03:40 PM
Doomed to disappoint from the start. I have to say this was a nice run while it lasted. This is one of the situations where like "fans giving a shit" doesn't help much. Because on one hand demanding a quality show after 8 seasons is kinda ridiculous but on the other hand rewarding a show for being kinda "meh" feels wrong considering we are in a "golden age of TV". This will never be remembered the way the walking dead will be or other 3+ season shows that ran their course years ago. This was something special for the half of geekdom that wasn't too busy wanking it to anime to watch it. And also something tragically dumb once the source material wasn't giving the writers any easy outs. The shorcuts taken were relatively bad in most cases... but necessary in a "if your not going to pay writers to abridge the series properly might as well pay 2 fanfic writers to kick this shit along".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hoax on May 07, 2019, 03:00:12 PM
time travel / pregnancy stuff: good point re: time elapsed known via baby bump. That said I'm perfectly good at not worrying that much about a detail.

the people who are saying this is the actors not the budget are correct. all the major ones seem ready to fuck off to other projects if they haven't been doing a lot of that already. it has been ten years.

I still can't believe anyone is bemoaning the lack of books, GRRM has zero hope of finishing the story. its setup with no hope of finishing correctly because he is much more constrained by winter is a super huge fucking deal and armies move slow westeros is big etc. he's also got an entire thing going on in Dorne that completely fucks up any hope of sorting shit out in any amount of time. he'd literally need at least one if not two big time skips.

the dragon "ambush" super ballistae in general... still the worst thing happening right now.

to defend the show against a nitpick. both Euron and Cersei would know slave translator from the show off the zombie meeting. so yeah they would know she has value. also if Cersei/Qyburn have maintained any type of spy network as Varys was able they would know her value doubly so.

re: dire wolves being written out, i blame the books, they wasted them badly and what i recall of them showing up it was mainly annoying worg dreams all the kids were having that never went anywhere and would have been a huge fuck off waste of time explaining/having in the show also cost also making them look cool.

lastly you guys are lapping up this "Dany is mad queen now" stuff way too readily. I think the critique of Varys turning on her way too easily in favor of Jon feels rushed as fuck at this point and you aren't wrong it could point to the idea that i'm wrong and we're all supposed to be on board that she is dangerous and unstable now. but I'd say the jury is still way out on that one.

I have had no problem with Sansa's skepticism and dislike for Dany I think its been written fine. the biggest problem with Sansa is just how quickly she broke her promise to Jon. that was fucked up.

here's a new nitpick: they really really really should have killed Bran or put him in a coma or something before they off'd the night king. its just sad that nobody consults with him ever when he's right there looking sad lonely and bored.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 07, 2019, 03:21:56 PM
I repeat: the device of ONE YEAR LATER would solve everything except Euron Magic Pirate killing dragons with nuclear ballista boats. Everything that's emotionally implausible now would in a single powerpoint slide become poignant. Jamie leaves Brienne...one year later, at the end of winter. Arya and the Hound leave everyone else a few months before the end of winter...who knows where they went? Sansa finally spills the beans...after almost a year of winter. Dany is going kind of crazy and fretting and imagining revenge and burning cities...after a year of being stuck inside with Jon Snow who is being simultaneously awesome and glum as fuck. Varys starts plotting...after a year of watching Dany go slowly mad. Tyrion starts agreeing...after a year of watching Jon Snow be awesome. You name it...a ONE YEAR LATER slide after the initial Beat-the-Dead afterparty would add a ton to the last part. You beat the Dead, you won everything--only you didn't. The wheel turns, the people forget, the Lords of Westeros start to dream as they emerge from famine. Yara forgets her brother's sacrifice. The Lords of the Vale forget coming to the aid of the North. The Free Folk start to think that maybe a fallen Wall is an opportunity.

Only Cersei doesn't forget. And you could introduce a further mystery: did she have a baby or not? Tell us she went into a sequester in mid-winter and isn't showing anyone the li'l Lannister. Did she or didn't she?

It's all doable in the same time frame this episode squandered on lazy bullshit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 07, 2019, 03:34:52 PM

lastly you guys are lapping up this "Dany is mad queen now" stuff way too readily. I think the critique of Varys turning on her way too easily in favor of Jon feels rushed as fuck at this point and you aren't wrong it could point to the idea that i'm wrong and we're all supposed to be on board that she is dangerous and unstable now. but I'd say the jury is still way out on that one.



Absolutely no one believes the mad queen nonsense. Not only has it never been hinted at in the show, the few times people do say it is so hamfisted it makes me laugh.

Tyrion "Oh no don't do that you'll be just like your dad"
Danny "I have a reasonable reason to kill everyone with my dragons instead of waiting for people that don't like to like me"
Tyrion "But...think of the children"

Like the show forgets why exactly the targs reigned for hundreds of years. At least in the books all the hints that she maybe losing it comes from her. She wonders if she isn't too different than her bother who literally went crazy after so many years of being "the begger king". If being a targ is a genuine curse and not just a divine right to rule. In the books she questions her self. In the show its been a rock ballad of girl power moments cap-stoned by marching a big ass army to dragonstone. Only for idiots like Tyrion to go "but oh noo your going crazy, your totally like the last guy who rapped his wife, burned friends and allies alive, and generally used everyone around him as accomplices to his many crimes and atrocities during a time when the realm was at peace." Yup your that guy.

Also 1 year later wouldn't solve anything. The show wants a conclusion and doesn't care how contrived it is to get it. The only thing time will do is to allow nerds on the internet to hand wave any new contrivance as "well you obviously didn't pay attention, clearly in an entire year Ayra could have mastered the art of flying by clapping her thighs together"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 07, 2019, 04:42:02 PM
There was Sam flipping out on Dany with Jon because she burned his father and brother to death.  That's also when I started to have doubts about her.  This may be the writers trying to make some preparation for a Crazy Dany storyline.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 07, 2019, 05:18:38 PM

lastly you guys are lapping up this "Dany is mad queen now" stuff way too readily. I think the critique of Varys turning on her way too easily in favor of Jon feels rushed as fuck at this point and you aren't wrong it could point to the idea that i'm wrong and we're all supposed to be on board that she is dangerous and unstable now. but I'd say the jury is still way out on that one.



Absolutely no one believes the mad queen nonsense. Not only has it never been hinted at in the show, the few times people do say it is so hamfisted it makes me laugh.


It's been hinted at in the show. It's just been fairly subtle up until Season 7. Season 8 is making it very clear they're going Mad Queen Dany. They've removed the two main stabilizing influences in her life. (Jorah and Missandei.) 2 of her 3 dragons are dead. Missandei also more or less told her "nuke the city". She's also coming to realize that for all her good intentions the people in Westeros mostly see her as an outsider and her only claim to the throne is her name and her one remaining dragon. If we had a couple of more normal length seasons they could make it happen more subtly but we have 6 episodes so they're hammering it home pretty quickly.


Tyrion "Oh no don't do that you'll be just like your dad"
Danny "I have a reasonable reason to kill everyone with my dragons instead of waiting for people that don't like to like me"
Tyrion "But...think of the children"


You're downplaying this but there is a reason I referred to Missandei telling Dany to "nuke" the city. We know from the books that a dragon can burn a fortress to the ground and lay waste to it. We saw in the loot train attack that they more or less turn people to ash. Tyrion isn't being a whiny person when he says that. If she turns loose with her dragon it'll be exactly what her father tried to do that got him stabbed to death by Jaime. It really is one of the key tension points going into next episode. Does Dany maintain control or does she start raining fire on tens of thousands of innocent civilians and if she does, what will be done by the other characters to stop it?

On another note, last episode had one thing that truly irritated me. Tormund, Sam and Ghost essentially getting their good byes and being written out. As awesome as Tormund was in this episode if he served no further story purpose he probably should have died in the Night King's attack. Same with Sam and Ghost. Let Gilly live so the revelation that she is pregnant has weight. Instead it appears they lived only to ride off into the sunset which doesn't feel right to me personally.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 07, 2019, 05:43:02 PM
Dany as mad queen is more believable than Sansa as a masterful game player because she acts like a bitch towards Dany.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 07, 2019, 06:10:36 PM
Here is the simple problem. None of that matters.

The show. Not even talking about the book. But the show. Never, ever, ever presented her making a irrational decision in universe. In fact nothing she has done so far has been "oh shit, only crazy people do that". In show she burns slavers to the ground to rapturous applause. She traps her hand maiden and the guy she betrayed in a closet and gets a go girl. If those moments don't define her as a monster nothing she literally done after that in season 8 is even close. Her ancestors burned half of westeros to gain the iron throne, we've had 8 seasons of actual goblins with human faces running rampant, what has Dany done or said in the show to even imply that she could go crazy? What actions are even subtle proof?

Literally where is the mad queen moment. Or implications. The only thing this show provided was a bunch of characters saying she is going mad when her plan of actions are as follows

Use dragon
???????
Profit.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 07, 2019, 06:46:10 PM
Yeah, Tywin Lanister sacked Kings landing, having a shit ton of the women and children butchered and raping all the women.  Yet he was the great respected calculating leader.  Her burning the keep down and the defenses on the wall, even if it costs the lives of some civilians as collateral, is madness!   :awesome_for_real:

I mean, even Olenna Tyrell, the equal to Tywin, told her to use the Dragons.  Are all the good rulers mad?

I'm not against them doing the mad Queen thing.  It's just that it feels like it comes out of nowhere and is really forced with how fast they are moving things.  TV series Dany is still basically the least vicious ruler after Jon Snow left in the story.  She is a puppy.

But that's what every characters plot development has suffered, to be fair.  Cersei goes from the drunk bumbling failed schemer she's been all series to suddenly just being put in charge of everything as the main super villain with zero actual effort on her part.  Sansa is supposed to have become some master of the Game of Thrones from her years of hard knocks, yet they haven't bothered showing her ever do anything like that.  Just whines a lot.  Bran went from kid learning his super powers to emotionless omnipotent lump in a chair in the space of an episode.  Ect.....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 07, 2019, 06:51:03 PM
Or maybe just try this on their next attack:

(https://i.redd.it/c42zj2cnotw21.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 07, 2019, 06:52:40 PM
There was Sam flipping out on Dany with Jon because she burned his father and brother to death.  That's also when I started to have doubts about her.  This may be the writers trying to make some preparation for a Crazy Dany storyline.

Because his father and brother fought against her in support of the Lannisters and then refused to surrender to her unconditionally.

What the fuck do you think happens to people in most wars who do that? Even when they're fighting a basically decent enemy?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 07, 2019, 06:58:18 PM
Even if Dany does decide to go all Mad Queen, how are we supposed to believe her dragon can do any damage when we have Dragonbane Ballistae on the walls and Euron's Magic Fleet in the harbor? 2 or 3 dragons vs 1 epic ballista is an interesting gambit: a dragon's probably going to die but once you take out Chekov's Crossbow you have the upper hand. Now that the weapons have entered mass production and murdered Rhaegal in seconds, the lot of them against the sole remaining dragon should be a sure thing for Cersei.

Fakeedit:
There was Sam flipping out on Dany with Jon because she burned his father and brother to death.  That's also when I started to have doubts about her.  This may be the writers trying to make some preparation for a Crazy Dany storyline.
Because his father and brother fought against her in support of the Lannisters and then refused to surrender to her unconditionally.

What the fuck do you think happens to people in most wars who do that? Even when they're fighting a basically decent enemy?
They probably would have been sent north to take the black; remember how Joffery was evil for killing Ned? Even if the Tarlys had been beheaded instead of burned alive, it would have made Dany look less crazy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 07, 2019, 07:05:11 PM
Best I can hope for at this point is Jon on the Iron Throne, Dany packs it in and goes back to Essos where people actually like her.  Most people die in hopefully at least interesting if not grisly ways.  Don't really care who as long as it's a significant number.

And Drogon turns out to be a mom and pops out some eggs before dying.  Because does anyone alive even know how to determine a flying lizard's sex anyway?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 07, 2019, 07:10:19 PM
They probably would have been sent north to take the black; remember how Joffery was evil for killing Ned? Even if the Tarlys had been beheaded instead of burned alive, it would have made Dany look less crazy.
They were actually specifically going to do that.  But Tarly announced that because she was not his Queen, she couldn't send him to the wall.  Tyrion kept giving the guy outs that entire scene and he all but demanded to be executed.  Then his dumb ass son, against his fathers will, decided he also just wanted to die for no reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 07, 2019, 09:57:39 PM
They probably would have been sent north to take the black; remember how Joffery was evil for killing Ned? Even if the Tarlys had been beheaded instead of burned alive, it would have made Dany look less crazy.
They were actually specifically going to do that.  But Tarly announced that because she was not his Queen, she couldn't send him to the wall.  Tyrion kept giving the guy outs that entire scene and he all but demanded to be executed.  Then his dumb ass son, against his fathers will, decided he also just wanted to die for no reason.

The issue isn't that they were executed. That made sense in context and was a dumb ass thing for the Tarlies to force. The issue was she burnt them alive which is explicitly a reference to her insane father.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 08, 2019, 04:56:28 AM

The issue isn't that they were executed. That made sense in context and was a dumb ass thing for the Tarlies to force. The issue was she burnt them alive which is explicitly a reference to her insane father.

Tomato, Potato. Do you want her to execute them with a greatsword? She isn't it Ned Stark.


I'm not against them doing the mad Queen thing.  It's just that it feels like it comes out of nowhere and is really forced with how fast they are moving things.  TV series Dany is still basically the least vicious ruler after Jon Snow left in the story.

This.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 08, 2019, 05:26:13 AM
Wether she likes it or not, she is also fighting a PR war, and on that front immolation is a big loss. People are resentful like that.

I don't know how to do this without Godwining the thread. Lets just say if Germany reinstated the death penalty, they wouldn't be able to use all the same executions methods as other countries without backlash. Even if death equals death.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 08, 2019, 06:30:30 AM
Joffery wasn't evil for killing Ned. Joffery was evil for killing a man who made a plea deal to surrender. Not only was the Tarly choice not even the same in that context, the implicit difference between Joffery and Dany is  very plain. Tarly never surrendered, never attempted to make a deal, so he literally got what he deserves when dealing with Dany Targ. Granted Dany could have been merciful, forced him to surrender or apply leverage on him but Dany has never been that person. Dany never used politics to win. She used force, and granted the reasons why she uses force maybe noble, the end result is a lot of people who would be contesting her right to rule dead. Dany loses every time she takes the political victory. Take that for what it means but her inability to take political victories has never casted her in a negative light in show or been a sign of madness.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 08, 2019, 06:40:58 AM

The issue isn't that they were executed. That made sense in context and was a dumb ass thing for the Tarlies to force. The issue was she burnt them alive which is explicitly a reference to her insane father.

Tomato, Potato. Do you want her to execute them with a greatsword? She isn't it Ned Stark.


She has soldiers to do the executing if needed. Jorah would've lopped their heads off no problem. By choosing to burn them to death she is explicitly making people wonder if she is following in her father's footsteps. It was a dumb decision, a cruel decision and a not so subtle sign that she may be going mad in the context of the history of her family.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 08, 2019, 08:16:01 AM
Dany as mad queen is more believable than Sansa as a masterful game player because she acts like a bitch towards Dany.

Sansa's attempts to undermine Dany aren't about personal grudges. They've made it very clear that "the North remembers" and right now the North remembers that the only Southern king who didn't take the North for granted was drunk-ass Robert Baratheon, who probably only did that because of his friendship to Ned Stark and his love for Lyanna Stark. All the rest of them just expected the North to fight their wars for them, or going back 1000 years, to be the ones who take the brunt of the damage when "Winter comes." And when Sansa asks Dany "what about the North once you've gotten what you want?" the answer was silence. Just like every other Southern king or queen of late, including the ones who killed her brother(s) and her father for their petty throne games, the answer is basically assumed to be "you'll bend the knee and shut the fuck up about it."

Sansa has every reason not to trust Dany, and if Jon, someone she grew up with whose honor she believes in (even if she thinks he's a bit of a headstrong dumbass at times) and who is from the North has a better claim to the throne than Dany, it would be insane to think she wouldn't plot against Dany.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2019, 08:20:54 AM
That might come across well in hypothetical books that we may or may not get. In the show it comes off as petty nonsense, either because of poor acting or writing (or both).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 08, 2019, 08:24:13 AM
A whole lot of the characterization and logistics problems people are having can most easily be explained by the rush to get the show done in such a small number of episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2019, 08:32:58 AM
Which I still don't excuse. There's no reason Seasons 7 and 8 shouldn't have been full, 10 episode seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 08, 2019, 08:44:21 AM

The issue isn't that they were executed. That made sense in context and was a dumb ass thing for the Tarlies to force. The issue was she burnt them alive which is explicitly a reference to her insane father.

Tomato, Potato. Do you want her to execute them with a greatsword? She isn't it Ned Stark.


She has soldiers to do the executing if needed. Jorah would've lopped their heads off no problem. By choosing to burn them to death she is explicitly making people wonder if she is following in her father's footsteps. It was a dumb decision, a cruel decision and a not so subtle sign that she may be going mad in the context of the history of her family.

She has dragons. The only reason she is even a player at this stage is having dragons. Her burning people with said dragons doesn't make her mad. It makes her a targaryen, which is literally her only real claim to the throne. In universe there is no reason why this is cruel or dumb. She is a Targaryen.

Season 7 and 8 aren't rushed. Their badly written. They've been badly written since Season 5. This is several years of bad writing coming to fruition. If you know you have to abridge a series (and they've known for years) there are ways to make accommodations for that without shitting on the pacing. They did not. Either they waited and hoped that GRRM will ride in on a dragon and finish the Winds of Winter OR they had full confidence in their ability to ad-lib the series. In either case, whether by procrastination or serious over-estimating their abilities we have Game of Why-Did-You-Do-That.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 08, 2019, 12:35:55 PM
Which I still don't excuse. There's no reason Seasons 7 and 8 shouldn't have been full, 10 episode seasons.

The episodes have generally been longer in season 7 and 8. I haven't checked but doubt they are that much shorter in minutes.

Anyway, length hasn't been the problem.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 08, 2019, 12:53:00 PM
Anyway, length hasn't been the problem.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 09, 2019, 12:58:14 AM
I am not one to nitpick stuff and am not going to do that now either....and I tend to give this show a pass for its clumsiness as of late....

But that whole episode was bullshit.  Every other scene had me cringing or rolling my eyes.  Jesus Christ. 

I will watch the last two episodes just for the visual spectacle.  No specific ending actually makes sense any more.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 09, 2019, 03:32:14 AM
From what I understand, it's not a budget issue - HBO will throw money at this shit all day long - but a lot of the core actors have other commitments now and they want to wrap this up and get on with things. I heard that basically two short seasons with a year gap between them was the only way to get everyone on board to finish the series.

HBO is not throwing infinite money on the show though and going by past seasons the show runners always had budget issues. Blackwater (S2E9) ran 2 million dollars over budget, very barely didn't get made at all if it weren't for HBO giving them the additional 2 million and which could have severely ham-strung the rest of the season if it hadn't been the penultimate episode.

S8E3 was 55 production-days of night shoots which will probably make it the most expensive GoT episode ever.

Pacing is almost always turning into a budget issue and vice versa because if you have a significant cost overrun early in a season it affects all later episodes and if your plot doesn't match your budget per episode you can't tell the story the way you want to. There's a reason why traditional 22 - 25 episode seasons had clip shows and "bottle" episodes and it's usually budget issues. They allegedly have a 90 million dollar budget for season 8 and could have reasonably gone for a 10 episode season. Season 2 allegedly had a budget of about 6 million per episode and did 10 episodes. The fact that they did 6 - even if some of them are longer - probably means that they had to spend so much on VFX and production (night shoots are very expensive) that they couldn't do 10.

My question would be if the episode count was a deliberate decision or if it simply happened to be 6 because they blew through their alotted budget early on. My guess would be that it wasn't deliberate because it usually isn't. What usually happens is that the show runners have a severe budget ovrrun early on and then either ham-string the entire rest of the season if it's a series with a fixed episode order (which gives you "character focus" episodes, clip shows and bottle episodes to compensate) or the season is shortened to compensate giving you less time to tell your story.

In addition GoT cannot simply move the rest of the plot into a season 9 because there won't be one. HBO is not planning on extending the series to another season anyway and even if they would consider it they couldn't because all of the contracts with the cast expire at the end of season 8 and so every single contract would have to be re-negotiated. This would lead to a significant increase in salaries for the main cast and in all likelihood they couldn't even get everybody back again for a season 9.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 09, 2019, 03:38:19 AM
If you make shit up as you go along the issues get more severe of course. You're less likely to fuck up your budget if you have things planned out in advance and have a resonable idea about how much of your budget you need to spend on each episode going by the plot.

In the case of GoT the show runners had the luxury to know that they'll 100% get a season 7 and 8 and a rough idea about the budget per season so they likely could have plotted out two entire seasons worth of story in advance. Which could have been 20 episodes worth of plot if they handled their budget well. It seems like they didn't though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 09, 2019, 03:47:35 AM
Let's be clear about something, though, as pertains to budgets.  They can go over budget and/or generally be restrained by budgets and that excuse only gets you so far.  HBO is making giant piles of cash on this show, probably several orders of magnitude beyond their budget expenses for the show.  So while it may be true that their are constraints from the producers' POV, that doesn't make it an excuse.  HBO could easily throw more money at it and still make a fortune.  They can get away with not doing so simply because, at this point, they know everyone is going to watch through to the end.

And to be fair, even if we wanted to make these kinds of complaints....it is still the most impressive television show ever created from a sheer production point-of-view.  The battle scenes have generally been outstanding.  I think Battle of the Bastards is the most impressive battle scene ever put to film.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 09, 2019, 03:57:52 AM
I'm pretty sure that when they announced Season 8 over 2 years ago, they had said back then it was only going to be 6 episodes.  I'm having a hard time with google, but I remember people being pissed over this.  So doubt it was them "blowing their budget early".



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 09, 2019, 03:58:49 AM
That sounds right, I think we have known this for a while.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 09, 2019, 04:08:46 AM
I'm not excusing anything, quite the opposite. They had a 100% committment from HBO that they would get a Season 6, 7 and 8 and they had a rough estimate how much money they could spend per season and how much more money HBO was willing to dump on the show in addition to that. That's a luxury that a TV production usually does not have. In normal TV it's quite common that the show runners don't even know the number of episodes ordered before they start production and contracts are awarded on a per season basis.

The GoT show runners could have planned out up to 30 episodes worth of plot in advance with a rough estimate of how much money they could spend on each episode and a "buffer" going by how much HBO was willing to spend on top of that. A competent showrunner team can do that well enough so that the story doesn't feel "rushed" at the end and so that no huge plot holes are left. A competent team even has contingecies for budget and production time overruns like bottle-episodes or other means to insert an episode with a limited budget.

There's no excuse to rush the end of the series and to open up the amount of plot holes that they did and there's also no excuse for weird characterisations and motivations.

It's not rocket science. If someone like J. Michael Straczynski can plot out a working 4 season story arc for Babylon 5 with the limited budget he had to work with then they can as well. TV with story arcs is nothing new and traditional TV usually screws that up because they don't know in advance how many episodes or seasons they have to tell their story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 09, 2019, 04:10:05 AM
I'm pretty sure that when they announced Season 8 over 2 years ago, they had said back then it was only going to be 6 episodes.  I'm having a hard time with google, but I remember people being pissed over this.  So doubt it was them "blowing their budget early".

It certainly doesn't feel like they knew in advance. If they knew it makes it even worse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 09, 2019, 04:55:31 AM
Ok, looked it up.  From this article: (https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/29/16215784/game-of-thrones-season-8-premiere-date-2019)

Quote
Game of Thrones’ eighth season will run for six episodes and may feature longer episodes
At the conclusion of Game of Thrones’ sixth season in 2016, showrunners Benioff and Weiss said that they were planning to end the show after another 13 episodes that would be split between two final seasons.

Season seven ran for seven episodes — so simple arithmetic suggested that season eight will be six episodes long. In January 2018, HBO confirmed that it will indeed contain six episodes.

It’s easy to wonder how the show could possibly wrap up all of its existing storylines in just six episodes, without speeding up its storytelling and ignoring the concept of time more than it already has.
So, they technically didn't confirm the 6 episodes until January 2018, but back in 2016 they said there would only be 13 more episodes, and that's exactly what they did (and everybody just took that as the truth, thus all the bitching).

So yeah, what you are seeing here is literally the best the writers could do knowing years ahead of time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 09, 2019, 05:33:44 AM

The issue isn't that they were executed. That made sense in context and was a dumb ass thing for the Tarlies to force. The issue was she burnt them alive which is explicitly a reference to her insane father.

Tomato, Potato. Do you want her to execute them with a greatsword? She isn't it Ned Stark.


She has soldiers to do the executing if needed. Jorah would've lopped their heads off no problem. By choosing to burn them to death she is explicitly making people wonder if she is following in her father's footsteps. It was a dumb decision, a cruel decision and a not so subtle sign that she may be going mad in the context of the history of her family.

She has dragons. The only reason she is even a player at this stage is having dragons. Her burning people with said dragons doesn't make her mad. It makes her a targaryen, which is literally her only real claim to the throne. In universe there is no reason why this is cruel or dumb. She is a Targaryen.

Season 7 and 8 aren't rushed. Their badly written. They've been badly written since Season 5. This is several years of bad writing coming to fruition. If you know you have to abridge a series (and they've known for years) there are ways to make accommodations for that without shitting on the pacing. They did not. Either they waited and hoped that GRRM will ride in on a dragon and finish the Winds of Winter OR they had full confidence in their ability to ad-lib the series. In either case, whether by procrastination or serious over-estimating their abilities we have Game of Why-Did-You-Do-That.

Dragons are WMDs. She'd be dumb not to use them in battle as they give her a significant edge. Using them to execute people is both cruel and dumb. It directly draws a line from her to her father whose claim to fame is what? Being an insane Targaryen who burned people to death. This isn't hard to figure out. It's barely even subtext. If you can't figure it out you're simply not paying attention.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 09, 2019, 05:38:53 AM
So if Targaryen == mad then why exactly is Jon Snow the better choice?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 09, 2019, 06:34:01 AM
So if Targaryen == mad then why exactly is Jon Snow the better choice?

He’s only half a Targ instead of an incest baby?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 09, 2019, 07:09:04 AM

The issue isn't that they were executed. That made sense in context and was a dumb ass thing for the Tarlies to force. The issue was she burnt them alive which is explicitly a reference to her insane father.

Tomato, Potato. Do you want her to execute them with a greatsword? She isn't it Ned Stark.


She has soldiers to do the executing if needed. Jorah would've lopped their heads off no problem. By choosing to burn them to death she is explicitly making people wonder if she is following in her father's footsteps. It was a dumb decision, a cruel decision and a not so subtle sign that she may be going mad in the context of the history of her family.

She has dragons. The only reason she is even a player at this stage is having dragons. Her burning people with said dragons doesn't make her mad. It makes her a targaryen, which is literally her only real claim to the throne. In universe there is no reason why this is cruel or dumb. She is a Targaryen.

Season 7 and 8 aren't rushed. Their badly written. They've been badly written since Season 5. This is several years of bad writing coming to fruition. If you know you have to abridge a series (and they've known for years) there are ways to make accommodations for that without shitting on the pacing. They did not. Either they waited and hoped that GRRM will ride in on a dragon and finish the Winds of Winter OR they had full confidence in their ability to ad-lib the series. In either case, whether by procrastination or serious over-estimating their abilities we have Game of Why-Did-You-Do-That.

Dragons are WMDs. She'd be dumb not to use them in battle as they give her a significant edge. Using them to execute people is both cruel and dumb. It directly draws a line from her to her father whose claim to fame is what? Being an insane Targaryen who burned people to death. This isn't hard to figure out. It's barely even subtext. If you can't figure it out you're simply not paying attention.

What made Dany's father the Mad King wasn't the fact that he killed peopled or burned them alive. Its why he did. Its the context. He didn't just burn his enemies, he picked people arbitrarily to kill in his court because of rumors and baseless suspicions. He drove a wedge between him and his own hand, and used cruelty at the slightest provocation. He was insane, fire is just a tool one of many toola he employed at the slightest discomfort.

Dany uses fire to win wars. her promise to execute them if they didnt bend the knee is not uncommon or even particularly cruel by Westeros standards. Dany never did anything out of cruelty or malice. There is a world of difference between Dany and her father.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 09, 2019, 07:55:05 AM
Aerys was a peaceful and benevolent king when he was younger as well. And when people are searching for signs of that madness creeping into her rule, it doesn't mean shit what she intended.

Madness is the curse of the Targaryens, many of them went mad for generations. And people know that. Robert Baratheon mentioned it in the series as long ago as Season 1. Master Aemons brother, for example, drank Wildfire to turn himself into a dragon (also mentioned in the series).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 09, 2019, 08:07:20 AM
So again, Jon Snow? If the whole blood line is cursed then why does Snow being a Targaryen make any sense? At least he's only half cursed and therefore half mad?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 09, 2019, 08:25:50 AM
It's not.  Again, this whole madness thing is so forced.  Tebonas already hit the things I was saying earlier in Discord.  He wasn't the mad king because he burned people, he was the mad king because he went ultra paranoid and started unjustly executing all sorts of people, and then eventually High Lords, which of course lead to mass rebellion.  Also, so afraid of knives he didn't let his nails or hair be cut so he had foot long finger nails and long rats nest hair that made him look like an ultra hobo.

If he had been a just and good king who took legitimate criminals/traitors out and had them burned alive, people would say he was eccentric, but not mad, and loved him.  The fire thing was just a light flourish to the things people actually considered him insane for.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 09, 2019, 08:36:26 AM

The issue isn't that they were executed. That made sense in context and was a dumb ass thing for the Tarlies to force. The issue was she burnt them alive which is explicitly a reference to her insane father.

Tomato, Potato. Do you want her to execute them with a greatsword? She isn't it Ned Stark.


She has soldiers to do the executing if needed. Jorah would've lopped their heads off no problem. By choosing to burn them to death she is explicitly making people wonder if she is following in her father's footsteps. It was a dumb decision, a cruel decision and a not so subtle sign that she may be going mad in the context of the history of her family.

She has dragons. The only reason she is even a player at this stage is having dragons. Her burning people with said dragons doesn't make her mad. It makes her a targaryen, which is literally her only real claim to the throne. In universe there is no reason why this is cruel or dumb. She is a Targaryen.

Season 7 and 8 aren't rushed. Their badly written. They've been badly written since Season 5. This is several years of bad writing coming to fruition. If you know you have to abridge a series (and they've known for years) there are ways to make accommodations for that without shitting on the pacing. They did not. Either they waited and hoped that GRRM will ride in on a dragon and finish the Winds of Winter OR they had full confidence in their ability to ad-lib the series. In either case, whether by procrastination or serious over-estimating their abilities we have Game of Why-Did-You-Do-That.

Dragons are WMDs. She'd be dumb not to use them in battle as they give her a significant edge. Using them to execute people is both cruel and dumb. It directly draws a line from her to her father whose claim to fame is what? Being an insane Targaryen who burned people to death. This isn't hard to figure out. It's barely even subtext. If you can't figure it out you're simply not paying attention.

What made Dany's father the Mad King wasn't the fact that he killed peopled or burned them alive. Its why he did. Its the context. He didn't just burn his enemies, he picked people arbitrarily to kill in his court because of rumors and baseless suspicions. He drove a wedge between him and his own hand, and used cruelty at the slightest provocation. He was insane, fire is just a tool one of many toola he employed at the slightest discomfort.

Dany uses fire to win wars. her promise to execute them if they didnt bend the knee is not uncommon or even particularly cruel by Westeros standards. Dany never did anything out of cruelty or malice. There is a world of difference between Dany and her father.

You're either not paying attention or being intentionally thick. Executing them by beheading and burning them alive is much, much different. One is a quick, merciful death. The other is a cruel, painful death. It's not hard to see at all. There's a reason people get shot when they're executed and not burned with a flamethrower. The show consistently equates burning people alive with characters who are, at best, morally gray and at worst utterly insane. Even if Dany's intentions weren't cruel or malicious, there are lots of people who remember her father and if you think those actions don't make them go "wait, is she another Arys?" then you're lying to yourself.

She had lots of choices in that scene. She could have had them beheaded, she could have forced them to take the black, etc etc. Instead she burnt them alive. This was a warning sign to characters like Varys and to the viewers. I immediately went "oh shit, is she going to become the mad queen?" because I picked up on the not at all subtle subtext. As did many, many viewers I assure you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 09, 2019, 08:51:48 AM
Isn't it like arguing which inmate of Arkham Asylum is the most mad, though?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 09, 2019, 09:09:39 AM
I think getting way too invested in a difference between dragonfire and decapitation is the thick thing here, especially in this universe.

Who was the person most concerned with executing people in the right and proper way in this universe, so far? Ned Stark. How'd that turn out for him?

Who has executed or righteously murdered people in other ways besides decapitation in this universe, some of them crueller by far than dragonfire, and yet not been tagged as "going MAD, I tell you, MAD".

*Arya Stark
*Sansa Stark
*Tyrion Lannister
*Jon Snow

Who has executed people in non-decapitating ways where people have not particularly regarded it as righteous and yet where that person was not instantly dubbed MAD or UNBALANCED?

*Melisandre (vag-monster, burning)
*Cersei (everyone thinks she's evil; no one says she's CRAZY or MAD)
*Stannis (via Melisandre, but still)
*Khal Drogo (people actually seemed pretty approving of his execution of Dany's brother, actually)


What kinds of methods of execution were used in the historical source material that GoT is at least partially drawing upon, sometimes by rulers regarded as basically sane and/or righteous?

*drawing and quartering
*burning people at the stake
*slow starvation in prison or in a public cage
*hanging
*crushing
*boiling (water and oil)
*crucifixion
*covering in hot tar

Nobody said that the use of these methods instantly defined a sovereign or lord as mad; their exclusive preference for the worst, or the application of the worst methods to too many prisoners of the wrong rank or status, might have drawn accusations that the ruler was cruel or capricious. This is the kind of world Martin (and the show) are drawing upon. Danerys burning two aristocratic prisoners who refused to acknowledge her sovereign authority and who refused an offer to take the black is 100% normal in the context of sovereign power in Martin's universe.


EDIT:

Let me add this quote from S7Ep5 that Riggswolfe just doesn't seem able to process:

"You cannot send me to the Wall. You are not my queen."

Not to mention that the elder Tarly offers profoundly stupid (and false) explanations of why Cersei Lannister is legitimate and Danerys is not right to her fucking face. In any remotely medieval-inspired universe, that should lead to having your balls chewed to death by rabid squirrels even if the monarch you're insulting is Louis the Pious.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 09, 2019, 09:14:19 AM
You're either not paying attention or being intentionally thick. Executing them by beheading and burning them alive is much, much different. One is a quick, merciful death. The other is a cruel, painful death. It's not hard to see at all. There's a reason people get shot when they're executed and not burned with a flamethrower. The show consistently equates burning people alive with characters who are, at best, morally gray and at worst utterly insane. Even if Dany's intentions weren't cruel or malicious, there are lots of people who remember her father and if you think those actions don't make them go "wait, is she another Arys?" then you're lying to yourself.

She had lots of choices in that scene. She could have had them beheaded, she could have forced them to take the black, etc etc. Instead she burnt them alive. This was a warning sign to characters like Varys and to the viewers. I immediately went "oh shit, is she going to become the mad queen?" because I picked up on the not at all subtle subtext. As did many, many viewers I assure you.

This is so unbelievably dense that I can't figure out if you watched the same show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 09, 2019, 09:35:56 AM
I think getting way too invested in a difference between dragonfire and decapitation is the thick thing here, especially in this universe.

Who was the person most concerned with executing people in the right and proper way in this universe, so far? Ned Stark. How'd that turn out for him?

Who has executed or righteously murdered people in other ways besides decapitation in this universe, some of them crueller by far than dragonfire, and yet not been tagged as "going MAD, I tell you, MAD".

*Arya Stark
*Sansa Stark
*Tyrion Lannister
*Jon Snow

Who has executed people in non-decapitating ways where people have not particularly regarded it as righteous and yet where that person was not instantly dubbed MAD or UNBALANCED?

*Melisandre (vag-monster, burning)
*Cersei (everyone thinks she's evil; no one says she's CRAZY or MAD)
*Stannis (via Melisandre, but still)
*Khal Drogo (people actually seemed pretty approving of his execution of Dany's brother, actually)


Out of curiosity, are any of these characters from families with a history of insanity? Do any of them have fathers whose main claim to fame is being an insane person who killed people in the same way that character just did? Jon is a Targaryen but so far hasn't done anything to show he is unstable nor was Rhaegar known for a specific method of killing people as he fell to insanity. Your examples don't mean shit in this discussion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 09, 2019, 09:55:07 AM
1st step in having a wrong opinion
Denial of evidence.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 09, 2019, 12:54:52 PM
Out of curiosity, are any of these characters from families with a history of insanity? Do any of them have fathers whose main claim to fame is being an insane person who killed people in the same way that character just did? Jon is a Targaryen but so far hasn't done anything to show he is unstable nor was Rhaegar known for a specific method of killing people as he fell to insanity. Your examples don't mean shit in this discussion.

You're reaching a lot  with your theory.  It's a mildly interesting take, but I don't think it holds up.  Doesn't seem like anyone else here does, either.  Her descent into madness, if it's not a hamfisted fake out for the sake of tension, is being thrust upon us abruptly this season and could have been handled much better.  That said, you'd be better off pointing at her grief and jealousy as others have, rather than her use of fire on traitors and rebels openly denying her right to rule to her face.

But how about Euron and those sick fantasy points, eh?  I should rename my team.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 09, 2019, 01:01:13 PM
If Euron ends up strangling Cersei, as I suspect he will, there'll be no catching you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 09, 2019, 01:09:39 PM
I agree with Riggswolfe on Dany's descent into madness and the importance of fire in that role, I'm just less willing to die on this particular hill.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 09, 2019, 01:29:00 PM
I agree with Riggswolfe on Dany's descent into madness and the importance of fire in that role, I'm just less willing to die on this particular hill.

I tend to agree as well, but more because Dany has always been a bad decision maker. She's actually one of the characters I dislike the most.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 09, 2019, 02:51:24 PM
The show was clearly emphasizing the burning as a bad thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 09, 2019, 03:05:00 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahoHDU0T44I


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 09, 2019, 03:39:00 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahoHDU0T44I

When dumb and dumber lie on their resume and get rewarded with a multi-million dollar tv series.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 09, 2019, 03:56:10 PM
*Tyrion* thinks it's a bad thing. The show:

a) is quite willing (intentionally or otherwise) to show Tyrion as a terrible advisor ever since he became Father Knows Best post murdering his own father.
b) shows the Tarly forces pissing in their pants and mostly bending the knee to Danerys, who is not wrong in thinking that her chances of getting the spontaneous love and affection of many Westerosi lords is pretty low, because most of them are traitorously self-interested fucks who obey the Iron Throne only when they're afraid of it. Think of how Robert Baratheon became king: through a rebellion in which he killed the leaders and armies of a number of other houses. Think of how the Targaryens became kings: through an invasion with dragons. Think of how some of the current Houses became major Houses: through murdering the fuck out of rival minor Houses. If you want the Iron Throne, you want a kingdom that is only kept together through force and somewhat-unwilling oaths of fealty. It is not in any sense a place where leaders engage in careful, polite, persuasive solicitation of the views of various lords and officials in order to win their leadership.
c) The show (and the books) has consistently suggested that trusting, conciliatory leaders are fucking chumps who will end up dead or tortured or both, at least in the current status quo. The Dunk and Egg stories suggest that maybe in other times, there's a place for a good soul or two to gain some respect and authority through that more solicitious and generous leadership. But mostly not even there. This is not a universe where Aragorn becomes king both because he is born to it and because he is right for it.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 09, 2019, 06:29:42 PM
Out of curiosity, are any of these characters from families with a history of insanity? Do any of them have fathers whose main claim to fame is being an insane person who killed people in the same way that character just did? Jon is a Targaryen but so far hasn't done anything to show he is unstable nor was Rhaegar known for a specific method of killing people as he fell to insanity. Your examples don't mean shit in this discussion.

You're reaching a lot  with your theory.  It's a mildly interesting take, but I don't think it holds up.  Doesn't seem like anyone else here does, either.  Her descent into madness, if it's not a hamfisted fake out for the sake of tension, is being thrust upon us abruptly this season and could have been handled much better.  That said, you'd be better off pointing at her grief and jealousy as others have, rather than her use of fire on traitors and rebels openly denying her right to rule to her face.

But how about Euron and those sick fantasy points, eh?  I should rename my team.

Her grief and jealousy of Jon are the final catalyst. I don't think it's an accident she lost Jorah then Missandei one right after the other. Those two are, arguably, her conscience and voice of reason given human form. Missandei's final words being Dracarys likely doesn't bode well for anyone in King's Landing. It is fairly hamfisted due to the absurdly short seasons and how much they need to cover in those seasons. But the precedent has been set before, it's just gone from fairly subtle hints to in our face, again, I believe because of a lack of time to properly develop the story as it deserves.

All of the actors have said the finale is "divisive" and "bittersweet" and similar things so I suspect we'll either see Dany go mad as they've hinted strongly at or Varys will kill her because he believes she is going mad or will go mad. I mean, I guess it could be a double fake out. Varys tries to kill her, it's the last straw and she loses her shit and kills Cersei then kills Jon to prevent a challenge to her and the show ends with Dany on the throne and being the Mad Queen. I could almost see it in the books simply because Martin likes the stories to have history that repeats. Not that we'll ever know because he won't ever finish the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 09, 2019, 07:24:41 PM
One last shot at this. What made the Mad King mad, from the perspective of his peers?

He'd had a rough life, for a king. Stillborn children, his sons dead, he was held captive in terrible circumstances for months, he was without the defining characteristic of his dynasty (dragons).

But it's what he did as a result. After all of that, he was massively paranoid. Everything was a plot against him; he had people killed for blinking wrong. He decided that sharp instruments were all dangerous, and refused all personal hygiene that involved scissors or cutting instruments of any kind. We're talking decades here of being freaky and arbitrary and cruel, not a couple of judgment calls. Even as a young ruler he was sort of a crazy person at times. This is a guy who decided after his captivity to kill every member of the two families involved after having them tortured extensively. Every.single.member. Babies, old people, fifth cousins, you name it.

(Notably, he HIRED Varys because he was so paranoid, which raises some interesting questions...)

Martin's backstory is very careful to say that Aerys went nuts first because of the circumstances of his life but also that he was unlike his children and family--that he was a paranoid freakshow by the end. The show has done *nothing* to develop even a hint of this kind of temperament in Danerys. I can see that they may want to sell us on it, but they haven't committed to it one iota.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 09, 2019, 09:49:16 PM
You're talking about book Arys. And the Arys from background source material GRRM has brought up. None of this is really brought up in the show. In one of Bran's visions he has long fingernails and a long beard and hair but I don't remember the show going into this much detail. The show simplified him down to "he was insane and burned people to death for no particular reason."

If Dany took the actions she did in the books, it wouldn't be enough to be considered foreshadowing but I think in the show it is because the show has stripped a lot of this kind of background stuff out for various reasons.

I did some looking because I can't remember how much he comes up in the show and found this wiki entry:

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Aerys_II_Targaryen (https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Aerys_II_Targaryen)

It does have a few notable entries about Dany:

Quote
Season 5

In Meereen, Ser Barristan Selmy grows increasingly concerned about the actions taken by Aerys's daughter Daenerys, who had earlier brutally executed 163 slavers after conquering Meereen. He discusses his experience while serving as a Kingsguard to her father. Despite Barristan's deep loyalty to the Targaryen dynasty, he reveals to Daenerys that her enemies did not lie when they called her father the "Mad King". Barristan recalls how Aerys set towns and castles aflame, murdered sons in front of their fathers, and burned men alive with wildfire, laughing all the while. These brutal actions lead to a revolt that toppled the Targaryen dynasty. Daenerys insists she is not like her father, which Barristan agreed. Still, he states that like Daenerys, her father had ordered these brutalities because he too felt he was dispensing "justice" and it made him feel powerful and right, until the very end.

Quote
Season 7
Varys notes to Daenerys that her father was cruel and mad, and that Robert Baratheon was a vast improvement. Later, Olenna Tyrell explains how her father wasn't peaceful in the least, but Daenerys should be still be ruthless if she is to conquer the Seven Kingdoms.

[snip]

After the execution of Randyll and Dickon Tarly following the battle of the Goldroad, Varys compares Daenerys to Aerys, as he did the same with Rickard and Brandon Stark. Varys then implores Tyrion to make her listen, fearing that this will make her be viewed in a similar fashion to her father.

I do think there were subtle hints that TV Dany had the potential to become TV Arys. That subtlety has been discarded in Season 8. Whether it is a fake out or a twist that they're foreshadowing heavily we'll probably know on Sunday as I doubt the final episode will be "Mad Queen Dany" but hell, maybe Dany is the final boss of the final episode. Who the hell knows at this point.





Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 10, 2019, 03:41:51 AM
Actually in the show they make many references to why Aerys was the mad king. What he did to people, why he did it, and why no one was sad to see him go.

Anyway if your unwilling to acknowledge that the show is forcing a bullshit unearned narrative about Dany than thats on your taste in fiction. Having consumed both the books and the tv show and there is a mountain of evidence that the tv show hasn't made any real attempts to earn the mad king narrative and just using it because it was a part of the books commentary about Dany. A commentary that only exist because that was Dany's inner thoughts about herself.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 10, 2019, 03:48:57 AM
Aerys.

The interesting part is the effort made to tell us how he only went mad after Duskendale. Making clear that he wasn't at all mad until he was.

Seems entirely reasonable plotting that Dany's ultimate tragedy is that trying to take KL sends her bonkers.

She very obviously cannot win the throne, so needs some kind of tragedy. I assumed she was set up for the big damn sacrifice. But tbh this would fit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 10, 2019, 04:01:12 AM
The whole point after 5 books and 8 TV seasons worth of scheming, slaughter and madness should have been that no one can win the throne, not even the Ikea rug wearing Jesus stand-in who abandons his dog for some pouty blonde pyromaniac.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 10, 2019, 05:52:17 AM
Just in case you need further convincing, the scene with Euron shooting the dragon is in fact really really fucking dumb.

https://www.tor.com/2019/05/08/doing-the-math-on-game-of-thrones-season-8-episode-4/


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 10, 2019, 06:38:29 AM
Of course it's dumb. A ballista is a siege weapon or used for ship to ship combat. The biggest models allegedly had the range to "cross the Danube" and estimates put the effective range of the largest ballista ever made at 500 yards. The firing arc is between 15 and 45 degrees and the big models had to be wound by several men under the help of "machines" and pulleys. The Romans usually didn't even bother shooting bolts and instead used them to shoot large rocks or greek fire. It would be almost impossible to hit a highly mobile flying target at range with such a weapon and the 45 degree arc means they'd be unsuitable as "anti-air" weponry. The ballistic arc of most ballistas was a meager 15 degrees or about the same as that of a cannon.

You also couldn't freely aim them because they were either fixed installations (e.g. on defense towers) or mounted onto wagons pulled by horses.

They were used to tear down fortified walls during sieges (shooting rocks) or to clear the walls from enemies. As battlefield wepons they were used against armor (horses, enemy soldiers) or enemy engines and wagons. Those things might work if you can aim them at an enemy army because it will likely hit someone out of the hundreds of people charging you and dedicated gunners were even able to take out indicidual slow moving targets.

The Javelin throw by the Night King - right out of a Leni Riefenstahl movie - made more sense than that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 10, 2019, 06:52:16 AM
As the article puts it.

He would have needed to hit a fast moving dragon at twice the effective range of the biggest ballista ever built (which probably not coincidentally was also called Scorpion). While using iron sights and not reckoning. A ballista that is magically unaffected by gravity or wind (there's a reason why we call "ballistic" weapons that) can be freely aimed even though it is fixed to a ship which is magically unaffected by the motion of the sea. It also fires the bolt with so much force that the kinetic energy after covering 1000 yards is still enough to penetrate dragon skin and which reloads so quickly that you can rapid fire it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 10, 2019, 07:16:57 AM
I'm 100% sure that if in Martin's notes it says, "A Greyjoy kills a dragon", it's with the horn that Victarion got from Euron, not a fucking crossbow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 10, 2019, 09:01:14 AM
Actually in the show they make many references to why Aerys was the mad king. What he did to people, why he did it, and why no one was sad to see him go.

Anyway if your unwilling to acknowledge that the show is forcing a bullshit unearned narrative about Dany than thats on your taste in fiction. Having consumed both the books and the tv show and there is a mountain of evidence that the tv show hasn't made any real attempts to earn the mad king narrative and just using it because it was a part of the books commentary about Dany. A commentary that only exist because that was Dany's inner thoughts about herself.

Unless Martin finishes the books we'll never know his plans for her. But it is possible his notes say something like "Dany tragically goes mad after going to Westeros and losing everything important to her and realizing she is a stranger in her own homeland." I think where I see subtle hints in prior seasons you see only the super obvious stuff from this season. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, we'll know their plans for sure over the next two weeks.

re: Scorpions

I try not to think much about the specifics on this kind of thing. I sort of chalk it up to "shit never works real in movies and tv. People don't slow walk while something explodes behind them. They get tossed through the air and their insides are turned into paste but screw it, it looks cool."

If I was forced to make an excuse besides "it's a tv show" I'd probably go with "Qyburn clearly has some kind of alchemical magic since he brought the Mountain back as a zombie. I guess the Scorpions are some kind of magic he made too?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 10, 2019, 09:05:25 AM
Lena Headley's take on the Cersei-Euron sex scene:

Quote
The viewer assumes Cersei feels like she cannot afford to risk losing Euron as ally if she goes to war with Daenerys.

“I kept saying, ‘She wouldn’t, she wouldn’t, that she would keep fighting,’” Headey tells EW. “But [showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss] obviously know what they’re doing and were adamant Cersei would do what she had to do.”

The last sentence sounds like spoken in Greentext.  :grin:

Also Pilou Asbeack aka Euron said in an answer to a fan question:

(https://i.imgur.com/zmQjTSw.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 10, 2019, 09:23:41 AM
It sounds like Euron's actor is throwing some shade at the writers. "Yeah, they made me one-dimensional but what can I do except play what I'm given?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 10, 2019, 10:32:24 AM
That's how exactly I read it, yes. Same as Headley's more subtle "I was against it but the showrunners obviously know what they are doing..."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 10, 2019, 01:06:08 PM
That's how exactly I read it, yes. Same as Headley's more subtle "I was against it but the showrunners obviously know what they are doing..."

I disagree with Headley actually. Cersei has shown she knows how to wield sex as a way to manipulate people and that's how I viewed her tryst with Euron. She always looks a bit annoyed by his presence but like she is trying her best to pretend otherwise and I found her actions to fit pretty well with how she has acted in the past.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 10, 2019, 01:13:14 PM
That's how exactly I read it, yes. Same as Headley's more subtle "I was against it but the showrunners obviously know what they are doing..."

I disagree with Headley actually. Cersei has shown she knows how to wield sex as a way to manipulate people and that's how I viewed her tryst with Euron. She always looks a bit annoyed by his presence but like she is trying her best to pretend otherwise and I found her actions to fit pretty well with how she has acted in the past.

Seriously, has she not read the books? Cersei was fucking everyone who could even superficially benefit her, or not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 10, 2019, 04:04:59 PM
That's how exactly I read it, yes. Same as Headley's more subtle "I was against it but the showrunners obviously know what they are doing..."

I disagree with Headley actually. Cersei has shown she knows how to wield sex as a way to manipulate people and that's how I viewed her tryst with Euron. She always looks a bit annoyed by his presence but like she is trying her best to pretend otherwise and I found her actions to fit pretty well with how she has acted in the past.

Seriously, has she not read the books? Cersei was fucking everyone who could even superficially benefit her, or not.

I doubt most of them have read the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 10, 2019, 11:28:23 PM
That's how exactly I read it, yes. Same as Headley's more subtle "I was against it but the showrunners obviously know what they are doing..."

I disagree with Headley actually. Cersei has shown she knows how to wield sex as a way to manipulate people and that's how I viewed her tryst with Euron. She always looks a bit annoyed by his presence but like she is trying her best to pretend otherwise and I found her actions to fit pretty well with how she has acted in the past.

I'm not disagreeing with that in principle. Book Cersei absolutely offered herself around when she thought that would be the way to get someone particularly important on side. I don't remember the character's name but I recall that she fucked one of Margaery's retinue specifically to get him to snitch on her.

The issue with the Euron/Cersei scene specifically was that she just told him "If you want a whore, buy one; if you want a queen, earn one." Then she turns around literally seconds later and goes, "Actually, you know what, none of that applies to you."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Comstar on May 11, 2019, 12:29:38 AM
So that link above (https://www.tor.com/2019/05/08/doing-the-math-on-game-of-thrones-season-8-episode-4/) says the Scorpion Bolt has a range better than a Nazi V1 rocket that could bombard London.

That's it, everyone surrender, there's no way they can withstand firepower of that magnitude. Dragon's or no no dragon's, those bolts can bombard The Wall. No wounder they wern't concerned with the White Walkers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 11, 2019, 01:42:22 AM


Seriously, has she not read the books? Cersei was fucking everyone who could even superficially benefit her, or not.

No one cares about your stupid books. :p


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: SurfD on May 11, 2019, 04:08:56 AM
If Euron ends up strangling Cersei, as I suspect he will, there'll be no catching you.
Almost guarantee that at some point, Jamie will make it into Cercei's presence (while Euron is also there) and manage to drop the fact that the child is His into open conversation, which will immediately result in Euron gutting Cercei like a fish.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 11, 2019, 04:32:38 AM
I think there is no child.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 11, 2019, 08:49:12 AM
One of the things that HAS to happen is Cersei’s prophecy.  Jamie or Tyrion has to strangle her at some point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 11, 2019, 08:52:36 AM
That part of the prophesy was very specifically NOT in the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 11, 2019, 11:46:19 AM
One of the things that HAS to happen is Cersei’s prophecy.  Jamie or Tyrion has to strangle her at some point.

The prophecy refers to the "hands of the valonqar [little brother]".  "Hands" plural, and "the" little brother, not "your" little brother.

Tyrion's hands aren't big enough (unless he somehow uses that same "hand necklace" he used to strangle Shae), and Jaime only has one hand.

Euron has two hands, is very capable of using them to strangle Cersei, and is Balon's little brother.  My other top pick for the valonqar is the Hound, for similar reasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 11, 2019, 12:45:48 PM
That part of the prophesy was very specifically NOT in the show.

Very true.  That could mean they went a different way, or they thought is was too hard to explain, or it was a spoiler.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 11, 2019, 01:07:47 PM
Ironically Dany's prophesy about the "mummer's dragon" was, and they completely forgot about it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 11, 2019, 01:11:34 PM
One of the things that HAS to happen is Cersei’s prophecy.  Jamie or Tyrion has to strangle her at some point.

The prophecy refers to the "hands of the valonqar [little brother]".  "Hands" plural, and "the" little brother, not "your" little brother.

Tyrion's hands aren't big enough (unless he somehow uses that same "hand necklace" he used to strangle Shae), and Jaime only has one hand.

Euron has two hands, is very capable of using them to strangle Cersei, and is Balon's little brother.  My other top pick for the valonqar is the Hound, for similar reasons.

I'm fairly sure the book plan is for Jamie is to kill Cersei with the Hand's chain, like Tyrion killed Shae.

Seems very likely TV Jamie is going to kill TV Cersei, though the valonqar is not a TV thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 11, 2019, 04:19:30 PM
What if tyrion and jamie each use one hand and use the hand chain. Three hands.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 12, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Fantasy GoT Scores update for those following along at home:

Phildo - 650
Soln - 510
Rendakor - 480
Cyrrex - 460
MahrinSkel - 345
Teleku - 340
Strazos - 260
Samwise - 230

There are so many dead characters at this point that anything can happen! And the winner of this will make at least half as much sense as whoever ends up on the Iron Throne...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 12, 2019, 07:30:41 PM
Well that was gratuitous and fuckstupid. Jesus Christ.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: rattran on May 12, 2019, 07:33:29 PM
A sad job selling us on a Mad Queen, no wonder the actress was mocking the final season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 12, 2019, 07:37:51 PM
So in one episode, they are reloading and firing in like 2 seconds. And in the next episode they can’t even get a single shot off that lands?

One more episode then I can stop ever having to think about this garbage.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 12, 2019, 07:45:57 PM
I'm back on Team Stannis.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 12, 2019, 07:49:55 PM
Well that was gratuitous and fuckstupid. Jesus Christ.

Yup.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 12, 2019, 08:01:45 PM
Fitting that this is mother's day, i bet there's a lot of morons regretting naming their kid Khaleesi right about now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 12, 2019, 08:45:34 PM
Mad Queen Dany as predicted. I was a bit bummed that Cersei got such an easy way out. I did like Arya and the Hound's arc in this episode and that beautiful final shot of Arya on the pale horse was some damn foreshadowing if I've ever seen it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 12, 2019, 08:52:44 PM
They are telegraphing Arya to kill Dany from a mile away. Or maybe a tag team of Jon and Arya. Any pretense of subtlety or surprise is fucking gone, in favor of 30 minutes plus of DRAGONRAAAAWWWRRRRFIREGUD!!!!!

Clegane Bowl did not disappoint, however.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 12, 2019, 08:57:41 PM
They are telegraphing Arya to kill Dany from a mile away. Or maybe a tag team of Jon and Arya. Any pretense of subtlety or surprise is fucking gone, in favor of 30 minutes plus of DRAGONRAAAAWWWRRRRFIREGUD!!!!!

Clegane Bowl did not disappoint, however.

The short season is causing lots of rushed storytelling. I'm not sure Jon will be able to bring himself to kill Dany. Then again Dany did say "Jon Snow betrayed me." So she may be ready to execute Jon and Tyrion next episode and Arya will have to step in.

Still leaves me to wonder what the hell happens to Drogon though. Even if they kill Dany there's still a dragon and the only Scorpion that may exist is under the red keep. (the one Clyburn used for his demo to Cersei.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 12, 2019, 09:20:33 PM
Arya did not seem in character.  She has been focused on revenge for her father since he was beheaded.  For her to go through all she went through, get to the end, and then in a few seconds get turned around by the Hound of all people.  Did not seem right.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 12, 2019, 09:57:03 PM
Did not enjoy. Actually relishing seeing the end of this nonsense at this point.

If Varys betrayed Dany in Season 3, it would have been a season long arc with her killing him at the end. In this bullshit season we get 2 or 3 scenes.

I did like Euron's joy in being the man to kill Jaime Lannister. He was bugfuck and bloodthirsty to the end.

Speaking of Jaime...he must have gotten several blood transfusions and some major surgery offscreen, because he was mobile a fuckton longer than anyone who had a dagger buried in their torso TWICE should ever be. I hope he and Cersei somehow survive the collapse just to finish off the idiocy.

Liked Arya calling the Hound by his first name. Liked The Mountain being completely, terriyingly silent. Was hoping The Hound would prevail, but he at least he got what he wanted.

I hope Jon Snow realizes Dany has to die, but can't bring himself to do it...as he agonizes over it, Arya appears and cuts Dany's throat: roll credits. That might be the only way to save what is left of the show's dignity.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 12, 2019, 10:03:42 PM
Rocks fall, but did everyone die?  it's open to plot writing whether Cersei or Euron are dead.  Jaime should have died from at least two mortal wounds. whereas Euron has a (plot inflicted) gut wound.  Those are fatal but notoriously slow.  He can still kill her if the collapse (and showrunners) didn't.

Arya is probably killing Dany.  I agree that it is rushed, but not out of character.  I would expect Jon kills Grey Wurm, is fucked up but Arya ninjas Dany.  If they don't do some stupid "Dany turns into a dragon" shit.

Cleganebowl was ok.  Killing his brother with fire is somehow fitting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 12, 2019, 10:15:21 PM
There's garbage and there's whatever is below garbage and then there's Game of Thrones.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 12, 2019, 10:17:01 PM
Yeah it is really staggering to the finish line, pants full and dripping.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 12, 2019, 10:54:25 PM
I was a bit bummed that Cersei got such an easy way out.

Fuck you too, buddy! :p

Edit: I haven't seen the episode and not sure I care enough to do by now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 12, 2019, 11:21:00 PM
A sad job selling us on a Mad Queen, no wonder the actress was mocking the final season.

They are all mocking the final season. The post GoT interviews by the cast have not been kind to both the final season and the showrunners.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 12, 2019, 11:30:34 PM
What the fuck was that? Do Benioff and Weiss hate working on the show that much? Apart from the Clegane fight that was utter junk from start to finish. And I don't even try to assign motivations for any character, because character development doesn't mean shit anymore.

They achieved the impossible. I'm glad the show is done after next week.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Wasted on May 13, 2019, 04:19:57 AM
At least they didn't fuck up Cleganebowl.  I liked Arya actually taking the Hounds advice, it was a great moment.

Dany's fuckstupid Mad Queen has almost ruined the entire show in retrospect though.  I'm so glad this is ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 13, 2019, 04:46:16 AM
The Cleganes was shit. Just fan service and did nothing to finish Sandor's arc. It served no real purpose.

Varys' storyline was also shit, as was Tirion's. Again, it served no purpose as Jon and Tyrion seem to have become totally inept at understanding anything compared to their earlier characters.

A piss poor effort all round, the theories generated in forums etc had more depth than this shitty conclusion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 13, 2019, 05:14:46 AM
Talking about this on Facebook, I mentioned that Dany had been telegraphed to go mad queen since season 7. To my surprise, one of the replies I got said "No, she's been telegraphed to go Mad Queen for years. Her first instinct is burn and slaughter but Jorah or Missandei talk her down everytime. They're gone now, that's why she finally let loose."

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out next episode. Just for shits and giggles my broad stroke predictions:

Arya kills Dany.
Somehow they take out Drogon or he flies off and terrorizes the countryside for years to come.
Jon banishes himself to the Far North.
The kingdoms splinter as they were pre-Targayren.
Sansa rules an independent North.
Tyrion returns to Casterly Rock and rules over what is left of it.
Gendry stays in the North since his only claim to Storms End is from a mad Targayren.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2019, 05:33:49 AM
Arya did not seem in character.  She has been focused on revenge for her father since he was beheaded.  For her to go through all she went through, get to the end, and then in a few seconds get turned around by the Hound of all people.  Did not seem right.

Part of it was that Cersei had already lost and the damn castle was crumbling on top of them. She didn't just give up on revenge, she saw the pointlessness of pushing on under current circumstances.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: satael on May 13, 2019, 06:10:12 AM
So what's going to happen to all those Dothraki and Unsullied if Dany dies? (especially if she gets ganked by a Stark)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 13, 2019, 06:23:32 AM
They're gonna be really upset when Jon rides in on a bran dragon and burns them while dany gets her face stabbed in by Arya.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 13, 2019, 06:30:01 AM
So what's going to happen to all those Dothraki and Unsullied if Dany dies? (especially if she gets ganked by a Stark)

I'd think either the Northmen and Unsullied and Dothraki turn on each other or they disband and become mercs and bandits and such.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 13, 2019, 06:43:55 AM
That was a pretty good episode of a TV show.

Thoughts and prayers to you all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2019, 06:50:31 AM
So what's going to happen to all those Dothraki and Unsullied if Dany dies? (especially if she gets ganked by a Stark)

They will magically turn weak enough to easily defeat.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 13, 2019, 07:28:36 AM
Considering they only lost half their forces at Winterfell, they'll probably overrun Westeros regardless of what happens to Dany.  Maybe they'll recover some of the Scorpions and take the Iron Islands, too.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 13, 2019, 07:42:40 AM
They have 79 minutes left to wrap things up, chances are there'll be a lot of open threads left because nothing except a giant meteor striking Westeros will help at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2019, 07:53:14 AM
I don't think there's very much to wrap up to be honest.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 13, 2019, 07:55:50 AM
Talking about this on Facebook, I mentioned that Dany had been telegraphed to go mad queen since season 7. To my surprise, one of the replies I got said "No, she's been telegraphed to go Mad Queen for years. Her first instinct is burn and slaughter but Jorah or Missandei talk her down everytime. They're gone now, that's why she finally let loose."

I was thinking on this last night. Dany's story arc has NEVER been good. In the books and in the TV show, her arc is just fucking bad. Every time she showed up on the other side of the world from the Westeros stuff, the story would drag and the only reason Khal Drogo's part of it was interesting was because Mamoa played the character. Otherwise, Dany's just a terrible character. Her entire motivation is "they tooks my thronez!!!!" and I feel like the whole "Breaker of Chains" thing was just some shit Martin made up to make the character sympathetic, a long con fake out so that you didn't immediately know "this bitch be crazy."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 13, 2019, 08:00:15 AM
After all Daenerys went through including being basically sold off by her own brother "all of those fuckers need to burn" should and would have been a believable motivation. It's hard to turn this into a sympathetic character but it would work.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2019, 08:12:29 AM
It would have gone better if she started off burning everything from the beginning of the battle and then mentally struggled to stop when the bells started ringing. Having her go mad when she had clearly already achieved total victory with nothing to trigger her at that moment didn't work as well.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 13, 2019, 08:13:05 AM
They have 79 minutes left to wrap things up, chances are there'll be a lot of open threads left because nothing except a giant meteor striking Westeros will help at this point.

did you not see the last episode?

the giant meteor was shaped like a dragon


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 13, 2019, 08:22:01 AM
still too many loose threads


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 13, 2019, 09:19:02 AM
Game of Loose Ends.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 13, 2019, 09:46:23 AM
What loose threads?  The show only cares about Danaerys, Jon, Sansa and Arya at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 13, 2019, 09:55:50 AM
Snipping loose ends without 80% of your audience calling you out for bullshit is the game.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 13, 2019, 10:08:02 AM
What loose ends are really left, aside from who (if anyone) ends up on the Iron Throne? The Hound's dead, Cersei and her baby are dead with nary a Valonqar in sight, Euron's dead, Melisandre's dead, Varys is dead, there is no Young Griff, no Lady Stoneheart, and so on. The last two seasons burned every interesting plot thread to the ground, because the showrunners can't write well when they aren't adapting the books. We have the Jon x Dany conflict still in play and that's honestly about it.

I'm asking honestly: Are there any unanswered questions still out there that haven't been invalidated by the last few episodes?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 13, 2019, 10:30:49 AM
In Fantasy GoT news, I think it's safe to say Phildo has a lock on the win since he has Daenerys on his team and a 300 point lead. Dany almost certainly has 200 points coming next episode for taking the Iron Throne (since I'm assuming she'll get it even if she doesn't hold it); even if someone else takes the throne (200p), kills Dany (25p) and Drogon (150p), and survives as King (30 or maybe 50, I'm not sure if Survive and survive as King/Queen are cumulative) that is unlikely to close the gap unless things really get crazy. Particularly because Jon's the most likely one to pull it off, and he's on Strazos's team who is in dead last. Soln has Arya but no one else alive and a 450p deficit to overcome...


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 13, 2019, 10:38:03 AM
What loose ends are really left, aside from who (if anyone) ends up on the Iron Throne? The Hound's dead, Cersei and her baby are dead with nary a Valonqar in sight, Euron's dead, Melisandre's dead, Varys is dead, there is no Young Griff, no Lady Stoneheart, and so on. The last two seasons burned every interesting plot thread to the ground, because the showrunners can't write well when they aren't adapting the books. We have the Jon x Dany conflict still in play and that's honestly about it.

I'm asking honestly: Are there any unanswered questions still out there that haven't been invalidated by the last few episodes?

The entirety of season 7 and 8 has been snipping loose ends.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on May 13, 2019, 11:24:03 AM
A few cool scenes and some great cinematography, lost in the morass of severely rushed story line.

It did produce my new wallpaper though:

(https://i.redd.it/xtup21qj8wx21.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 13, 2019, 01:14:36 PM
I watched Cersei's and Jamie's death and bah that was emotional. Kinda sad now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 13, 2019, 02:03:31 PM
Probably not the popular choice, but this my favourite Cersei outfit:

(https://i.imgur.com/kcUD56o.jpg)

The rigidity of both the dress and hairstyle, with the heavy cloak adding extra layer just says power and status.

Fuck being an hyper-feminin harlot trying to entice men, like Margery. Cersei never was content with just being a woman, she wanted to be a second Tywin. (Also closest how the ideal-me would be.) Power is power and fuck the peons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2019, 02:10:36 PM
Her dark queen shoulderpad dresses were so much cooler than that. This one (https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/Product/VariationDetails/74554), on a toy but its the best picture i found. That one looks like a dog blanket over a potato sack to be honest.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 13, 2019, 02:23:03 PM
That one looks like a dog blanket over a potato sack to be honest.

You know nothing. :grin:

The black outfit does look very cool, but I hesitate to call it a dress. More a stylized armor. Suitable to review the troops and when blowing up sept but a bit over the top other times.

That's why miss her fancy season 1 and 2 hairdo: it's almost forms a crown on it's own. Royal without screaming comic book villain:

(https://i.imgur.com/JHvyh2F.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2019, 02:23:25 PM
I was expecting a Dornish level shit show after reading this thread. But you know what, it was fine.

Yes, gratituitous overlong and overblown. But the show has been far worse things in the second half of its run. This wasn't 'dudes go ranging to capture a fucking zombie'.

Clegane bowl. Hey-Jon-you-are-the-hound-killing-a-raper. Cersei and Jamie. Mad Dany. Tyrion's desparation. Aryas PoV. I was fine with all of it.

One thing I did like is that it delivered on the number of times the books say that a city getting sacked fucking sucks. And makes me think GRRMs notes are in there somewhere.

The thing that sucks most is that where Westeros goes from here should be interesting, but isn't and can't be because lol GoT writers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: 01101010 on May 13, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
So what are the chances the final scene cuts to GRRM sitting at his desk in front of a bunch of miniatures, picking one up and placing it on the tiny iron throne... then turning to eyeball the camera and winking?

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 13, 2019, 03:04:57 PM
Cersei sucks ass and I'm glad she was crushed as an afterthought even though it was terrible television.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 13, 2019, 03:35:56 PM
Shamelessly stolen:

Season 1, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 2, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 3, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 4, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 5, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 6, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 7, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 8 Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 8 Sandor: "Yeah she's going to kill Cersie!"
5 mins later Sandor: "Wait, maybe don't kill Cersie!"
Arya: "M'kay, thanks bye!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 13, 2019, 03:42:38 PM

The rigidity of both the dress and hairstyle, with the heavy cloak adding extra layer just says power and status.


That facial expression of "Someone execute that irritating little cunt" sells it for me.

I still hold hopes that "rocks fall, everyone dies" is not the actual end of Cersei and there's a real finale next week, but I'm guessing I'll be disapointed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2019, 03:44:26 PM
Shamelessly stolen:

Season 1, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 2, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 3, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 4, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 5, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 6, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 7, Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 8 Arya: "I'm going to kill Cersie"
Season 8 Sandor: "Yeah she's going to kill Cersie!"
5 mins later Sandor: "Wait, maybe don't kill Cersie!"
Arya: "M'kay, thanks bye!"

That's not really fair, Cersei was utterly beaten and almost assuredly dead already the only question was if Arya was willing to die just to make sure she got to do it herself. And even then it wasn't a sure thing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 13, 2019, 04:03:09 PM
YES, of course she's been telegraphed to go Mad Queen, but *they didn't write her character development that way*. Because they were working from plot outlines and notes and because they're hacks. So it didn't work--because the showrunners have been sold on the idea that the best plot twists in GOT are "twists". This one shouldn't be a twist, it should be the fulfillment of something we knew was coming in a steady, character-driven way. Season 7 on should have hit this drum beat regularly, without fail.

I suspect that book Varys ends up with Dany after his *other* heir fails him, and is wary of her from the outset.

You can just feel the waves of "I'm so tired and bored of this thing, let me out of here" coming off the showrunners. The cast, bless them, are professional enough to keep at it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hoax on May 13, 2019, 04:22:52 PM
Shame. They could have done the heel turn even within the episode without it being such a mess. All you needed was one civilian throwing a rock at Drogon or yelling something or dropping one on a Dothraki or Unsullied. Just anything besides. Welp this is over and fuck it going to do it anyways. I'm not looking to be displeased like so many of you often seem to be but yeah I just sat there feeling uncomfortable through the second half.

Also magical scorpions were made even worse by this ep making them into the realistically not so great anti-dragon weapons they should have always been.

Also imagine. The other dragon is alive (the ambush scared them but didn't kill it). Jon is riding it. They blow up the iron fleet by coming out of the sun together. They take out the city defenses. They think they got them all. Bells are ringing. Full surrender in the streets. But one scorpion and one hardass is left and they get that super lucky throat shot from the water ambush. The dragon and Jon go plummeting down. Everyone is really extra surrendered. She burns them anyways. Just pure malice and spite and madness. Burns the whole fucking place.

Of course Jon is alive but hurt and can only watch and we watch him watch.

Anyone could have come up with something a bit better given some time. FeelsBadMan Like you all can say any mad queen thing is shit. But I think its actually quite GoT and good tv. Its uncomfortable. We want her to be a hero because heroes should win etc. but if you are going to subvert that feelgood stuff you better dot your i's and do a good job. Which they didn't so people are extra mad.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 13, 2019, 05:02:07 PM
The problem is that they way the showrunners set it up is just another bad tv trope. The mad woman is mad because bitches be crazy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 13, 2019, 05:06:40 PM
Literally any reason other than "Fuck it, kill 'em all" would have sold it better. I'm not upset that they went the Mad Queen route, I'm upset that they didn't justify the transition. Even if she had just been angry all episode, told Tyrion and his surrender plan to fuck off and just committed to no quarter it would have been better: Missandei's death is a believable trigger, particularly after Jorah's death and factoring in Varys's betrayal.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 13, 2019, 05:07:50 PM
The mad woman is mad because bitches be crazy.

Except they did manage to take a whole minute to have pretty much everyone she cares about either die or betray her in some capacity, while every Westerosi aside from Jon has been giving her the sink eye since she landed.  Sloppily executed, but at least there's more to it than "bitches be crazy" or even "Targaryens be crazy".  The latter is at least a factor, but not the whole story.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 13, 2019, 05:23:03 PM
Definite improvement (https://streamable.com/pfy2l)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 13, 2019, 06:00:24 PM
When the hound reached down and grabbed the dagger to stab the Mountain, I was deeply disappointed to see it wasn't dragon glass.   :awesome_for_real:

Agree with most of the complaints about this, so won't repeat them.  It was a beautifully shot episode, I will give them that.  As I mentioned in Discord, its so painfully obvious when Miguel Sapochnik directs because the scene setups, editing, cinematography.... everything is just so starkly better than other episodes.  At the very least hope we get to see him doing more stuff after this is all done.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 13, 2019, 06:46:36 PM
And hey, my prediction Kings Landing would get destroyed came true!  It was just done by the Red Gods avatar of fiery destruction instead of the Dark Gods avatar of icy destruction.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 13, 2019, 08:29:39 PM
So I'm going to take this moment to lighten the mood and remind everyone that this was a thing a few years ago. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 13, 2019, 08:38:42 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/twokapqh8wx21.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=015f04350e5b5cea20d647beaff945aa06b774db)

(https://preview.redd.it/jxo1ojae31y21.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=744fa78725a6d9aa208c02168424b2c2aea5b185)

(https://i.redd.it/g19e7985u0y21.jpg)

(https://preview.redd.it/anm05cs051y21.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=d4b11533ee95a9fa7d8de40d0ec5ed6436cbfa55)

(https://i.redd.it/ec7b4oak4wx21.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 13, 2019, 08:51:25 PM
Still a happy customer amid the whining. My predictions:

  • Drogon kills Dany when Jon (senior Targaryen present) says "dracarys". If she's immune to fire he will behead her, Ned Stark style. Consistently unwilling to rule, he will then fly off into the distance.
  • Sansa and husband Tyrion rule Westeros together and make a dynasty of Stark-Lannister babies.
  • Gendry and Arya will also wed at Storm's End, before she rides her burned horse to adventure in Essos.
  • Epilogue: Bronn arrives at Highgarden to find it empty and overgrown, and gets drunk. Pan to horizon, accelerate north to the new village of Tormund and Brienne. End.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 13, 2019, 09:09:21 PM
YES, of course she's been telegraphed to go Mad Queen, but *they didn't write her character development that way*. Because they were working from plot outlines and notes and because they're hacks. So it didn't work--because the showrunners have been sold on the idea that the best plot twists in GOT are "twists". This one shouldn't be a twist, it should be the fulfillment of something we knew was coming in a steady, character-driven way. Season 7 on should have hit this drum beat regularly, without fail.


Dany going mad queen wasn't a twist. Arya killing the Night King was a twist. Dany has been foreshadowed for a long time. They just got super blatant in the back half of season 7 and all of season 8 because they ran out of time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 13, 2019, 09:26:50 PM
They kept foreshadowing it, but the problem was she never did anything remotely insane or evil every time they tried to hint she might go crazy.  She was still basically petting kittens and bunnies at the start of this season, and went full Evil in the space of two episodes.  It was like Anakin in the prequel trilogy.  Yes, we all knew what was going to happen and they kept foreshadowing his turn.  But he basically went from good guy in love to murdering children in a space of 5 minutes in the third film.  Come to think of it, Lucas has been involved with this season......


Anyways, predictions:
Jon is upset.
Grey Worm hates Jon for trying to stop everybody from raping the city, tells Dany he's betrayed her.
Dany kills Tyrion, making Jon more upset.
Jon tries to piss off with his Army, Dany catches up with her's and dragon.  Stand off ensues.  Agree to peace parlay.
Arya tries to kill Dany, but you can't fool a Dragons nose, and Drogon eats her.
This sends Jon over the edge, he kills Dany somehow.
The Onion night fights Drogon and kills him in some accidental comical way.
Jon declares the Iron Throne dead and fucks off to the north.  7 Kingdoms are 7 Kingdoms again.
Sansa gets dysentery and dies.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 13, 2019, 09:30:03 PM
They kept foreshadowing it, but the problem was she never did anything remotely insane or evil every time they tried to hint she might go crazy.  She was still basically petting kittens and bunnies at the start of this season, and went full Evil in the space of two episodes.  It was like Anakin in the prequel trilogy.  Yes, we all knew what was going to happen and they kept foreshadowing his turn.  But he basically went from good guy in love to murdering children in a space of 5 minutes in the third film.  Come to think of it, Lucas has been involved with this season......


Anakin in the prequel trilogy is a good comparison. The turn to madness and/or evil is handled about as clumsily but in both cases you know it's coming.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 13, 2019, 09:56:38 PM
Literally anyone who thinks that Mad Queen Dany was an earned story beat is so far up the showrunners ass that the only daylight they see is a spinoff. The difference between Dany and Anakin is that with Anakin we already know that he is going to go to the darkside. We already know this because we watched 3 other star wars movies, the "how" could be better but we know its coming. Dany on the other has to earn that that darkside turn because nothing in this version of GOT gives us that build up. This literally came from the inner doubts of Dany herself in book 4 who was struggling with indecision in regards to the running her first city. The tv writers cherry picked that doubt and created a fanfic what-if scenario for season 8. That's it.

Granted seeing a dragon burn countless civilians was probably the most enjoyable piece of TV I've seen in years. I lept for joy when Dany went "fuck you, fuck you, and you and you". Future generations will live in my mercy. Fuck  :drill: :drillf: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 13, 2019, 10:12:18 PM
As a stand-alone episode, this was one of the better ones.  I think most of my complaints are how some things led up to this.  Dany going cuckoo was fine on paper, just not entirely well executed on screen.  Lots of shit going south on her, people close to her dying and then getting scorned by Jon...it makes sense.  I mean, bitches Targaryens be crazy.  It was just ham-fisted.

Most of that episode was a dragon utterly destroying a city.  What's not to like?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 13, 2019, 10:19:52 PM
They kept foreshadowing it, but the problem was she never did anything remotely insane or evil every time they tried to hint she might go crazy.  She was still basically petting kittens and bunnies at the start of this season, and went full Evil in the space of two episodes.  It was like Anakin in the prequel trilogy.  Yes, we all knew what was going to happen and they kept foreshadowing his turn.  But he basically went from good guy in love to murdering children in a space of 5 minutes in the third film.  Come to think of it, Lucas has been involved with this season......


Anyways, predictions:
Jon is upset.
Grey Worm hates Jon for trying to stop everybody from raping the city, tells Dany he's betrayed her.
Dany kills Tyrion, making Jon more upset.
Jon tries to piss off with his Army, Dany catches up with her's and dragon.  Stand off ensues.  Agree to peace parlay.
Arya tries to kill Dany, but you can't fool a Dragons nose, and Drogon eats her.
This sends Jon over the edge, he kills Dany somehow.
The Onion night fights Drogon and kills him in some accidental comical way.
Jon declares the Iron Throne dead and fucks off to the north.  7 Kingdoms are 7 Kingdoms again.
Sansa gets dysentery and dies.

THE ONION KNIGHT

ya know what, I'm buying this

this is the worst possible story they could put forth, good job


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 13, 2019, 10:26:37 PM
Literally anyone who thinks that Mad Queen Dany was an earned story beat is so far up the showrunners ass that the only daylight they see is a spinoff. The difference between Dany and Anakin is that with Anakin we already know that he is going to go to the darkside. We already know this because we watched 3 other star wars movies, the "how" could be better but we know its coming. Dany on the other has to earn that that darkside turn because nothing in this version of GOT gives us that build up. This literally came from the inner doubts of Dany herself in book 4 who was struggling with indecision in regards to the running her first city. The tv writers cherry picked that doubt and created a fanfic what-if scenario for season 8. That's it.


I can only surmise this is your first season of the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 13, 2019, 10:27:10 PM
I try.  


(https://preview.redd.it/lf153ctgdwx21.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a3a424c0d7c5e49ee918b0689bdc0eca54c05a50)


Maybe that's the actual favor Tyrion asked him?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 13, 2019, 10:38:48 PM
The iron throne might be buried under a billion tons of stone by now.  If Jaime and Cersei are in the crypts and the entire thing has come down on their heads, I assume that could reasonably include the throne.

Of course, that said, we'll find the throne room miraculously untouched next episode no doubt.  Anyway, I maintain my earlier prediction that no one will take the iron throne.  And who would even want it now anyway, the city has been utterly destroyed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 13, 2019, 10:49:04 PM
Yeah, I was laughing because she literally destroyed the building the throne is in.  Though I guess this scene of her vision has relevance again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gulVUWrADCM



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2019, 11:39:11 PM
It is a cheap shot but this made me chuckle...

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/may/14/latest-game-of-thrones-episode-sends-curveball-to-children-named-khaleesi

Apparently 3500 parents who named their child after Daenerys are pissed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 13, 2019, 11:47:03 PM
I mean, anyone who names their child....I mean, it's quite fitting.  Crazy people name their little girl after pretend character who turns out to be crazy.  Perfect.  Fucking stupid hicks and/or soccer moms, no doubt.  Hopefully there will be a class action lawsuit or something absurd.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2019, 01:39:00 AM
They kept foreshadowing it, but the problem was she never did anything remotely insane or evil every time they tried to hint she might go crazy.  She was still basically petting kittens and bunnies at the start of this season, and went full Evil in the space of two episodes.  It was like Anakin in the prequel trilogy.  Yes, we all knew what was going to happen and they kept foreshadowing his turn.  But he basically went from good guy in love to murdering children in a space of 5 minutes in the third film.  Come to think of it, Lucas has been involved with this season......

I don't get the complaints about the amount of time Dany spent going crazy.

Aerys also went mad over the course of two episodes worth of plot.

I think fair to say the process started in episode 2, so more like 3 episodes. Two of which were extra long, and there are no cutaways to fucking Dorne any more so you are looking at half a season in normal GoT screen time.

Any competent writer ought to be able to do 'main character goes mad in an hour of screentime' so honestly that isn't the problem.

Did you not see the whole bit with Varys?

They are bad writers, this isn't news. But the cast and crew covered for the writers p well here, and for genre TV idk what you are watching that does this sort of thing better. Did anyone honestly expect something on this level when GoT was announced?

Still far far better than the previous 3 seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2019, 02:24:36 AM
Honestly, if we want to look at Dany's entire body of work, there was some crazy shit going waaaaaay back.  Eating a heart to become one of the hoard.  All that stallion that'll mount the world shit (and other crazy speeches).  Blood magic and sacrificing her baby to make Zombie Drogo.  Stepping into a blazing fire.  Burning the shit out of the assembled Khals (who admittedly wanted to rape the shit out of her, but still).  Killing the fuck out of the Masters.

And so on and so on and so on.  She has been doing crazy shit from the start.  The difference is that she was also doing kinder, merciful stuff at the same time and had effective advisors tempering her actions.  It has become ham-fisted moustache twirling in the last couple of episodes, but even there she has had reason to crack.  Nobody in Westeros fucking likes her, despite a lifetime of being told they will love her.  Jon Snow went from Love of Her Life to a close relative who no longer wants to get nekky.  The person she trusted most was beheaded in front of her face by the woman she was trying to displace.  Varys betrayed her despite promising to tell her shit to her face.  Tyrion betrayed her several times.  Jon told Sansa, and Sansa reacted exactly as she predicted.  Two of her dragons have been butchered (her children).  She even said "Fear it is" right before the battle scene.  She has been fucking betrayed by almost everyone who has ever been close to her.

It makes sense.  I think the part I don't care for is that it is presented as if she has suddenly gone "mad" when they should have shown her being conflicted and simply deciding to act this way anyway.  These so called Lords of Westeros deserve a little dragon breath justice, honestly.


Edit to add:  by the way, it may have not been initially clear, but Varys was almost certainly trying to poison her.  The scene with the little spider girl from the kitchen.  Dany probably found out after Tyrion told her about him, so yeah, he kinda earned his execution.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2019, 02:41:24 AM
A detail I haven't yet seen discussed elsewhere, but I thought was an interesting and not random detail:  As Drogon is flying through, burning the city, it is clear that Wildfire (tm) is being ignited throughout many different spots throughout the city.  That's more than a little bit curious.  The only reason for that Wildfire to be there is that if someone (Cersei) was planning on destroying the entire city at some point.  I am guessing we are meant to believe that was the case, and of course she had no reason to actually enact the plan seeing as how Drogon was doing a fine job of it all by himself.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2019, 03:08:00 AM
There are tonnes of tiny details. On wildfire, I saw it as the caches that Aerys is regularly reported to have around KL, and that Cersei took some of to deal with the Sept.

The choice of the bells also seem significant and will probably have more meaning if we get a book. I think Dany was meant to be going all Dothraki when she hears them.

There was a lot of cute referencing going on.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2019, 03:58:53 AM
Either way, it was a good little detail.

Choice of bells?  I don't follow that one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2019, 04:02:31 AM
And dammit, Teleku's hilarious picture aside, what did Ser Davos get sent off to smuggle in or out?  It couldn't really be the throne itself, because why would Tyrion think that so important?  And we see Ser Davos throughout the battle, at least I think so.  WTF.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2019, 04:27:20 AM
Davos was supposed to get Jamie and Sarah Connor out, I thought.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 14, 2019, 04:36:02 AM
Thats what I thought as well. So it wouldn't be relevent anymore, because that dream got crushed.  :rimshot:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2019, 04:36:52 AM
Except Ser Davos was never shown doing any such thing, nor would that really have been necessary as Jaime knew exactly where to go.  I mean, you might be right, but it seems like a pretty glaring miss for them to go out of their way to show that little whisper and not follow up on it.  Screen time is costly just now.

Man I wish they would have just done 10 episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 14, 2019, 04:50:30 AM
Except Ser Davos was never shown doing any such thing, nor would that really have been necessary as Jaime knew exactly where to go.  I mean, you might be right, but it seems like a pretty glaring miss for them to go out of their way to show that little whisper and not follow up on it.  Screen time is costly just now.

Man I wish they would have just done 10 episodes.
Jaime knew where to go to get out of the city, but Tyrion told him there'd be a boat waiting for him on the beach. I guess that Davos would be in charge of that boat and the subsequent flight over the water to Braavos or wherever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 14, 2019, 04:51:08 AM
Davos places the dinghy by the tunnel. I thought that was obvious?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2019, 05:01:28 AM
Davos places the dinghy by the tunnel. I thought that was obvious?

Maybe that's all it was, but it seems weird they had to go out of their way to show that bit.  It was sorta in the past presented as a super sekrit smuggler beach, except not really because guards patrolled it.

I guess we'll never get more, so your explanation wins by default.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2019, 05:01:56 AM
Honestly, if we want to look at Dany's entire body of work, there was some crazy shit going waaaaaay back.  Eating a heart to become one of the hoard.  All that stallion that'll mount the world shit (and other crazy speeches).  Blood magic and sacrificing her baby to make Zombie Drogo.  Stepping into a blazing fire.  Burning the shit out of the assembled Khals (who admittedly wanted to rape the shit out of her, but still).  Killing the fuck out of the Masters.

And so on and so on and so on.  She has been doing crazy shit from the start.  The difference is that she was also doing kinder, merciful stuff at the same time and had effective advisors tempering her actions.
I.....literally none of that is crazy.  All of it made total sense at the time she did it and I'm not sure what anybody else would have done different.  Arya was more crazy and off balance than her the entire series.

And she didn't just burn some lords.  She decided to burn down everything she fought for.  She burned Kings landing and the Red Keep down.  She literally destroyed her birthright for no reason.  She has nothing to actually claim now.  She was doing this because she likes watching people burn and that's her thing now.  Not to teach people a lesson or for any reason at all (at least that's the only logical explanation).

Davos is the one who left the Dingy at the beach for them to find.

The wild fire blowing up where the caches they kept talking about that Aerys hid around the city when he planned to blow it up.  Cersei just managed to find the one hidden below the sept and used it, but there were many others already sitting around the city ever since Aerys died.
I don't get the complaints about the amount of time Dany spent going crazy.

Aerys also went mad over the course of two episodes worth of plot.
Aery's was off his rocker since the start of his reign, just in a harmless non-violent way.  Tywin Lannister basically is the only reason the Kingdom held together as the hand, doing all the actual work.  But he started getting super paranoid and violent towards the last few years of his first decade.  Then Duskendale happened, and he took a harder turn towards crazy.  Where he then spent the next 5 years going more and more crazy until the rebellion.  The process took about 15 years with him.

Quote
They are bad writers, this isn't news. But the cast and crew covered for the writers p well here, and for genre TV idk what you are watching that does this sort of thing better. Did anyone honestly expect something on this level when GoT was announced?
The first half of the entire series did it way better.  Can we go back to that?  And I was honestly expecting something at a higher level than what we got the first season, but it grew on me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2019, 05:06:35 AM
Also, the recap is up  :awesome_for_real:

https://imgur.com/gallery/CoyWKMP


(https://i.imgur.com/HUURiLg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BilZA9T.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/SKQvGMR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pGooNUm.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/a7lDpcH.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/i9vL3LC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3bJWOhw.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/T5rk25k.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EpEBPkR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KKikuGS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3ech4Ab.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MournelitheCalix on May 14, 2019, 05:50:44 AM
Why is it that so many pieces of entertainment get the journey right but effe up the end?  Its really clear that this season has been off its rails since episode two and I am guessing thhat no one is happier than George R R Martin who can now finish it off properly and someone will pay him huge bucks to adapt it either for the big screen or again on the small screen and they will swoop in and claim the rewards.  Another observation, how would you like to be Disney right now knowing that you gave this pair of showrunners the keys to their own trilogy in your already struggling franchise.  Also consider what HBO must be thinking with their upcoming adaptions.  Seeing this trainwreck in real time makes me very sad.  The only death that I felt was actually a Game of Thrones one inspired by George R R Martin was Cersi.  A super interesting interpretation of the Maggie the Frog prophecy.

I am not sure what is more remarkable, the fact that the Avengers actually finished so well or that this season is actually the second coming of an assassination of an original IP not seen since Mass Effect 3 turned into a debacle that made people want to never play it again.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2019, 05:53:25 AM
Actually, this is probably my favorite:

(https://i.imgur.com/TESTbYL.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 14, 2019, 06:17:07 AM
I think in this case basically you can see that the showrunners took their pacing and characterization from Martin and then improved some of the worst aspects of his plotting (Tyrion in a boat muttering to himself for hundreds of pages). Once they didn't have Martin to improve upon, they struggled. But also, the pacing from Martin meant that getting from the last of his written material to this point meant either a ten-season show (impossible in terms of actor contracts and costs) or it meant at some point a fast-forward. That's why I keep saying that a "one year later" where all the characters were stuck in place for a winter would have done the show a world of good. You could do two or three scenes with Daenerys stuck in Riverrun with Jon, Varys, Tyrion, Missandei, Grey Worm, Davos, Arya and the Hound with Dothraki and Unsullied troops for long winter months on low rations where she gets more and more volatile and despairing--the lords of Westeros won't accept her, everyone loves Jon better, Jon is being all mopey and weird about them being related and won't accept her proposal that they get married and only occasionally sexes her, she mistrusts all her advisors more and more, she sort of hates the entire look of Westerosi castles and she hates the long winter, she remembers that she swore to 'break the wheel', she hears reports that the people of KL are supporting Cersei voluntarily now, etc.  Just a couple of scenes, with Emelia Clarke doing her best to actually act moody, despairing, confused, and the whole attack on KL would make much more sense--she's had it with everyone, she can't trust anybody except Grey Worm, she's going to remake Westeros from the ground's up even if it takes genocide to do it. It doesn't take a whole season, but it does take something--a time jump is a classic narrative method for giving people a sense that something's happened.

Avengers: Endgame just did a master class in it--in just three scenes, you completely get what's happened to Thor, the Hulk and Tony Stark and you completely understand what that means for the characters going forward in the rest of the film.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 14, 2019, 06:20:29 AM
Why is it that so many pieces of entertainment get the journey right but effe up the end?

The way many writers approach their work means that they don't know how their work erds either. There's a very enlightening Twitter thread on that topic about the different approaches for writing. TL;DR GRR doesn't know how ASOIAF ends because everything in GoT flows from character motivations and he only discovers them through writing. Secondly the beginning and the middle of a work is much more interesting because of the character and world building and that's where many writers focus on. Making sure things come together in the end is hard. Thirdly the GoT showrunners only know how to adapt an existing work and are SOL now that they don't have books to work off.

Quote
I am not sure what is more remarkable, the fact that the Avengers actually finished so well.

Marvel has 50+ years of experience how to craft story arcs in multiple types of media. Also Kevin Feige.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 14, 2019, 06:43:03 AM
It might have also been interesting to have Tyrion get caught after freeing Jamie and having Dany execute him right before the battle.  I'm honestly surprised he either got away with it or no one cared enough to check in on Jamie the next morning.

Tyrion: *dismisses guards, immediately frees prisoner*
Everyone: *Jamie who?*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 14, 2019, 07:23:12 AM
A detail I haven't yet seen discussed elsewhere, but I thought was an interesting and not random detail:  As Drogon is flying through, burning the city, it is clear that Wildfire (tm) is being ignited throughout many different spots throughout the city.  That's more than a little bit curious.  The only reason for that Wildfire to be there is that if someone (Cersei) was planning on destroying the entire city at some point.  I am guessing we are meant to believe that was the case, and of course she had no reason to actually enact the plan seeing as how Drogon was doing a fine job of it all by himself.


It was left over wildfire from the mad king, there was a theory that Dany would ignite it accidentally and blow up the entire city but it ended up being completely inconsequential compared to what she was doing. And Davos only put the dingy there for Jamie and Cersei to escape, which require smuggling himself past the iron fleet i guess.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2019, 07:33:06 AM
She has been doing crazy shit from the start.  The difference is that she was also doing kinder, merciful stuff at the same time and had effective advisors tempering her actions.

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between burning slavers while freeing slaves and torching a city including women and children indiscriminately. Both are brutal, but one is targeted and has a justification while the other is just wanton slaughter and collective punishment. I realize in medieval times (such as the story is based on), there was a whole lot of both types of killing done by rulers, but even in this setting, characters who are portrayed as moral and honorable like Jon or at least capable of understanding morality even if they often act immorally like Tyrion see this slaughter as beyond the pale.

Her madness doesn't completely come out of left field, this is true. She has always been merciless against her enemies and often her first impulse is to burninate, and only her advisors have talked her down from this. Unfortunately for us and the writers, this characterization of her has remained fairly consistent right up until the last two episodes, with little hint that the madness is coming. I realize that people can and do often snap at the drop of a hat, and there has certainly been plenty of justification for her snapping with the deaths of her beloved advisers. However, because of the really tight episode schedule, none of that change has been allowed to breathe for any acceptable length of time, thus it feels utterly out of left field.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2019, 07:52:17 AM
Why is it that so many pieces of entertainment get the journey right but effe up the end?

The way many writers approach their work means that they don't know how their work erds either.

I'm not about to say that I'm some great writer or anything, but I literally cannot imagine starting a story without knowing where it's going to end (whether that ending will suck or not is a whole other thing). There's plenty of room in the middle of the story for improvisation and altering the course - one of my new books had a pretty significant character shift that I didn't even figure out until the chapter before it happened. Hell, I just finished a six-novella work that's around 180,000 words and I knew from the day I started writing it how the whole thing would end. It was the whole goddamn point of writing the books.

I'm not saying there can't be good work if you don't know the ending before you start, just that I cannot fathom how that would make for a good writing process.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 14, 2019, 08:05:59 AM
She has been doing crazy shit from the start.  The difference is that she was also doing kinder, merciful stuff at the same time and had effective advisors tempering her actions.

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between burning slavers while freeing slaves and torching a city including women and children indiscriminately. Both are brutal, but one is targeted and has a justification while the other is just wanton slaughter and collective punishment.

I'd have to rewatch the series but I seem to remember there was at least one time where a discussion similar to this happened:

Dany: Screw it, I'm going to burn their whole city down.
Advisor: Orrrr...we could, you know, take the city by other means and just kill their leaders.
Dany: FINE! Let's try that....


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 14, 2019, 08:06:09 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/isZP2ps.jpg)

It actually was only 500k per episode, but the sentiment stands. o7


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 14, 2019, 08:40:50 AM
She has been doing crazy shit from the start.  The difference is that she was also doing kinder, merciful stuff at the same time and had effective advisors tempering her actions.

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between burning slavers while freeing slaves and torching a city including women and children indiscriminately. Both are brutal, but one is targeted and has a justification while the other is just wanton slaughter and collective punishment.

I'd have to rewatch the series but I seem to remember there was at least one time where a discussion similar to this happened:

Dany: Screw it, I'm going to burn their whole city down.
Advisor: Orrrr...we could, you know, take the city by other means and just kill their leaders.
Dany: FINE! Let's try that....

Dany: I don't want to be queen of the ashes.
Everyone else: Here is how.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 14, 2019, 08:54:42 AM
*tip toes into thread and veeery subtly spreads her pro-Cersei message*











(https://i.redd.it/wv15hy95nzx21.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 14, 2019, 09:30:52 AM
Nice try, but two wrongs don't make a right.  :awesome_for_real:

The only reasonably sane, competent leader in this whole bunch might be Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 14, 2019, 09:42:08 AM
The thing I really wanted to get out of Cersei in the last episode was just one moment of self-awareness before she died.  One moment of "oh shit, maybe I should have not fucked over and killed so many people who could have been my allies, maybe some of my kids would still be alive and I wouldn't be about to get gutted like a fish and/or incinerated by one of the many people who now have excellent reasons to hate me."  

Whimpering "I don't want to die" before a rock fell on her head didn't count.

I might have also accepted the Hound casually skewering her similarly to how the Mountain squished Qyburn.  Maybe with a cool one-liner like "a friend of mine wanted you to have this".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 14, 2019, 09:42:58 AM
She has been doing crazy shit from the start.  The difference is that she was also doing kinder, merciful stuff at the same time and had effective advisors tempering her actions.

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between burning slavers while freeing slaves and torching a city including women and children indiscriminately. Both are brutal, but one is targeted and has a justification while the other is just wanton slaughter and collective punishment.

I'd have to rewatch the series but I seem to remember there was at least one time where a discussion similar to this happened:

Dany: Screw it, I'm going to burn their whole city down.
Advisor: Orrrr...we could, you know, take the city by other means and just kill their leaders.
Dany: FINE! Let's try that....

Dany: I don't want to be queen of the ashes.
Everyone else: Here is how.

Here is a reddit thread from 9 months ago that breaks down why Dany would be burning cities in Westeros and is one of the two great threats in the show. Turns out the author was right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/90z309/spoilers_main_the_queen_of_ashes_foreshadowing/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/90z309/spoilers_main_the_queen_of_ashes_foreshadowing/)

You can easily argue that her final turn was handled poorly because they ran out of time but continuing to try to pretend it was never foreshadowed at all is just silly.

Also from an article on EW:

https://ew.com/tv/2019/05/13/game-of-thrones-daenerys-mad-queen/ (https://ew.com/tv/2019/05/13/game-of-thrones-daenerys-mad-queen/)

There are other reddit posts and articles and Quara threads going back years where people lay out the evidence from the Books and/or the show and predict Dany will go mad. I was holding out hope it was all a misdirect but Season 8 made it pretty clear it wasn't going to be.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2019, 09:43:22 AM
Either way, it was a good little detail.

Choice of bells?  I don't follow that one.


I meant the choice to use bells at all. Dothraki put bells on things to signify victories, so a Dothraki charge comes with the sound of bells.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2019, 10:11:06 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/isZP2ps.jpg)

It actually was only 500k per episode, but the sentiment stands. o7


(https://i.imgur.com/b9BtIuH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CyXxTlN.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 14, 2019, 12:05:03 PM
The sad fact is they reduced all their strong female leads to caricatures of themself in a few hours screentime. I'm not even sure anymore if the big ending twist isn't Arya crawling back to Gendry and asking him to be his lady after all. Hell, the only self-determined and strong woman remaining is Sansa, and she all but said she is that way because of the magical power of being raped.

Not that the man fare much better in characterisation, but the change in the women is astonishingly bad.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2019, 12:12:33 PM
Well OK, but self determined and strong men at this point are what, Bran and Sam?

You also have Gilly, Brienne, Sansa and honestly I don't think Arya lost anything here. She just got to make a grown up decision.

The episode put Tyrion, Jon, Dany, and Cersei at rock bottom. Admittedly Dany and Cersei aren't likely coming back from it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 14, 2019, 12:14:13 PM
The sad fact is they reduced all their strong female leads to caricatures of themself in a few hours screentime. I'm not even sure anymore if the big ending twist isn't Arya crawling back to Gendry and asking him to be his lady after all. Hell, the only self-determined and strong woman remaining is Sansa, and she all but said she is that way because of the magical power of being raped.

Not that the man fare much better in characterisation, but the change in the women is astonishingly bad. 

We're still talking about the show where the arc for one of these strong female leads in the first season was her falling in love with the guy she was forced to marry and have sex with right?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 14, 2019, 12:26:28 PM
Even if you foreshadow something you still need to write yourself there, you can't just make it happen all of the sudden and then go "but i foreshadowed it!".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 14, 2019, 01:37:12 PM
Hell, the only self-determined and strong woman remaining is Sansa, and she all but said she is that way because of the magical power of being raped.


Please. This is such a dumb misreading of what she said. You're not alone in it, it's all over the internet. She was acknowledging she was put through a crucible and came out stronger on the other side. Ramsey's rape was only a small part of that. There was everything that happened in King's Landing. There was having to survive Littlefinger's manipulations and yes, there was Ramsey. If they'd left that one single rape scene out of it, no one would be saying this kind of stupid shit. They'd be going "Hell yes she was made stronger by surviving all that horrible shit." She flat out took ownership of her life in that moment and people want to turn her into a victim over it.

Even if you foreshadow something you still need to write yourself there, you can't just make it happen all of the sudden and then go "but i foreshadowed it!".

They should have made season 7 and 8 into full seasons. Those extra 7 episodes would have let these storylines breath better. We could've gotten the equivalent of the "One year later" title card with say 3-4 episodes between "The Long Night" and "Bells" where we got to see more of Dany's increasing isolation and anger and more build up between Jaime and Brienne.

As it is, the first 5-6 seasons were the equivalent of the Extended versions of Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers while Season 7 and 8 are like getting an 80 minute version of the Return of the King with all the rushed feeling that implies. So Frodo and Sam skip from looking at the Gate of Mordor to Frodo walking into Mount Doom and going "The Ring is mine!!!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2019, 01:44:39 PM
Season 8 is over 7 hours long.

That is longer than Shakespeare directors generally take to cover the entire Henry VI trilogy.

Complain about the writing if you want. But they have had plenty of time to send one character mad.

And tbh between the arguments with Jon and Missandei's death I wasn't at all confused about the whole madness plot line.

I actually like how dialog light they've been this year. The writers are bad writing but the directors have been pretty good at showing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 14, 2019, 01:50:35 PM
*tip toes into thread and veeery subtly spreads her pro-Cersei message*


(https://i.redd.it/wv15hy95nzx21.jpg)

Minor quibble:  If she burned all the kids alive as well, then she didn't technically orphan anyone, hm?   :grin:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2019, 02:24:56 PM
I actually like how dialog light they've been this year. The writers are bad writing but the directors have been pretty good at showing.

There have been moments in this season where it looked like the actors wanted to say a line of dialogue but there just wasn't a line of dialogue written. That is an impression I've gotten multiple times with multiple characters. The writing has been bad with lots of time taken doing somethings while other things have been rushed through. The last 1 1/2 episodes have all felt like they were trying to tell 3-5 episodes worth of events in 2, and that's with an extra 20 minutes + for each episode.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rasix on May 14, 2019, 03:54:18 PM
Given the choice, I'd almost rather watch the last 2 seasons of Sons of Anarchy than this crap that has passed for a season.

I really hope that George has some better, more graceful ideas on how to take some of these subjects. White walkers? Just frost plot vampires. Lord of Light? An on demand Zippo. Dany, fuckin' bonkers that her nephew won't bang her anyone. John? Giant pussy. Need to kill a dragon? Just ambush it with a flying sharp object that it could easily dodge or should honestly just bounce off it. Same dragon killing plot arrows? If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge an arrow.  Arya? Sometimes super soldier, sometimes little girl. Tyrion. Smartest dipshit to ever walk.

I just don't know how you can do everything in such a dumb and inconsistent manner. It's like different people wrote these episodes without talking to each other or reading what was previously done. It's the TV version of a game of telephone.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 14, 2019, 04:58:52 PM
I would not pin hopes on GRRM. That way likes sadness.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 14, 2019, 06:06:12 PM
I would not pin hopes on GRRM. That way likes sadness.
We get it: you don't like GRRM. Lots of us liked the books, and are hoping for some satisfying closure. Let us hope!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2019, 06:08:25 PM
I've said it before, I'll say it again. GRRM has no incentive to finish those damn books, ever. None. Period. He can sit back on his fat ass collecting royalty checks without ever having to prove that "oh the book ending would have been so much better than the TV ending."

It would have been longer, more contrived and with a fuckton more characters, but based on those last two books, it wouldn't have been any more satisfying.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 14, 2019, 06:18:11 PM
If GRRM had a better ending we would have had it at least half a decade ago. There's nothing but a bunch of vaguely related plot points.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2019, 06:20:00 PM
I think the writers have gone completely off the rails at this point from Martin, but they may have possibly corrupted some plot points.  The books are so different it's almost impossible to setup the same scenario we are at currently.  I'm thinking Aegon, the actual true heir to the Iron Throne, takes the city after further civil war, taking over a shattered realm.  Then the White Walkers come and they destroy Kings Landing.  Dany arrives from her adventures in the east to find Westeros in full apocalypse mode.  Ice and Fire ensues.

Also, remember that ever since the first book, she keeps getting told that she needs to travel east to Asshai first to "pass under the shadow".  She keeps ignoring this because she wants to go west, and is facing total ruin at the end of the last book.  I think next book she goes over there and levels up some more.  Or maybe gets turned into a psycho avatar of the Red God (Asshai is where that religion originated from) when she goes, and comes roaring back in full righteous burn mode, taking out Aegon and burning Kings Landing.

Or maybe Kings Landing doesn't get destroyed at all and the writers just made shit up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 14, 2019, 08:26:21 PM
I would not pin hopes on GRRM. That way likes sadness.
We get it: you don't like GRRM. Lots of us liked the books, and are hoping for some satisfying closure. Let us hope!

I like the books too. The first three at least. The last two went from "meh" to "what the fuck is this shit?" That said, we'll be lucky to get Winds of Winter and Dreams of Spring will only happen if he doesn't forbid it in his will.

I think the writers have gone completely off the rails at this point from Martin, but they may have possibly corrupted some plot points.  The books are so different it's almost impossible to setup the same scenario we are at currently.  I'm thinking Aegon, the actual true heir to the Iron Throne, takes the city after further civil war, taking over a shattered realm.  Then the White Walkers come and they destroy Kings Landing.  Dany arrives from her adventures in the east to find Westeros in full apocalypse mode.  Ice and Fire ensues.

Also, remember that ever since the first book, she keeps getting told that she needs to travel east to Asshai first to "pass under the shadow".  She keeps ignoring this because she wants to go west, and is facing total ruin at the end of the last book.  I think next book she goes over there and levels up some more.  Or maybe gets turned into a psycho avatar of the Red God (Asshai is where that religion originated from) when she goes, and comes roaring back in full righteous burn mode, taking out Aegon and burning Kings Landing.

Or maybe Kings Landing doesn't get destroyed at all and the writers just made shit up.

We know GRRM told them the basics of the ending. The Night King isn't a thing in the books, that was purely show stuff probably to make the white walkers easier to defeat on a TV show timeline and budget. In the books it'll probably be a long drawn out battle at Winterfell.  I'm willing to bet Kings Landing gets destroyed in the books too. GRRM has never made a secret that the series won't have a true happy ending. It'll probably happen differently in the books if we ever see them though.

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60546370_2408703142475707_4562157271613702144_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=2b813c88df1c5697c81b244a06d045fa&oe=5D53722B)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2019, 10:19:00 PM
He told them the outline over 5 years ago, and has had almost zero collaboration with the series for the last several seasons.  I mean, this really could be what he told them, but at this point they could have just decided to come up with their own ending as the show progressed and they looked at their time/budget.  Guess we'll never know until GRRM or D&D tell us exactly what they said to each other!

Also, great use of the LOTR meme.   :awesome_for_real:


(https://preview.redd.it/ubowiftln7y21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8dd33fb762e87ff7c49db9976b5b2f385d88a10f)



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Gimfain on May 14, 2019, 11:03:49 PM
The main fault in the episode was that the torching would have made more sense if there had been an actual struggle for the city and she had to use dragon fire indiscriminately, now she did it for no reason at all. Its still a lot better than King's Landing being taken cleanly, that would have been a total sellout and I would have hated the show if Daenerys never torched the place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 14, 2019, 11:06:32 PM
Well yes, as this meme put it:

(https://i.redd.it/30421uucl9y21.png)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 15, 2019, 01:33:30 AM
April 17, 2011 - Game of Thrones Airs.
July 12, 2011 - Martin Publishes a Dance with Dragons.

Now let's count how many years did these show writers knew they had to abridge some shit.

On April 2011, shortly before the publication of A Dance with Dragons which took him six years to write, Martin hoped that "the last two books will go a little quicker than this one has" and estimated that it would take "three years to finish the next one at a good pace

April 2, 2012 - Season 2 of the TV show. Martin said 3 years to pace himself no need to panic
March 31, 2013 - Season 3 of the TV show. 1 year left. Maybe he'll send us a few outlines???
April 6 2014 - Season 4 (the literal last good season). Its been 3 years and no words from Martin wtf guys

In 2014, Martin's UK publisher, Jane Johnson, stated that the book would not be published before, or in, 2015.[45][46] In April 2015, Martin commented along the same lines[47] but he also said he would like to have it published before the sixth season of the HBO series Game of Thrones (which would cover material from the book) aired in 2016.[48][49] In Autumn 2015, statements made by the Spanish editor and the Polish translator of the novel indicated that it was expected to be published in 2016.[50][51][52][53]

Let's assume that a multimillion dollar tv show on HBO with a movie budget per episode is literally being written at the last minute. I.E the new season is being written as the last season ends. You'd figure at this point you should be panicking. At this point a good amount of Dance with Dragons has been adopted and along with a Feast for Crows. Another quote about Martin


Martin is only firm about ending the series with the seventh novel "until I decide not to be firm".[23] With his stated goal of telling the story from beginning to end, he will not truncate the story to fit into an arbitrary number of volumes.[39] He knows the ending in broad strokes as well as the future of the main characters,[27] and will finish the series with bittersweet elements where not everyone will live happily ever after.[37] Martin hopes to write an ending similar to The Lord of the Rings that he felt gave the story a satisfying depth and resonance. On the other hand, Martin noted the challenge to avoid a situation like the finale of the TV series Lost, which left some fans disappointed by deviating too far from their own theories and desires.[21] In 2012, Martin had acknowledged his concerns about A Dream of Spring not being completed by the time the TV series Game of Thrones catches up in its storyline to the novels.[71] In 2015, Martin said that he was not writing A Dream of Spring together with The Winds of Winter,[72] and in early 2016, he said he did not believe A Dream of Spring would be published before the last season of the HBO show.[73] In April 2018, Martin commented he had not started working on the book

D&D your FUCKED. FUCKED I say. As early as 2012. 2012 GRRM told you that your not going to get a finished script. But its 2014, if they were waiting for a winds of winter and maybe going on a hiatus... that's done because

April 12, 2015 - Season 5 of the TV. The story is cutting corners in order to slim the number of loose ends in the final product.  Knowing that the source material has dried up they choose to

*Have LittleFinger marry Sansa, the literal key to the future of his plans to take over the iron throne and a the teenage girl he's been lusting after for years in place of her mother..... to Ramsey Bolton
*Have Stannis sacrifice his daughter in order to lose the fight for winterfell anyway
*The entirety of Dorne

Season 4 took its shortcuts, but it gets pretty bad from here. At this point the abridging has to begin...the show writers must be carefully crafting the scenarios that will pay off in season 8... right??

April 24, 2016 - Season 6 of the TV show. Ok, book fans hit peak rage right around here. Kings Landing has the only shred of book material left and everything else is failing around it. Book fans wail and gnash their teeth at poor writing and bone headed decision making by previously smart characters but who cares. Battle of Bastards? FUCK YEAH. DRAGONS?!? ROAR!!! Killing the entirety of the Tyrell family and the High Sparrow in the most bombastic way ever? DO IT AGAIN!

At this point the show could have fix its trajectory. At this point the show writers could have showed us that they had the writing talent to end this....

July 16, 2017 - Season 7 of the TV show. At around this point book readers gave up and let tv only fans have it. While they still complained, our hearts weren't in it anymore. This is the shortest season episode wise and that's mostly to do with the compromises made to keep the actors from rioting on set. Dragons go woosh, dumb and dumber plans are made. Etc etc.

It becomes obvious to book readers that the best way to end this show form the show writers perspective is to tie up any loose ends. Everything needs to be centralized and trimmed down and any "tedious" portions should be cut out in favor of more banter, more action scenes that serve no purpose, and using as much plot armor as possible to get your characters out of increasingly idiotic situations. There was a million ways for this show to end on its own power, independent of martins inability to finish the story but ultimately...

April 14, 2019 - Season 8 of the TV show. The show takes a one year hiatus to basically do the same shit they did in season 7. Starting to think the 1 year hiatus had less to do with writing the story and more to do with the actors not murdering D&D in their sleep.  It was an old time road that got us here. Non-existent foresight, years of prior knowledge of Martins ineptness and laziness. Maybe at some point around season 4 they should have taken bolder more well thought out steps to better outline what they wanted to do with the story. Because at the end of the day they've committed themselves to a non stop production of a series that has been effectively dubbed their baby for 8 years. Not counting the amount of time dedicated to even securing a pilot episode for HBO to greenlight the entire series. You would think that they would take some ownership of the series, get writers who could end this at the same quality it started. Or...dear god if they wrote this themselves that would explain a lot.




Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 15, 2019, 01:55:35 AM
I am not going to read all that nor try to dispute any specific points...but the gloom and doom is a bit off, don't you think?  Martin sleeps on piles of money and possibly pastries.  HBO has been at the helm of a cultural phenomenon the likes of which has never been seen before and may never be seen again.  It made literally no difference to anyone but an unknown percentage of butthurt viewers that he hasn't delivered the material.  As Haemish has said recently and I have also said elsewhere in the thread, GRRM has no real incentive to hurry anything or even finish this shit.  It changes nothing for anyone.

This last episode that everyone hates so much?  Biggest numbers of any episode in the series.  Probably only to be topped by the next one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hawkbit on May 15, 2019, 02:05:05 AM
I am utterly so fucking glad I stopped reading at book 2 and never watched the show. This is almost like watching a cathedral burn.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 15, 2019, 02:37:50 AM
I am not going to read all that nor try to dispute any specific points...but the gloom and doom is a bit off, don't you think?  Martin sleeps on piles of money and possibly pastries.  HBO has been at the helm of a cultural phenomenon the likes of which has never been seen before and may never be seen again.  It made literally no difference to anyone but an unknown percentage of butthurt viewers that he hasn't delivered the material.  As Haemish has said recently and I have also said elsewhere in the thread, GRRM has no real incentive to hurry anything or even finish this shit.  It changes nothing for anyone.

This last episode that everyone hates so much?  Biggest numbers of any episode in the series.  Probably only to be topped by the next one.

Unfortunately it's rarely ever the idiots or the lazy that suffer immediately for stupid decisions. GRRM, HBO and D&D can sit on a pile of money and laugh at their audience for giving a shit. It's always the creators that come after them that they do. It's always the next project that they sink a million dollars into on name recognition alone that bombs. I highly doubt D&D is going to ride off into the sunset and "do it again" on their next project or that anyone is going to care that the winds of winter is "just a few more pages away" after this ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 15, 2019, 02:56:26 AM
I actually like how dialog light they've been this year. The writers are bad writing but the directors have been pretty good at showing.

There have been moments in this season where it looked like the actors wanted to say a line of dialogue but there just wasn't a line of dialogue written. That is an impression I've gotten multiple times with multiple characters.

Totally see that.

Just not convinced they should have got a line. They did a good job with a grumpy look.

S7 would have had the line. S7 would have had a page and a half of saying out loud things that are obvious.

I think Nutter and Sapochnik have done a good job with a vastly simplified story of how 6 people dealt with 2 problems.

It is way faster than S5 to 7, it could have used clearer suggestion that time has passed between scenes. But I'm not sure there was really need for more plot or more talking to deliver the plot. S7 would have had us watch Bran and Sansa lay out Jon's lineage in extreme detail. S7 would have even more scenes of Dany complaining. Every previous season would have had more tits.

Dany has enough reasons to go mad. Sure pacing could have been tweaked.


ALSO, seems to be a growing Internet thing of 'seasons 1-7 are good but this is bad'. Jesus H Christ anyone who thinks Carry On Up the Sunspear was better than this can most certainly do one.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 15, 2019, 03:13:01 AM

ALSO, seems to be a growing Internet thing of 'seasons 1-7 are good but this is bad'. Jesus H Christ anyone who thinks Carry On Up the Sunspear was better than this can most certainly do one.

April 6 2014 - Season 4 (the literal last good season). Its been 3 years and no words from Martin wtf guys
For book readers.

TV only folks I have no idea what level of bullshit they are willing to nod their head and agree to. Apparently a lot and if season 8 broke the camel's back... took you long enough.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Comstar on May 15, 2019, 03:26:19 AM
So these are tyhe guys who are making the next Star Wars Trilogy?

Whelp, sell your Disney stock, until they get canned and someone else gets picked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 15, 2019, 03:37:20 AM
If you are looking for deep, meaningful narrative in your next Star Wars movie, then sure.  If you are looking for a spectable about people lazer swords, pew pew and choking bitches with the force?  You could do worse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Shannow on May 15, 2019, 04:01:41 AM
Not to sidetrack but how is it Gareth Edwards, who made the best Star Wars movie in 30 years, hasn't made a film since?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 15, 2019, 04:24:58 AM
The general Internet belief is that Edwards' version of R1 was nothing like what you saw on screen. Better or worse? Nobody knows. But Disney obviously weren't super keen.

So Edwards' only success story is being claimed by others. Rightly or wrongly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 15, 2019, 05:29:54 AM
For comparison: between 2011 and today Stephen King finished 15 books while GRR finished none.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 15, 2019, 05:41:50 AM
Since Dance he's put out 5 books, edited a few more, then there are TV episodes, short stories.

He's writing. Just not successfully writing asoiaf.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 15, 2019, 05:51:05 AM
@MediumHigh, Benioff and Weiss are credited as writers for episodes 3 - 6 of season 8. They also have lots of writer’s credits for episodes of previous seasons (73 episodes total)

GRR only owns the “based on ASOIAF by” credit for season 8.

It isn’t unlikely that they actually wrote all of the episodes by themselves.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 15, 2019, 06:09:20 AM
Since Dance he's put out 5 books, edited a few more, then there are TV episodes, short stories.

He's writing. Just not successfully writing asoiaf.

Fair enough.

BTW GRR only owns writing credit on 4 GoT episodes with the last one being from 2014. I don’t think he had a lot of involvement with the show over the past two years.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 15, 2019, 06:09:56 AM
So these are tyhe guys who are making the next Star Wars Trilogy?

Whelp, sell your Disney stock, until they get canned and someone else gets picked.

This guys are perfect for Star Wars, complain about the show all you want but it has LOOKED amazing. Their cinematography is top notch, they craft incredible looking action. Thin plot, awesome graphics = Star Wars, they'll do just fine.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 15, 2019, 06:42:29 AM
So these are tyhe guys who are making the next Star Wars Trilogy?

Whelp, sell your Disney stock, until they get canned and someone else gets picked.

Star Wars is already pretty vaesline-garbage. How many times does this need to be said? They can do no damage. And again, the only person to blame for this is GRRM. He put himself and his brand in this position.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 15, 2019, 07:31:48 AM
I highly doubt D&D is going to ride off into the sunset and "do it again" on their next project

Well, their next project is a trilogy of Star Wars movies unconnected to the main 9-movie Star Wars trilogy, so I'm assumind D&D will go riding off into the sunset to sleep on pillows made of money and virgins.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 15, 2019, 08:03:10 AM
(https://pics.me.me/l-was-merciless-to-the-people-of-kings-landing-hold-56209244.png)

Sums it up pretty well I think.

I'm curious how it all wraps up from here. I almost want them to have the balls to go totally grimdark.

Open in King's Landing

Dany is about to burn Tyrion and Davos to death for treason because they helped Jamie.
Jon and Arya try to intervene.
Drogon burns Arya, Tyrion and Davos to death.
Jon survives (cause Targaryen!) and stabs Dany to death. His sword lights up with flames when he pulls it out of her chest. Azor Ahai!
But Grey Worm stabs him in the back.
The Unsullied, Dothraki and Northerners turn on each other.

Title card: 6 months later

We're in Winterfell. Sansa and Royce John (or whatever his name is) and Brienne are in the war room. A messenger brings in a message and Sansa looks at it. "That settles it. The other kingdoms except for Dorne either have no lords, no armies, or both. It's pure chaos out there."

Cut to the Weirwood tree in KL. Bran is warging. Cut to the Isle of Faces which is snow covered. The snow and ice takes the form of a man like the T1000 in Terminator 2. It opens blue eyes and slowly resolves into the form of the Night King.

Bran's eyes open and he sighs. "I told Jon he had a choice...he chose...poorly."

*roll credits*


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 15, 2019, 08:07:25 AM
Arya isn't dying.

Edit: I don't care if she dies, I'm just saying she isn't. GRRMs wife won't let him kill Arya or Sansa.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 15, 2019, 08:13:58 AM
Arya isn't dying.

Edit: I don't care if she dies, I'm just saying she isn't. GRRMs wife won't let him kill Arya or Sansa.

None of what I posted will happen. The only characters I listed who might die are Dany, Grey Worm and Davos.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 15, 2019, 08:18:51 AM
Grey Worm continuing to escape death is horseshit. Dude should've been melted by the walkers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 15, 2019, 08:25:02 AM
I hope that if they're going to have Arya kill Dany, they have her wearing Grey Worm's face. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 15, 2019, 08:26:42 AM
Since Dance he's put out 5 books, edited a few more, then there are TV episodes, short stories.

He's writing. Just not successfully writing asoiaf.

Fair enough.

BTW GRR only owns writing credit on 4 GoT episodes with the last one being from 2014. I don’t think he had a lot of involvement with the show over the past two years.

Yeah, I think I saw a comment to the effect that with the divergence from books and as back then he was still hoping to stay ahead of the TV show, he felt being heavily involved in the show was just making things harder.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 15, 2019, 08:28:50 AM
Grey Worm continuing to escape death is horseshit. Dude should've been melted by the walkers.

Do not even get me started over the continued use of spears in CQ fighting.  Gods dammit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 15, 2019, 08:29:54 AM
Grey Worm continuing to escape death is horseshit. Dude should've been melted by the walkers.

The only thing I can figure is he is the only named character in Dany's army and they needed at least one. So he got plot armor.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 15, 2019, 08:37:07 AM
He has a name, we all know how that works...

(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/ZtrCllr4TI8RO1DHubU.gif)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 15, 2019, 12:04:20 PM
Qhono (the head Dothraki) is maybe still alive, but they haven't done anything at all with him this season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 15, 2019, 12:07:11 PM
Still waiting on Jon sparing the Karstark kids to have some kind of payoff.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 15, 2019, 12:07:42 PM
Qhono (the head Dothraki) is maybe still alive, but they haven't done anything at all with him this season.

No, you can see him on one of the pyres at Winterfell very briefly. Dude had a name AND died offscreen. Harsh!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 15, 2019, 12:10:50 PM
Still waiting on Jon sparing the Karstark kids to have some kind of payoff.   :awesome_for_real:

nm, just googled and Alys Karstark is also one of the people you can barely see on the pyres at the end.  What a ripoff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Phildo on May 15, 2019, 12:12:48 PM
Oh, lol.    Guess there's a reason I got Qhono with the very last pick in the fantasy league.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 15, 2019, 07:10:07 PM
Lol, they should have just put every single character they aren't going to bother mentioning again somewhere on the pile of bodies.  No matter where in the world they are actually supposed to be.  You died well fighting for the North, Daario Naharis!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 15, 2019, 07:16:42 PM
Which Daario would it be though? :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 15, 2019, 08:30:50 PM
I always hated Daario for some reason so was happy to see him written out.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2019, 06:02:57 AM
I would not pin hopes on GRRM. That way likes sadness.
We get it: you don't like GRRM. Lots of us liked the books, and are hoping for some satisfying closure. Let us hope!

Have you met schild?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 16, 2019, 06:32:39 AM
Which Daario would it be though? :why_so_serious:

Both.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 16, 2019, 06:48:30 AM
The legion of internet man babies has now started an online petition to re-do season 8 with new writers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 16, 2019, 06:57:10 AM
The legion of internet man babies has now started an online petition to re-do season 8 with new writers.
why does that make them manbabies?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2019, 07:11:01 AM
Season 8 is just the culmination of bad choices made from the start, all you can really do to improve it is remove some of the more annoying things like the way they chose to do the battle of winterfell or the death or rhaegal. What they want is for Dany to not turn evil, and that was never in the cards.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 16, 2019, 07:20:09 AM
Culmination of bad decisions made back in season 5.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 16, 2019, 07:43:02 AM
The legion of internet man babies has now started an online petition to re-do season 8 with new writers.
why does that make them manbabies?

Because those snowflakes think they can use an internet petition to force HBO to spend another 80 million on a re do of season 8 because not liking a particular version of a story about kings and dragons makes them sad and angry.

Obviously.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 16, 2019, 07:47:36 AM
One can actually simply deal with not liking how something turned out without the childish desire to force everyone to change it to a version they like better.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2019, 07:56:17 AM
Jamie throwing the writers under the bus (https://np.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/bp5izk/nikolaj_costerwaldau_on_dd/). No idea how to link reddit videos outside of reddit so suck it up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 16, 2019, 07:56:59 AM
I mean, it's a thing that obviously won't happen, but I don't think saying "this product I paid for was not to my liking, but I would happily spend money on an improved version if it existed" in itself makes someone a manbaby.

fakeedit:

Jamie throwing the writers under the bus (https://np.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/bp5izk/nikolaj_costerwaldau_on_dd/). No idea how to link reddit videos outside of reddit so suck it up.

What a manbaby!   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 16, 2019, 08:28:27 AM
These types of online petitions are almost always made by the most toxic part of a fanbase and yes, manbabies. For once I agree with Schild on something entertainment related.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 16, 2019, 08:29:48 AM
Yeah, I'm going to agree as well. Creating an online petition thinking it will make a money-making subsidiary of AT&T redo something that broke viewing records is the ultimate in pissbaby whining.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 16, 2019, 08:30:35 AM
I don't think anybody but Sansa knows about Arya's faces trick, right? So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Arya gets in to Daenerys that way. The nice thing about a list is that you can keep adding to it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 16, 2019, 08:49:27 AM
I don't think anybody but Sansa knows about Arya's faces trick, right? So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Arya gets in to Daenerys that way. The nice thing about a list is that you can keep adding to it.


Walder Frey's wife knows but she's never showing up in the show again. So for the most part yes. I don't think even Jon knows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 16, 2019, 09:07:43 AM
Jamie throwing the writers under the bus (https://np.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/bp5izk/nikolaj_costerwaldau_on_dd/). No idea how to link reddit videos outside of reddit so suck it up.

I am glad the actor felt the same way.
These types of online petitions are almost always made by the most toxic part of a fanbase and yes, manbabies. For once I agree with Schild on something entertainment related.

You're agreing with Jeff I think.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 16, 2019, 09:10:12 AM
I dont know if what this Redditor says is true, but if it is D&D sound like real wankers:

Quote
Ian McElhinney (Barristan) said that when he found out his fate in s5, he wrote a lengthy letter to D&D about why he thought Barristan still had a role to play and was important to the story. D&D said themselves that getting that letter just made them want to kill Barristan even more.

I wouldn’t be surprised that if NCW has really been fighting them on Jaime’s characterization since s4 that they vindictively wrote what we’ve seen since then.

On top of that, D&D actively discouraged their actors from reading the books, so the fact that NCW and Ian McElhinney are both avid book fans probably ticked them off.

Alexander Siddig (Doran) also said about his abrupt death:

Something happened; I have no idea what. There was an enormous amount of fan excitement when I got named to be on the show, and everyone was like, “Oh my god, yes, Doran Martell. He’s going to be great as Doran Martell.” That might have been the kiss of death. Maybe they didn’t want quite that much attention on that character. Maybe they thought, “Well, let’s prove that we’re going to stray from the books. We’re going to do something else, and he will be our first example of that.” Or maybe I just screwed up. Maybe I said the wrong thing to the wrong person.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 16, 2019, 09:18:09 AM
Doran got shafted by the complete neutering of the whole Dorne storyline. Everyone was excited over his casting expected a lot more book material to make it into the show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 16, 2019, 09:20:15 AM
Bah, watching some clips and S1 was really good:

War Stories (King Robert) (https://youtu.be/q6GW03WsFgU)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 16, 2019, 09:41:43 AM
I'd forgotten just how HAUGHTY NWC played Jamie Lannister in the beginning. Such a shame they took all that character development and pissed it down their legs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 16, 2019, 09:45:13 AM
Some of that development was good, but it went too far the other way.  Until suddenly it did not.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 16, 2019, 11:37:32 AM
Had to share this:

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60181694_2330403640549878_6837673813103083520_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=d339521bb0904b1d87e0891b51ae215f&oe=5D5FDD7F)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Triax on May 16, 2019, 02:43:20 PM
So, How many dragon eggs are going to hatch that were hidden in King's Landing and/or the Red Keep.  And the story will end with dragons running loose in the 7 kingdoms.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 16, 2019, 03:46:53 PM
That's....

that's actually kind of a cool idea. Fire wins!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 16, 2019, 04:57:16 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Reign_of_Fire_movie.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 16, 2019, 05:18:32 PM
So, How many dragon eggs are going to hatch that were hidden in King's Landing and/or the Red Keep.  And the story will end with dragons running loose in the 7 kingdoms.

Agree with Khaldun. Amazing idea. And does wildfire perhaps hatch a green-breath dragon? What an opening to the final episode that would be.

Wherever it goes in the end, the hate towards the show runners SHITS me. They've done a mostly fine job of extending a ridiculously unfinished series of mostly brilliant, incredibly complex books three seasons beyond what was written. They did a great job with the original material and that's what got everyone watching, and then they had to take up a whole new job. Coster-Waldau did not "throw them under a bus" in the video linked above, he just described their methods. The internet is a cesspool of excessive whinery and to everyone who's participating in it, I hope you break your TV and have to spend money on a new OLED so you can at least watch things that take place at night. Bah. Humbug.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 16, 2019, 05:21:20 PM
The Internet is full of unrealistic, whiny pissbabies. It is known.

That doesn't excuse some of the laziest writing I've ever seen in the last two episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 16, 2019, 05:30:56 PM
I don't think the writing is lazy. I think it's rushed. They did themselves no favors by shortening these last two seasons.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 16, 2019, 05:44:41 PM
I agree. Whatever the reasons for the shortened seasons, that seems like the root cause of everything wrong with 7 and 8.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 16, 2019, 05:50:44 PM
Condensing acclaimed novels is one skill. Continuing them with imaginary acclaimed condensed novels is another. I'd give them a B+ and say I'm satisfied so far.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: lamaros on May 16, 2019, 05:52:57 PM
I don't think the writing is lazy. I think it's rushed. They did themselves no favors by shortening these last two seasons.

I don't think it's lazy, just incompetent.

Also, Dany was miscast for the character arc, and misdirected to foreshadow (or even reflect the book) right from season 1.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 16, 2019, 07:56:37 PM
So, How many dragon eggs are going to hatch that were hidden in King's Landing and/or the Red Keep.  And the story will end with dragons running loose in the 7 kingdoms.
I was going to say that my theory has always been it took blood magic/sacrifice to hatch them, thus the reason it worked for Dany is that she burned the witch alive with them.  It's not just fire that hatches them.

Then I realized that she basically sacrificed a million people to the Red God (fiery death) on top of potential eggs.  So yeah, bring on the Dragon swarms I guess?  Actually, on that note, considering the very real power shown to be granted to people in return for burning people by the Red God, Dany may also go full Super Saiyan next episode.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 16, 2019, 08:07:34 PM
  Actually, on that note, considering the very real power shown to be granted to people in return for burning people by the Red God, Dany may also go full Super Saiyan next episode.   :awesome_for_real:

Won’t have to change wigs, will just need some hair gel  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: pxib on May 16, 2019, 08:21:51 PM
Luckily, the music remains great. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i0a7RDPkM8)

This satisfies me deeply.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 17, 2019, 06:12:18 AM
This seems pretty on point:

--------------------------------------------

https://old.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/bnmarc/spoilers_extended_reactions_game_of_thrones/enackl0/

TabaxiTaxidermist 1423 points 4 days ago24
Patch Notes for Episode 5

Scorpions got nerfed. Significantly reduced accuracy. And the hero character Euron no longer gives a bonus to Scorpion accuracy.

Dragons got buffed. Speed and stealth have both been increased. They can now take the hide action while flying.

Dothraki have been added back to the game. Fans were upset about their removal, so they’re back now.

Battle Times have been shortened. Complaints that the Battle of Winterfell lasted too long have been heard, so now battles last no longer than 5 minutes.

Northerners and Unsullied both have reduced honor and morality meters. It is now possible for them to commit war crimes with little to no provocation.

Cersei’s speed has been reduced. She now moves sluggishly, if at all.

Euron’s plot armor has been removed.

The Mountain’s loyalty has been reduced for the introduction of the Cleganebowl game type.

Arya’s conviction has been reduced after complaints that she was too OP. Her plot armor has been significantly increased to compensate.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 17, 2019, 07:23:42 AM
Stolen from Schild in Discord, GoT Character political polling:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/game-of-thrones-survey


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 19, 2019, 03:50:18 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Reign_of_Fire_movie.jpg)

Only if it leads into Sean Connery playing Draco in Dragonheart


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 19, 2019, 07:23:22 PM
Congratulations everyone, we made it!

This episode ended up not being nearly as ham-fistedly terrible as I expected.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 19, 2019, 07:27:21 PM
At least they ended with some jokes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 19, 2019, 07:28:34 PM
Turns out the real Game of Thrones was all the friends we made along the way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 19, 2019, 07:31:40 PM
While I was watching it I was imagining the entire internet melting down like Chernobyl with all the hate and anger at this ending.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 19, 2019, 07:33:19 PM
I really liked the ending personally. But I'm not as jaded as a lot of you. About the only part I didn't like was how thorough Grey Worm's heel turn was but other than that I quite liked it. Those of you predicting internet hate are missing one very, very important thing.

Ghost finally got his petting. Who's the goodest boy? Ghost is!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 19, 2019, 07:35:11 PM
While I was watching it I was imagining the entire internet melting down like Chernobyl with all the hate and anger at this ending.

There was very little to hate, everything anyone might have disliked about it was the result of choices made in previous episodes.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 19, 2019, 07:47:04 PM
This is the ending TV only fans deserved.  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 19, 2019, 07:52:53 PM
I'm thinking the Dany fans will melt down because she got turned into the mad-queen right at the end and murdered by the man she loves.  

The Jon fans will be angry because he did all the right things and his reward is to be sent off to a life sentence in the North.  BTW, what the hell the Night's Watch is doing anymore?   I have no idea.  

All the fans will upset at the weird choice of a cripple in a wheelchair with no charisma becoming King.  In the GoT universe I predict no more than a month goes by before some lord challenges the obvious weakling for the crown.

But really I just have the popcorn out and I'm watching.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 19, 2019, 07:54:05 PM
This was all obviously a setup for the spinoff show:

Adventures of the Dread Pirate Stark


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 19, 2019, 08:00:24 PM

The Jon fans will be angry because he did all the right things and his reward is to be sent off to a life sentence in the North.

He did all the stupid things, glad they didn't reward him. Not like going north to hang out with his bros is any kind of punishment really.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 19, 2019, 08:00:32 PM
Sort of liked it. Obviously missing a lot of connective tissue, but if this is where Martin's outline goes, I get what he's up to.

Less the Dread Pirate Arya and more Christopher Columbus.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rishathra on May 19, 2019, 08:04:35 PM
The only spinoff I really want from this would be titled, "The Small Council."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 19, 2019, 08:09:19 PM
It was as good as it could have been, given the rest of the season. Nothing in the ending really angered me other than them wasting Arya and all that wonderful foreshadowing.

It was unclear what exactly what Jon was doing at the wall. Is he a ranger now? Lord commander? Did he just say 'fuck it' and leave to live with the wildlings?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 19, 2019, 08:18:21 PM
Fuck it and left to be Mance Rayder II, which might be a problem for Sansa in time.

Kind of amusing that the FIRST RECONSTRUCTION in King's Landing is the Small Council room. Tells you something about Bran the Cipher's non-agenda. "Whatever you want Lord Tyrion, I'm going be a boar for the afternoon".


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 19, 2019, 08:23:45 PM
Unless I misunderstood he basically "Fuck the Night's Watch, I'm with the Free People now!"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 19, 2019, 08:43:43 PM
There is no real night's watch. It was a banishment that everyone understood was "just get him out of here so the Unsullied will fuck off to somewhere else." No one really cared after that so he went back to where he was, if you think about it, probably the most happy living with the free folk.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 19, 2019, 08:44:20 PM
That ending was nonsensical, stupid and terrible in just about every way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 19, 2019, 08:47:10 PM
This is pure justice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 19, 2019, 08:53:04 PM
can i just lock this

there's nothing to discuss


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 19, 2019, 09:09:44 PM
(https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?attachments/drogon-small-png.22545/)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 19, 2019, 09:14:42 PM
(https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?attachments/drogon-small-png.22545/)

try again


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 19, 2019, 09:21:06 PM
The only spinoff I really want from this would be titled, "The Small Council."
A 30 minute single camera sitcom?

It felt like it ended like a lot of D&D campaigns: The DM moved away, one of the players tried to finish it up, and everyone just lost interest and let their characters wander off to retirement so that they could start a new campaign.

I don't hate it as much as many of you, but it was not a satisfying payoff. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Bunk on May 19, 2019, 10:49:49 PM
I liked it. Was more satisfying than expected, considering the corners they'd painted themselves into with the rush. Left a few loose ends I would have liked answers for, but overall I'm happy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 19, 2019, 10:54:27 PM
As an end, I liked it.

It wasn't earned by the rest of the season, though. There was no emotional through line. It feels like they had the ending written by somebody who (mostly) knows what he is doing, but the way there was sketched in by some hacks. Any chance they already got the large story beats of the finale from GRRM and just ineptly tried to figure out a way to get there?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 19, 2019, 11:02:03 PM
ok seriously how can you like bran the broken

best story in the 7 kingdoms, first of his name, brother of a 3 people with better stories


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 19, 2019, 11:37:17 PM
That might be the biggest narrative misstep in the finale (thats why I wrote mostly), but even that could have worked with a competent lead-up. For example reminding us of the fact that what fucked Westeros were the emotional states of all their recent leaders. Bran is the ultimate "King that doesn't want it", which seems to be the most important criteria after all those emotionally unstable contenders in the past. Also, he has an expiry date, so everybody else can lick their wounds and reenter the game of thrones once he passed, if they so choose.

So I'm not sure it's supposed to work for all eternity. The North being independent might be a problem in the future, as might be the reemergenge of the North-North.
The fact that the six kingdoms are setting up a system to send their undesirables to the far border of another kingdom will likely not survive the current generation unscathed (that is, if this isn't an elaborate ruse to get Jon to the North without him being killed by the Unsullied, making him the Last of the Nights Watch). Neither will the other Kingdoms accept that curious status. Yara is thinking "WTF, we want that deal as well" right now, and the others won't be far behind once the shock of the last war subsides.

The wheel isn't broken, it was rebuilt with different spokes. Bran the Broken Builder Redux Edition is just the temporary stop-gap to let everybody breath again and prepare for the next wars. I don't think we are supposed to see it otherwise.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 19, 2019, 11:39:13 PM
lotta words to say bad ending


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 19, 2019, 11:45:11 PM
The ending feels more right that I dared hope being possible after the bullshit of the previous weeks. Its no Lost, its no Sopranos, and its no Dexter. It doesn't retroactively sour the whole series for me.

Thats a success for me.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 20, 2019, 04:07:48 AM
It would have sat better if either we thought Tyrion's blather about stories was a deliberate cynical cover for the truth, which is that Bran's a neutral cipher with as much authority as an overcooked pasta noodle and therefore the lords of Westeros are otherwise free to do whatever they want OR if Bran showed even a hint that he had manipulated the whole thing (sort of like a Joe Abercrombie character ported over into GoT).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 20, 2019, 04:14:20 AM
Compared to the rest of the season, it was probably the best episode. But the rest of the season let it down badly.

I walked away from the episode the same way I did the last episode of Sons of Anarchy.

Not feeling much at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Wasted on May 20, 2019, 04:19:14 AM
Yawn


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: satael on May 20, 2019, 04:29:19 AM
Better than I feared but far worse than I hoped. Nothing that would make me want to go and rewatch the show from the start.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Ceryse on May 20, 2019, 05:20:21 AM
It would have sat better if either we thought Tyrion's blather about stories was a deliberate cynical cover for the truth, which is that Bran's a neutral cipher with as much authority as an overcooked pasta noodle and therefore the lords of Westeros are otherwise free to do whatever they want OR if Bran showed even a hint that he had manipulated the whole thing (sort of like a Joe Abercrombie character ported over into GoT).


This was one of my main issues with the finale. That and the North staying independent. Really? In what world in which the North stays independent does the Iron Islands stay 'loyal'? Or Dorne? Or anyone, really, since Bran has the charisma and authority of a, well, crippled nobody that has done fuck all to 'earn' the position or respect of others? By having the North stay independant guarantees wars for independence/throne within a generation, if not sooner; probably leading to more death and destruction than the entirety of of show.

That and Bronn ending up as Master of Coin. Really?

I mean, sure, the finale could have been worse.. but I wouldn't call it of 'good', 'satisfying', 'logical', or even 'meh'. It is bad, but not horrible. This season, even with six episodes, could have been much better if they had merely followed a semi-rational extension of character arcs and motivations from the previous seasons. Of course, Bran wouldn't be  the Useless King at the end of it all, which would have gone against what Martin planned; but so what? It isn't like Martin will ever finish writing the books anyways (no great loss, imo, though; I don't see him as a great writer anyways -- I never did manage to get past book one before tossing it aside with a 'well, that's shit').


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 20, 2019, 06:38:25 AM
Bran was a shitty character when they had books to follow. He was all but forgotten once they got past the books until the last 2 seasons and even then he was just sitting around being a handicapped nuisance. I'm not sure symbolically what his importance was for GRRM but I wouldn't trust a single human who watched this show and said "my favorite character was Bran."

(no great loss, imo, though; I don't see him as a great writer anyways -- I never did manage to get past book one before tossing it aside with a 'well, that's shit').

That's me also. I'm genuinely not sure what got people through the first 100 pages. Like, what motivation does someone dig up to say "600 more pages of this is how I want to spend my time" and then do it a bunch more times. What compelled them through it?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 20, 2019, 06:51:15 AM
I liked it all. Everyone else shut up.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Shannow on May 20, 2019, 07:58:40 AM
Well in a show that was all about subverting tropes, isn't putting the weird cripple kid on the throne the last subversion.  It's now become popular to hate on the show. Ending was fine, not great, but better that what we could've hoped for considering the last episode. I'll miss this show.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2019, 08:26:44 AM
Look, my disgust at the ending is not about "it's cool to hate on the show now." That's a bullshit tactic to shut down an argument. I was with this show, despite some bad writing, right up until the moment they killed the second dragon in the most idiotic, nonsensical way possible. From that moment, everything went into a nosedive faster than the dragon fell into the drink.

Just a list of nonsensical bullshit from the last episode:

Bran being king - WTF? Why? There was nothing the character had done that earned that. He kind of vaguely mumbled some shit about the Night King while basically being a worm on a hook. He didn't tell them how to defeat the Night King, or about dragonglass or Valyrian steel killing the undead. The most "storytelling" he did was about Jon's true lineage, which amounted to fuckall in the grand scheme other than causing Dany to get all paranoid about a challenge to her throne. Had Bran maybe in 8 seasons demonstrated any real hidden or valuable knowledge or some kind of leadership, it would have made some sense, but the character hasn't earned that respect in any way.

The Night's Watch - why is there even a Night's Watch? There's nothing to guard so far as we know. Hell, there's a giant hole in the wall and it can't be rebuilt because the wall was made with magic. If it was just a fakeout to get Grey Worm and the Unsullied to fuck off, that wasn't made clear at all.

Arya - So as cliched as it might have been to have Arya be the one to kill Dany, I'm fine with all that setup from last issue being a fake out to make people think she'd kill Dany then not have her do it. However, if you aren't going to use that setup for SOMETHING, it was all wasted. She did literally NOTHING in this episode. Have her assassinate Grey Worm, or the dragon or I don't know, DO FUCKING SOMETHING. Instead, she just sits around and tells Jon to believe in the power of feelings. And her final act is... to fuck off on a boat for the frontier? ... the fuck? Have we been given any evidence she wants to explore? Any reason to think she's qualified to captain a ship? It just comes out of nowhere and makes no sense.

Drogon - or whatever the last dragon's name is. He comes in to see his mommy killed and his reaction is to burn the throne? Incidentally, the dragon nudging Dany with his nose was the most emotionally impacting scene in the whole fucking episode to me. Everything else was just flat. Do we have any indication that the dragon would even know the importance or relevance of the Iron Throne? I mean, yeah, I get the symbolism TO THE SHOW but to the dragon, it's just nonsensical. And then his response is to pick up Mommy and fuck off? Because... reasons? THAT was some lazy ass writing, knowing they didn't have the budget to have another dragon fight or the writing chops to come up with a good exit for the dragon.

Bronn - making Bronn master of coin was a good idea, but it comes so far out of the blue that it feels odd. The council meeting was only the 3rd scene we'd had with him in the entire last 6 episodes, from a character that is both a fan favorite and an interesting character. It was an utter waste.

The North as an independent kingdom - Ok, just from a political viewpoint, it makes no goddamn sense. Why would the other 6 kingdoms agree to that? Furthermore, why would Sansa choose it? Sure, she was worried about what Dany would do to the North, but she should have no worries that Bran, her beloved brother, would fuck the North over. If anything, it makes more sense for the Iron Islands to go independent or Dorne than for the North. And as a writer, I can't think of one reason you'd do it that way. It leaves a whole big dangling plot point that... oh, I see, another goddamn spinoff show. Yeah, no, fuck that. Bad writing is bad.

The Unsullied - Banish Jon, release Tyrion and despite us wanting to kill both of them for their part in Dany's death, yeah we'll just fuck off to Naath. Seeing as how Grey Worm was in an all-fired hurry to execute grunts who fought for Cersei in the streets, why would he not just straight up execute Jon when he found out about Dany's death?

There was just so much wrong with that episode. Incidentally, Jon being the one to kill Dany was perfectly acceptable. I wish there'd been more emotional weight to it because unlike when Arya ganked the Night King, I just kind of shrugged when this happened. I'll chalk that up to Dany's quick turn to the dark side as the reason.

It doesn't diminish the series as a whole to me. I still love the series and still love the first 3 books. Should Fat Bastard finish the other 2 books, I'll likely read them too. But man, was this ending an utter shitshow.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: kaid on May 20, 2019, 08:31:34 AM
Unless I misunderstood he basically "Fuck the Night's Watch, I'm with the Free People now!"

Yup and really there was no reason for him to not go that way. Nobody is going to chase him past the wall the unsullied are already gone and who knows what the dorthraki will do probably go back to where they came from. He has friends among the freefolk why not just go to live among them and help protect them as best he can.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2019, 08:33:43 AM
I have no problem with Jon going to live with the free folk, it just would have been nice if I knew where he was actually going. Just wandering? Are there even enough free folk for a settlement?

I'm certainly not the guy to expect that everything be explained, but sometimes just one line of dialogue can make all the difference. We're at Damon Lindeloff levels of "just don't explain anything" on some of these character arcs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: kaid on May 20, 2019, 08:34:52 AM
ok seriously how can you like bran the broken

best story in the 7 kingdoms, first of his name, brother of a 3 people with better stories


Honestly I kinda liked it in that it made a lot of his subtle comments in retrospect look more like he was just setting the pieces up on the board to get the outcome he wanted. Given he has all the memories of the children of the forrest having him be the king of the 6 kingdoms is kinda like the ultimate FU to the people who invaded them and cut their trees down. Plus given all the shit the kid has seen throughout history he at least has more first hand knowledge of all the ways kings can fuck up so maybe winds up being a decent if weird king.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: kaid on May 20, 2019, 08:40:20 AM
I have no problem with Jon going to live with the free folk, it just would have been nice if I knew where he was actually going. Just wandering? Are there even enough free folk for a settlement?

I'm certainly not the guy to expect that everything be explained, but sometimes just one line of dialogue can make all the difference. We're at Damon Lindeloff levels of "just don't explain anything" on some of these character arcs.

Because of jon's actions most of the women/kids from the free folks that made it to the wall got past it. Hard  to say how many died in the night kings assault on winterfel but it seems like overall the casualties from that were not anywhere as bad as they seemed givent he force that Jon lead south.

It seemed reasonably obvious that the free folk were going north to go back to their home ranges and rebuild and it looked like jon was going to assist/help. I think the nightwatch probably does keep being a think remember it had been 1000 years since the previous night king assault so for many centuries people kept getting sent to the watch that everybody "knew" were useless. It was just a dumping ground for bastards and broken men that for some reason you could not justify killing but did not want around.  A very cold australia.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 20, 2019, 08:40:46 AM
"We need a new Master of Whisperers."

Why? Bran can just go "Hey I wonder what <any random person in the world> is up to and if they are doing shit that they shouldn't? I'll just go check."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 20, 2019, 08:47:34 AM


Drogon - or whatever the last dragon's name is. He comes in to see his mommy killed and his reaction is to burn the throne? Incidentally, the dragon nudging Dany with his nose was the most emotionally impacting scene in the whole fucking episode to me. Everything else was just flat. Do we have any indication that the dragon would even know the importance or relevance of the Iron Throne? I mean, yeah, I get the symbolism TO THE SHOW but to the dragon, it's just nonsensical. And then his response is to pick up Mommy and fuck off? Because... reasons? THAT was some lazy ass writing, knowing they didn't have the budget to have another dragon fight or the writing chops to come up with a good exit for the dragon.


I won't touch on your other points because I disagree with most of them and it's all just opinion though sidenote: Jon didn't go back to the Night Watch. That was the deal that was reached but he crossed the wall and went to the True North. I suspect in a few months they'll find Castle Black empty and go "huh, well, good for him I guess."

But Drogon is actually explainable depending on how you view the bond Targaryens have with their dragons. It's not real clear in the show but the books drop hints about how warging and bonding with animals works. It's not just a quick connection, there's a bit of a soul exchange or at least a sort of melding of minds. Drogon knew Dany was dead before he ever saw it because he felt it. That's why he starts roaring even though he can't see what happened. The part of Dany in Drogon spared Jon but destroyed the throne because if she didn't have it, no one would.

So, if you're just a show watcher this was a WTF? moment. But if you read the books closely it's clear what happened.

Quote from: A Dance with Dragons prologue
"Wolves and women wed for life," Haggon often said. "You take one, that's a marriage. The wolf is part of you from that day on, and you're part of him. Both of you will change."



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2019, 08:59:30 AM
I've read the books. Warging is barely explained in them at all, and what we know is pretty sparse. In addition, we don't really get the warging vibe from Dany and the dragons. It's always treated as more of a "mother of dragons" thing. I don't ever remember the Targaryens being called wargs.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 20, 2019, 09:59:15 AM
"We need a new Master of Whisperers."

Why? Bran can just go "Hey I wonder what <any random person in the world> is up to and if they are doing shit that they shouldn't? I'll just go check."
Lol, had the same thoughts.  Actually, my first thought was that they were literally creating the God Emperor on the Golden Throne.  The Three Eyed raven lived for hundreds of years because he had grown into his root throne and was all powerful.  Nothing stops Bran from doing the same.  He literally can become all seeing god emperor literally watching over every person at every moment in the realm.  I can not be the only person to think Warhammer 40K when that happened....please?

I've read the books. Warging is barely explained in them at all, and what we know is pretty sparse. In addition, we don't really get the warging vibe from Dany and the dragons. It's always treated as more of a "mother of dragons" thing. I don't ever remember the Targaryens being called wargs.
You need to re-read the books.  Warging and everything about it is explained at great depth, particularly in the latest book (as a matter of fact, its almost assured that Johns mind will go into a wolf after he dies, and will be there until he rezz'ed somehow).  What Riggswolfe says is hypothetically possible if you include the book stuff, and would be a great way to read that scene.  But since they never explained all that, and much of the book stuff I bring up that tears apart the show narrative is discounted because its not show canon, I'm going to have to take that as non-canon.  It's a nice thought, but I honestly think the writers were just like "And Drogon decides to teach Jon Snow that the lust for power was the real enemy all along, before picking up his mum and flying her off to a hill to bury her with some flower somewhere."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Shannow on May 20, 2019, 10:07:39 AM
Look this last 13 episodes definitely deserves to be critisized, it just seems a bit over the top that's all.

On the issue of Bran being a dumb choice, yeah possibly, but they all would've been dumb choices / way to obvious ones. Jon? Come on, jeezus biggest fantasy trope of all time. Sansa? Maybe but too predictable and she really wanted to stay in the North. Bran the Broken does kind of work. It's the setup that's the problem. I sometimes wonder if GRRM did tell them he would be king or if they had to make it up it was so rushed.

You could adjust like 4-5 scenes in these last 13 episodes and it would've been a lot better off.

1. Stupid trip north of the wall, change that...still have dragon eat an ice spear though.
2. Don't have the Dothraki charge off for no reason at the start of the Night battle, less endless fighting off zombies for characters with plot armor
3. Kill the 2nd to last dragon at Kings landing, maybe with a dying Lannister soldier firing off the last scorpion as the city surrenders. THAT triggers Dany. (fucking bells, jeezus)

That's 3 at least. Just changing those cpl of key plot devices I think would alter the whole outlook of the last 13 episodes.

Oh yeah and Jon being a Targaeyrn was almost completely pointless. The Kingsmoot should've been longer, bigger and bloodier.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 20, 2019, 10:21:21 AM


I've read the books. Warging is barely explained in them at all, and what we know is pretty sparse. In addition, we don't really get the warging vibe from Dany and the dragons. It's always treated as more of a "mother of dragons" thing. I don't ever remember the Targaryens being called wargs.
You need to re-read the books.  Warging and everything about it is explained at great depth, particularly in the latest book (as a matter of fact, its almost assured that Johns mind will go into a wolf after he dies, and will be there until he rezz'ed somehow).  What Riggswolfe says is hypothetically possible if you include the book stuff, and would be a great way to read that scene.  But since they never explained all that, and much of the book stuff I bring up that tears apart the show narrative is discounted because its not show canon, I'm going to have to take that as non-canon.  It's a nice thought, but I honestly think the writers were just like "And Drogon decides to teach Jon Snow that the lust for power was the real enemy all along, before picking up his mum and flying her off to a hill to bury her with some flower somewhere."

Yeah, from the show perspective it's not detailed at all and warging is pretty much dropped around Season 6 or so other than Bran occasionally doing it. If I was the writers, I'd have had Jon standing in front of the throne and Drogon melts it while trying to kill him, only for his Targaryen blood to save him then Drogon picks her up and flies away like "eh fuck it, I tried." It's not a lot better but it makes more sense from a TV perspective than what we saw.

I'd also have changed Episode 3. I'd have had Jon get stopped by the White Walkers, not Vieserion. He is swarmed by them, maybe kills a couple which drops some wights and helps explain why people like Sam survived. During his struggle, Arya runs past then have the rest of the scene play out as it did. This would make it easier for people to swallow her getting to the Night King. I wasn't terribly bothered by it but I know a lot of people were hung up on it. But I think the showrunners valued a moment of surprise over narrative in that moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2019, 12:01:39 PM
You could adjust like 4-5 scenes in these last 13 episodes and it would've been a lot better off.

That's kind of my point, isn't it? There are a ton of really little changes that could have been made along the way (both additions and subtractions) that would have smoothed a lot of the rough edges out, and given context and depth to some of the choices. Bran being a useless cripple throughout the battle was one of those. I seriously cannot remember one conversation on screen that he had since returning where he HELPED the situation. His most significant contribution was confirming that Jon was a Targareyn to Sam and telling Sansa and Arya. And since Jon being a Targareyn had almost no impact other than driving a wedge between him and Dany, what even was the point? Even that wedge, which should have had a great impact didn't because it didn't have any time to breathe.

The first 5 seasons were the result of a metric fuckton of words being written to explain things. The last 3 seasons were literally trying to tie up all those loose ends in less than half the words, likely from an outline written on a post-it note smeared with jam and ham juice.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Spiff on May 20, 2019, 12:13:41 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dqYttHN.jpg)

I think you can also take into account these were pretty much the 13 most expensive episodes of television ever made and that's the best they could do?
Criticism deserves to be a bit harsher if you piss away that much money and hype tbh.

They should have just added in a post credit montage of Bran '3-eyed-ravening' back to the past to set it all up à-la deadpool 2 (he basically already used it to time travel when he hodor'ed Hodor) and it worked for the Avengers dammit!
Last shot: Bran sitting on his new iron throne-chair, little smirk on his face, glass of wine in hand  :drill:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 20, 2019, 12:32:50 PM
nothing would've made bran cool

dude sucks and any attempt to make him cool would've been even more groanworthy than what we got


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 20, 2019, 01:17:36 PM

This sort of thing really feeds into my general sense that they were doing this entire season by the seat of their pants and the writer of any given episode didn't know what was going to happen in the next episode.  It wouldn't have been hard at all for Bran to say something a little more vague like "I have a much larger purpose now" which wouldn't give the whole game away but would set him up for a more satisfying payoff later.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 20, 2019, 03:07:50 PM
That was, like most of s8, far better than I expected.

Obviously seemed massively abridged, but better for it. Felt they just went and filmed GRRMs notes. Lack of almost any dialog that didn't involve a Dinklage helped.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 20, 2019, 06:08:10 PM
Bran being king - WTF? Why? There was nothing the character had done that earned that.

There's a theory that it's a coup by the trees.

Bran can not only see everything, he can change history (as made clear in the Hodor backstory). So the Mad King goes mad yelling "burn them all" = Bran. Jon being "exactly where he needs to be" at all times = Bran. Dany going mad = Bran. All the weird decisions and shit that makes no sense but leads to this result = Bran.

Bran is an instrument of the combined consciousness of the weirwood trees. This may be a god, or nature itself, or just the trees. But it has seized power. That's the theory.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2019, 06:31:54 PM
That is some SERIOUS reading of the tea leaves there. Also fucking terrible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 20, 2019, 06:40:19 PM
That's a better take than what we got.   :awesome_for_real:

Also, again, I just want to emphasize how frighting him becoming king is.  He can see what everybody in his kingdom is doing at all times.  It's all powerful big brother.  On top of that, he can warg into anybody he wants at will, basically turning him into an Agent from the Matrix.  Can just directly take control of who ever to interfere in the affairs of everybody in the kingdom, killing them at a whim to mold the flow of events to go where he see's fit.  And again, if they make him a nice new throne out of live Weirwood tree's, can basically becoming an undying corpse lord ruling with this iron grip forever.


Asshole should have brought Meera down to be his fake queen though!  (I wanted more points for my fantasy team)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 20, 2019, 06:58:56 PM
Thing is, he can do all of that without being King; at least this way, the world knows he's in charge.

As I said in Discord, I suspect that the TV series ending might give GRRM the push he needs to finish at least one more book. "Look how much better the books are than the end of the show was!" is a pretty good sales pitch.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 20, 2019, 07:23:34 PM
Well it's one thing to be able to do that, but there is only so much he can do by himself.  It's another to have the entire apparatus of state and government at your command, doing your will, but then you have this power to keep yourself from being over thrown and always knowing exactly what every lord.  He can have his armies/police do what ever he desires, and protect them with his god powers for eternity.  This is how you get Sauron people!  All he needs to do is build a giant tower on the ruins of Kings Landing to sit on top of.

Also:
(https://i.redd.it/tuq2na3redz21.jpg)


Also Also:  They can rename Winterfell 'Kings Landing' now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 20, 2019, 07:55:40 PM
So Teleku, you're saying GOT is nothing more than a prequel for this?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KyPjE1Sn-Ts/maxresdefault.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2019, 08:00:02 PM
You guys have already put more thought into King Bran than I guarantee anyone working on the show did.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 20, 2019, 08:22:55 PM
Yes, that's actually what I've been saying.  Basically a slightly less vegetative Emperor.

I guess they've been foreshadowing this for a long time actually:

(https://i.redd.it/uwetbbezqez21.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 20, 2019, 09:51:45 PM
I was really hoping that the 7 kingdoms would splinter into civil war.

There was too much happily ever after in Bran the Boring being the king.

I wouldn't be surprised if Martin had the idea of a new or cyclical Bran the Builder - something that could be achieved by the 3 eyed raven. Then again, I wanted more from the 3ER and the others beyond the wall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 20, 2019, 10:52:08 PM

Jaime will kill Cersei.  It is simultaneously the worst thing that could happen to her, the best thing he could do AND it would make him the motherfucking QUEENSLAYER.  And Arya is going to wreck the Mountain, probably heroically saving the Hound in the process, because that would be fucking awesome and also close that circle in a satisfactory way.

Nobody will sit on the Iron Throne.  Either Jon or Dany (depending on which of them lives) will stand in front of it with Drogon, and while appearing to contemplate taking a seat, will instead utter a quiet "Dracarys" instead, and Drogon will melt it into slag.  Roll credits.

My predictions way back.  I actually thought Jaime was going to kill Cersei, right up until he didn't (even if it was to put her out of her misery or something).  I also thought Arya might swoop in and kill the Mountain.

I got fairly close with the Iron Throne prediction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 20, 2019, 11:18:09 PM
I think people are reading the purpose of the coronation of Bran the Wheelie Wheelie Legs No Feelie wrong. It wasn't because he should be king or would be a good king. It was so they would have a king that was so checked out that no one could really get mad at him and want to overthrow the monarchy.  The realm would be run by the small council.   It was the triumph of Weberian bureaucracy.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 20, 2019, 11:49:04 PM
That's how I saw it as well.  A choice nobody would be unhappy about nor be able to take advantage of.  Worked fine for me.  Most of that episode I thought was pretty well done, even if I have complaints about what led up to it.

They could totally make a Arya Goes West spinoff.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2019, 12:30:14 AM
More on Bran/Three Eyed Raven potentially having pulled the strings. Perhaps he led a Groundhog Day/Russian Doll life, changing each piece of the past until it arrived here. He left a trail of discarded victims: Hodor, Meera, Benjen, Theon and his men, everyone else who died vs the Night King, everyone who died because Bran outed Jon, and then Jon himself. Serial mistake-maker Tyrion was always exactly where he needed to be to make another mistake, leading to the serial mistake-maker coming up with "Bran should be king". Is Bran a time lord Littlefinger?

Bran to Jaime: "You wouldn’t be able to help us in this fight if I let them murder you first."
Bran to Jon: "You were exactly where you were supposed to be."

Article: I am a Bran truther (https://theweek.com/articles/842449/bran-truther).
Article: Did Bran Stark know he would be king? (http://time.com/5592064/game-of-thrones-bran-stark-king/)

I haven't got it all figured out. (Another theory: Is Bran an extension of the Night King? (https://www.gamespot.com/articles/game-of-thrones-season-8-makes-a-lot-more-sense-if/1100-6467043/) "His mark is on me.")


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Comstar on May 21, 2019, 02:22:43 AM
Bran is king. He has no army, no watch, no city, no peasants, no fleet, no money, no family around, no dragon, NO LEADERSHIP (beyond controlling 1 person at a time), no food, no roof, no allies and 2 leaderless armies with no home sitting on his front lawn?



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 21, 2019, 02:38:02 AM
The two armies are gone, both the Dohtraki and the Unsullied board ships when Jon is brought to the north. The Unsullied go to Naath, and the Dothraki probably back home.

The rest you said is true, though. Thats why I think Bran will be king exactly as long as it suits the High Lords. Which might be quite some time given the desolate state everybody is in right now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 21, 2019, 03:17:01 AM
Maybe some of you book nerds know the answer, but are we sure Bran can simply inhabit whomever he wants?  Haven't we only seen animals and a halfwitted Hodor?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 21, 2019, 06:55:19 AM
The warg 'target' can fight back, but there is no hard limit to what can be warged into. Also the only two first hand examples we have sent the victim insane (Hodor and Thistle). On top of that the 'skinchangers' north of the wall have a code specifically forbidding warging to humans (also no eating people and no fucking).

My reading is that warging into humans is possible, but risky and hard.

Bram definitely can't just inhabit anyone on a whim. As the whole Hodor incident shows.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 21, 2019, 07:46:03 AM
Haven't seen last episode, so just some drive by meme:

(https://i.imgur.com/QkpoeBg.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 21, 2019, 08:18:10 AM
"Shadows on the wall."

At the end, the Night King dies like a mook, shanked by a little girl after having weakened the last Dragonlord *just* enough. Pretty much every known follower of the Red God in Westeros is dead. The Sept of the Seven is destroyed, and the remainder of the Sparrows are nowhere to be seen. And the Three Eyed Raven, avatar of the Old Gods, is now King Bran the Broken, Lord of the 6 Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm.

If I were playing a game with the world as a board, where the Doom of Valyria was a recent event, I'd think the trees just pulled off one hell of a hat trick.

Good game, what's next?

--Dave


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 21, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
They should hope Bran can turn into an immortal tree-god-emperor because otherwise an elective monarchy is a guarantee for civil wars within one or two succession events.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 21, 2019, 08:40:47 AM
I'm not about to say that I'm some great writer or anything, but I literally cannot imagine starting a story without knowing where it's going to end (whether that ending will suck or not is a whole other thing). There's plenty of room in the middle of the story for improvisation and altering the course - one of my new books had a pretty significant character shift that I didn't even figure out until the chapter before it happened. Hell, I just finished a six-novella work that's around 180,000 words and I knew from the day I started writing it how the whole thing would end. It was the whole goddamn point of writing the books.

I'm not saying there can't be good work if you don't know the ending before you start, just that I cannot fathom how that would make for a good writing process.

Late answer.

GRR always described his own writing process as being a "gardener" as compared to an "architect". He described it as a process similar to that of a gardener where he needs to prepare the soil, sow out the seeds and watch his characters grow until he knows how they turn out. Which means that he needs to write the characters and their interactions before he can know how they will act and what their motivations are and therefore how the plot progresses. He compared this to writers he called "architects" who know the whole overarching plot before they start writing.

This also means that GRR has no idea how any of the open plot points is going to resolve themselves because he hasn't written them yet.

I've recently learned that apparently a lot of authors operate like gardeners.

There's this urban legend that GRR allegedly had to tell HBO how the books were going to end before HBO was willing to greenlight the series. I don't think that this is actually true. The more I understand GRR's writing process and how he describes it the more I agree with the faction of book fans that claim that GRR has no idea how the series will end or how many books are necessary to get to that end. I mean how could he know if answering this question early is not part of his process?

Understanding this also helped me understand why some long running series just seem to go on and on always opening up more plot threads instead of resolving them and then sort of petering out at the end.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 21, 2019, 08:44:42 AM
Bran as king is a terrible choice in the cutthroat GoT political universe. I give it month before some lord decides it's not fair the the Starks both get to be a king AND the North gets to be an independent kingdom. Plus if the North is independant, why not his lands? Also Bran is a weakling anyway and detached from reality and lacking in charisma so THEY would obviously be a better choice for king. The bloody cycle continues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 21, 2019, 09:05:09 AM
Counterpoint:  the powerful cutthroats are all dead.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 21, 2019, 09:07:11 AM
Bran see's this lord muttering to his friends in real time.  Has him arrested very next day and his head stuck on top of a Weirwood tree (new symbol of Westros, all hail our old god saviors).  Does this a couple more times.  Lords finally figure out thought crime is a deadly crime and learn to truly love Big Bran.  Pretty easy.  There IS no game of thrones while Bran is in command.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 21, 2019, 09:38:16 AM
I'm not about to say that I'm some great writer or anything, but I literally cannot imagine starting a story without knowing where it's going to end (whether that ending will suck or not is a whole other thing). There's plenty of room in the middle of the story for improvisation and altering the course - one of my new books had a pretty significant character shift that I didn't even figure out until the chapter before it happened. Hell, I just finished a six-novella work that's around 180,000 words and I knew from the day I started writing it how the whole thing would end. It was the whole goddamn point of writing the books.

I'm not saying there can't be good work if you don't know the ending before you start, just that I cannot fathom how that would make for a good writing process.

Late answer.

GRR always described his own writing process as being a "gardener" as compared to an "architect". He described it as a process similar to that of a gardener where he needs to prepare the soil, sow out the seeds and watch his characters grow until he knows how they turn out. Which means that he needs to write the characters and their interactions before he can know how they will act and what their motivations are and therefore how the plot progresses. He compared this to writers he called "architects" who know the whole overarching plot before they start writing.

This also means that GRR has no idea how any of the open plot points is going to resolve themselves because he hasn't written them yet.

I've recently learned that apparently a lot of authors operate like gardeners.

There's this urban legend that GRR allegedly had to tell HBO how the books were going to end before HBO was willing to greenlight the series. I don't think that this is actually true. The more I understand GRR's writing process and how he describes it the more I agree with the faction of book fans that claim that GRR has no idea how the series will end or how many books are necessary to get to that end. I mean how could he know if answering this question early is not part of his process?

Understanding this also helped me understand why some long running series just seem to go on and on always opening up more plot threads instead of resolving them and then sort of petering out at the end.

I think he knows how it will end, just not how to get there. The day after finale there was an interview with Emilia Clarke published and she said in from the early seasons she tried to play her big scenes "heroically" and she always got notes to play it a different way, and she had no idea why until she read the script for the last season. There is no way D & D came up with the Dany heel turn on their own before the show even started, that had to be fed to them by Martin.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 21, 2019, 11:26:10 AM
I give it month before some lord decides it's not fair the the Starks both get to be a king AND the North gets to be an independent kingdom. Plus if the North is independant, why not his lands?

This is the part of that whole kingsmoot scene that I (and many people, I'm sure) found to be the most fuckstupid.  Sansa wanting the North to secede made perfect sense; her just straight up demanding it at that moment with no subtlety AND everyone else going along with it without so much as a murmur was not in any way plausible.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 21, 2019, 11:40:26 AM
Now that the Wildling population is nearly eliminated, why would the rest of the 7 Kingdoms give a rats patoottie about the North?  Are they not more likely to be a drain on the other  Kingdoms in the future than a benefit?

I'm imagining Canada asking to annex Alaska on the day the Alaskan Oil and Gas reserves drop to the point where it is efficient to take them anymore... "Would you like Fries with that frozen wasteland?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 21, 2019, 11:57:54 AM
If anything, the North is more valuable now since the end of winter (forever?) means a lot more productive farmland.  Robert went to war against the Iron Islands (which have no known natural resources other than scurvy, and sure as hell aren't manning any walls) to keep them from breaking off, so I have to assume that either all the kingdoms pay enough taxes to be worth keeping around, or it's important to keep even the useless ones around to make sure that the wealthier ones don't get ideas.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 21, 2019, 12:02:02 PM
Aside from the Iron Islands under Balon's rule, the North has been the only Kingdom that seems to have a strong desire for independence. Also most of the people that were there voting are either related to the Starks in some way or are on good terms with them, and many of them are new to power. Tyrion, Brienne, Gendry and Sam aren't going to go against them. Davos probably doesn't really give a shit. Bronn isn't there. Edmure is their Uncle and Robin is their cousin. Random guy in charge of Dorne after all the fuckery there probably doesn't have a lot of pull. Yara maybe should have taken the opportunity to put in a bid for the Iron Island's independence, but that's the only real issue I see.

If this group were made up of people like Tywin and Olenna, then sure, that shit wouldn't fly.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 21, 2019, 12:43:48 PM
If anything, the North is more valuable now since the end of winter (forever?) ...
There were long Winters before the Night King, and there will be long winters after.  This Winter may be over, but one weed in the snow north of the wall is a hint that Winter is ending... sort of like the title of the last book ... but is not an indication that the entire world is now going to be a lush paradise.

As for the Iron Islands - they declared independenace and pillaged the coast of the Seven Kingdoms.  It was Brexit if Brexit nuked Paris.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 21, 2019, 01:29:58 PM
About the North seceding:

Who's going to stop them? Most of the armies on the continent are decimated and the ones that aren't either don't care or like the Starks. I think Dorne is possibly the only kingdom with enough of a standing army left to do anything and I think they just don't give a shit.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 21, 2019, 01:42:37 PM
Wasn't Dorne the only kingdom of the 7 that was never conquered? If so, they'd have plenty of reason to protest independence, or at the very least, claim it for themselves.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 21, 2019, 02:11:19 PM
Wasn't Dorne the only kingdom of the 7 that was never conquered? If so, they'd have plenty of reason to protest independence, or at the very least, claim it for themselves.

If Dornishmen have demonstrated anything over the previous seasons, it's that they're generally completely happy to go along with whatever everyone else is doing.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 21, 2019, 02:14:18 PM
There's this urban legend that GRR allegedly had to tell HBO how the books were going to end before HBO was willing to greenlight the series. I don't think that this is actually true. The more I understand GRR's writing process and how he describes it the more I agree with the faction of book fans that claim that GRR has no idea how the series will end or how many books are necessary to get to that end. I mean how could he know if answering this question early is not part of his process?

Understanding this also helped me understand why some long running series just seem to go on and on always opening up more plot threads instead of resolving them and then sort of petering out at the end.

The urban legend is what GRRM and benioff and weiss explicitly said, and not so much HBO insisted as what GRRM agreed to do presumably so the series would look a bit like his books.

The plot points from that outline stand out a mile, and with hindsight are telegraphed pretty hard in the books.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 21, 2019, 02:36:56 PM
Wasn't Dorne the only kingdom of the 7 that was never conquered? If so, they'd have plenty of reason to protest independence, or at the very least, claim it for themselves.

Maybe not conquered, but in the course of a few seasons lost Doran, Oberyn, Prince Trystane, and Ellaria. So basically not only their ruling house was wiped out, but also the woman who took control in a coup ended up dead as well.

Half the people in positions of power by the end got the Battlestar Galactica President Roslin promotion. A Dwarf, a smuggler, a mercenary, a female knight, a member of the Night's Watch, and a guy that was being breast-fed until almost double-digit age, are now among the most powerful people in a realm now ruled by a cripple, with the guy with possibly the most actual claim to the throne going to live beyond the Wall so as not to piss off an army of former-slave eunuchs.

With two massive wars just ended, and a lot of rebuilding needed, I can see people not really wanting to push back against Northern independence at the moment.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hoax on May 21, 2019, 04:06:56 PM
I guess at least we got some kind of closure?

Bran as king only makes sense in the cyclical Bran the Builder sort of way as was mentioned upthread. But it would have taken a lot of time skips and an entire episode of content to convince us that it made any sense and was workable and him and his government was going to be The Builder II. All that was never going to happen so its use your imagination time. I think that the issue of Bran and what army needed to be addressed and the Northern independence needed to be laid out in a more logical believable manner but again, who has the time and would most normies even understand or give a fuck?

No the vast majority (because remember this isn't a niche show, the audience is quite big) just wanted the 80's high school movie where did they all end up while the credits roll. So that's what we got. Sucks but it is what it is.

I blame GRRM for not writing more, or at least helping more. Or whoever didn't offer to pay him to do so if that was the problem. It wasn't though, he's a lazy twat who has no idea what he's doing. On top of that fuck the GoT world anyways, blaming the writers for not honoring it faithfully enough is silly. The undead army was always stupid and a waste of time unless the story is literally only about the great war btwn living and dead. The fact that everyone breaks oaths and betrays everyone at every turn /BUT/ the status quo is 1,000 years old is fucking stupid and ignorant of how humans behave it always has been and its the reason I literally quit Book 2 before finishing it the first time I read them before just filling in gaps in the show was reason enough to push through.

However, this is probably the most high quality swords and knights and statecraft type show we'll get. Sucks but its true. So I'm glad we got it and I'll be sad when there is literally nothing else that scratches those itches worth watching from now until ever.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 21, 2019, 04:19:36 PM
Clearly he is having problems putting all the pieces together so it’s easier for him to work on new stuff.  If he was just another fantasy writer he would have to pump the books out to have an income.  But he has all that HBO money now and likely never needs to work again.

The scary part is the pressure of feeding the TV series wasn’t enough to get him to finish a single new book.  What on earth could possibly motivate him now?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2019, 04:38:34 PM
Maybe some of you book nerds know the answer, but are we sure Bran can simply inhabit whomever he wants?  Haven't we only seen animals and a halfwitted Hodor?

Bran disabled future Hodor by accidentally warging into Hodor's healthy young self during a trip to the past, which suggests Bran can change the future.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 21, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
If anything, the North is more valuable now since the end of winter (forever?) means a lot more productive farmland.  Robert went to war against the Iron Islands (which have no known natural resources other than scurvy, and sure as hell aren't manning any walls) to keep them from breaking off, so I have to assume that either all the kingdoms pay enough taxes to be worth keeping around, or it's important to keep even the useless ones around to make sure that the wealthier ones don't get ideas.
What makes you think winter is over?  It started snowing down in King's Landing after the battle (that was very obviously not ash.  It was bright white and there were literal snowflakes falling).

Never saw it said anywhere in the series or books that White Walkers created winter.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 21, 2019, 08:40:18 PM
What makes you think winter is over?  It started snowing down in King's Landing after the battle (that was very obviously not ash.  It was bright white and there were literal snowflakes falling).

Never saw it said anywhere in the series or books that White Walkers created winter.

I think it was ash...

The camera focused a shot on a green plant sprouting from the snow when Jon was heading north with the free people, signifying it was spring.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 21, 2019, 09:10:39 PM
It was all over the place. When Jon runs into the sleeping Drogon he is clearly under a layer of snow.  Continuity in that episode was not its strong point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 21, 2019, 09:19:06 PM
I surmise that winter ended because in the next scene when they're outside having the kingsmoot, it looks like summer, and the free folk return north of the Wall, which they would presumably not be keen to do if it was still in a deadly deep freeze.

I mean, I don't like the fact that after all that time building up "winter is coming" it was apparently ended by a single stab, but that's the only way I can interpret those scenes.  The snow on Drogon completely baffled me because it does look like snow, but there isn't snow seen in King's Landing anywhere else in that episode or the one before it.  The only explanation I have for that one is that the guy who did the CGI was misinformed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 21, 2019, 09:20:20 PM
It was all over the place. When Jon runs into the sleeping Drogon he is clearly under a layer of snow.  Continuity in that episode was not its strong point.
Ash.  The snow that fell in the finale over King's Landing was ash,


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 21, 2019, 10:00:34 PM
Nah, the scene where Jon walks by Drogon is WEEKS after the burning of the city (as per his convo with Tyrion) and he has a layer over him while he is sleeping. It falls off him like snow.  No way ash is still falling form the sky at this point.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2019, 10:33:31 PM
Littlefinger to Varys in Season 3: “Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but they refuse. They cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.”

Bran to Littlefinger in Season 7: “Chaos is a ladder.”

Bran to Jaime: "You wouldn’t be able to help us in this fight if I let them murder you first."
Bran to Jon: "You were exactly where you were supposed to be."

Bran is the Three-Eyed Raven, who was Brynden Rivers (Bloodraven), the legitimised bastard son of King Aegon IV Targaryen. Brynden was a sorcerer who became hand of the king and master of whisperers simultaneously (and even more effective than Varys) under kings Aerys I Targaryen and Maekar I.

Brynden organised the Great Council (kingsmoot) that chose Aegon V Targaryen (Mad King's grandfather) to succeed Maekar. But this new Aegon immediately arrested Brynden and sent him to the Wall for the murder of Aenys Blackfyre who had been invited to represent a rival throne-contesting bastard line of Targaryens at the kingsmoot.

As a prisoner, Brynden went to the Wall on the same trip as Aemon Targaryen (Maester Aemon). Brynden rose to become lord commander of the Night's watch, then disappeared ranging beyond the Wall and surfaced as the 3ER encountered by Bran. Chaos is a ladder and perhaps Brynden got another chance to climb it via Bran.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 21, 2019, 10:37:10 PM
It was all snow, the entire episode.  Like, literal snow flakes falling.  Unless there are things like ash flakes.

But as Ab said, it was just all over the place with shitty editing.  I'm sure there wasn't snow at the Kingsmoot not because they wanted to make some point, but because they just didn't even think about it or want to bother ("The director sort of forgot it was winter").  But yeah, it was a several month jump forward in time apparently, so I guess Winter might be dialing back for the season anyways, as a plant growing up north shows.  Or maybe that plant was meant to symbolize the kingdom regrowing amid all of the description, and they were't even thinking of spring at all?  Who can say with these guys!

Also, I was sort of wondering why they just didn't offer all the wildlings the Umber land.  Like, there are no more Umbers.  Or any of the peasants they once ruled.  May as well take a free castle and better land than what you are getting up north.

I guess the nights watch's job now is maintaining the wall as a tourist attraction?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 21, 2019, 10:43:52 PM
Sending Jon to the Night's Watch was a ceremonial punishment for the queenslaying rightful heir who did not want to be king. Everybody knew there was no Night's Watch and no more need for one. He was free to join the wildlings, who were apparently waiting for his arrival. He was always a wildling at heart.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 21, 2019, 10:45:46 PM
(https://i.redd.it/kjwslju73az21.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Abagadro on May 21, 2019, 10:46:06 PM
I ruse.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 22, 2019, 03:51:54 AM
Nah, the scene where Jon walks by Drogon is WEEKS after the burning of the city (as per his convo with Tyrion) and he has a layer over him while he is sleeping. It falls off him like snow.  No way ash is still falling form the sky at this point.

Also in the earlier Winterfell episodes they actually had cold vapor breath when they spoke (most Hollywood productions never bother to add this). Definitely didn't have it in KL so unless that's another massive continuity flop (always possible) then it wasn't cold/snow.

I think it really was supposed to be a week of ash to emphasize what a massive pyre the dragon  turned KL into.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: IainC on May 22, 2019, 04:25:24 AM
The other denouement nobody wanted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nws1JQHBlJA


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 22, 2019, 04:53:54 AM
Surely that was ash.  They have been showing KL as "a bit chilly" where it used to be a fairly tropical environment before.  I don't think "winter" in KL means the same thing it means in the north.  See also:  any map of any earth-like planet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 22, 2019, 04:57:43 AM
The other denouement nobody wanted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nws1JQHBlJA

Still better continuity than  Season 8


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: pants on May 22, 2019, 05:01:38 AM
The last scene was meant to be spring is coming - when they cut to the wall you can hear water running, as if the wall is melting (or at least softening for spring).


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 22, 2019, 05:08:34 AM
The other denouement nobody wanted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nws1JQHBlJA

I didn't know I wanted it until I watch it.  I had to put my cocoa down, lest it burst forth from my nostrils.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Ironwood on May 22, 2019, 05:49:33 AM
The last scene was meant to be spring is coming - when they cut to the wall you can hear water running, as if the wall is melting (or at least softening for spring).

Wait

Wait

I thought winter was meant to last for a fuckton of years ?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 22, 2019, 05:51:25 AM
They killed winter when they killed the Night King. That green plant growing definitely meant winter was over north of the wall.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 22, 2019, 05:52:51 AM


It was implied winter's intensity and duration had some correlation with the others, so their defeat would have limited it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Comstar on May 22, 2019, 06:20:01 AM
Am I the only one who clearly saw Bran take over Tryion while he was in prison, just before Jon comes in? Did I watch another show and confuse it?

How that makes Bran king later makes no sense either, it was just another stupid weird thing that happened.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Ironwood on May 22, 2019, 06:24:11 AM
Ah, right, so it was a Doomdark thing.  That makes sense if they're generating the Ice-Fear.

I'm utterly bold.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 22, 2019, 06:56:28 AM
I think I was OK with Bran because...

1) it doesn't matter it isn't really the point of the story
2) there isn't an obviously better solution if you assume the 6 kingdoms want to stay united.
3) I was thoroughly spoiled on this happening when the betting odds on Bran just collapsed so hard that there was obviously a leak.
4) Tyrion's point that he can't start a dynasty was not a terrible argument.

It was thrown out in 5 minutes because other things were more important to this story.

The Carry On Up The Small Council scene annoyed me more.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 22, 2019, 07:06:26 AM
There is nothing in the books or series to imply that the usual winter has anything to do with the others.  Now, THIS winter, was hyped up to be one hell of a civilization killer, and this was also hyped up to be because the white walkers had finally awoken and were coming south to party.  So killing them does sort of make sense that the harsh winter that was coming would be broken.  But normal winters will still come and go and be years long, yeah.  Also, keep in mind the entire series when John or anybody else was fighting though blizzards north of the wall, all of that was in SUMMER.  So that blade of grass is probably about as much as anybody will actually see up there.

And holy hell it was Snow falling on Kings Landing.  Nothing about it looked like ash.  It was bright fucking white, and was coming down in obvious snow flakes.  See Arya at the end of episode 5 if you want to see ash.  She is gray, its raining grey, everything is grey.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 22, 2019, 07:22:06 AM
I may be mistaken but I thought GRRM said something about how the seasons in Westeros are all screwed up because of magic and the Others are part of it with Dragons (or the Lord of Light) being another part. This may just be a fan theory I've internalized over the years though.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 22, 2019, 07:22:39 AM
And holy hell it was Snow falling on Kings Landing.  Nothing about it looked like ash.  It was bright fucking white, and was coming down in obvious snow flakes.  See Arya at the end of episode 5 if you want to see ash.  She is gray, its raining grey, everything is grey.

Also the iron throne was frozen when Dany reached for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 22, 2019, 07:46:54 AM
https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1130581319593783296


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 22, 2019, 08:09:07 AM
I may be mistaken but I thought GRRM said something about how the seasons in Westeros are all screwed up because of magic and the Others are part of it with Dragons (or the Lord of Light) being another part. This may just be a fan theory I've internalized over the years though.



He has said that we'll learn why the seasons are fucked by the end of the books. He hasn't explicitly linked the rise of all kinds of magic to it, but I mean, that is fairly obvious.

I assume that stopping magic in general is how the others are defeated in the books.

But the show doesn't give a shit. At least in s8 it was honest about this.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 22, 2019, 05:15:02 PM
Chaos is a ladder and perhaps Brynden got another chance to climb it via Bran.

Holy shit, someone just reminded me his primary characteristic as a child is Bran the climber. The books and the show open with all the stuff about Bran being quite the climber, and then it gets repressed by his disability, and...

"You always look at your feet before you lie." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-umQF3dvn8) - Maybe I gotta rewatch every Bran scene for him looking at his feet...

Vision just as he's headed towards being the 3ER, and the look Jojen gives him: "Promise me, Bran, no more climbing." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h5zgsBbv9s)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 22, 2019, 05:31:28 PM
GRRM has said that for the most part, the show and books are endining similarly.  The major beats are the same.

As for ash versus snow - It doesn't make sense as either.  Having been downwind from the Paradise California Camp Fire, I can say ash can fall like snow, but it does not look like that and everything is dirty.  And nobody can breath. 

However, a living furnace that needs to eat constantly that ends up buried under feet of snow when the snow is falling at a light drift?  Err.... 

Also, there was blue sky amongst the clouds that doesn't really make sense for either.

The last book will likely make it clear.  We just have to wait for 2032 to read it.  When Brandon Sorensen writes it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 22, 2019, 06:10:17 PM
If he said it, it was nowhere in the actual books themselves.  In the books, we know absolutely nothing about the White Walkers, their origins, or anything (Winds of Winter is supposed to get into all this).  Same thing with the Red God, who we just know has priest who worship him and seems to give actual power.  But not like, good power.  Everything about him involves blood magic, which is generally considered bad.  When ever they tell stories of the past, they always mention the winters and summers lasting multiple years, so it can't really have anything to do with the Dragons.

Mind you, I think it is a good and likely theory to explain the wacky seasons of the world, but hasn't been revealed in the books yet.  And I pay very little attention to what the dude says IRL.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 22, 2019, 08:00:51 PM
Someone's video from over 3 weeks ago, predicting King Bran the Broken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5n8Q4lOUic) "because chaos is a ladder and Bran is the best at climbing". Denies he had any spoilers.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 22, 2019, 09:29:29 PM
The other denouement nobody wanted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nws1JQHBlJA
This may have legitimized S8 and the original song  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 22, 2019, 10:51:14 PM
https://youtu.be/jAhKOV3nImQ


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 23, 2019, 03:22:58 AM
If he said it, it was nowhere in the actual books themselves.  In the books, we know absolutely nothing about the White Walkers, their origins, or anything (Winds of Winter is supposed to get into all this).  Same thing with the Red God, who we just know has priest who worship him and seems to give actual power.  But not like, good power.  Everything about him involves blood magic, which is generally considered bad.  When ever they tell stories of the past, they always mention the winters and summers lasting multiple years, so it can't really have anything to do with the Dragons.

Mind you, I think it is a good and likely theory to explain the wacky seasons of the world, but hasn't been revealed in the books yet.  And I pay very little attention to what the dude says IRL.

There is a fair bit of book evidence that the citadel dudes think magic in the world is 'a very bad thing' and they spend of a lot of energy linking magic and dragons.

They don't say loads about winter or why they view magic as such a bad thing.

There is a viable theory that the rise of magic was caused by Targ efforts to birth dragons, and the citadel responded by removing the Targs from power. Also viable to think Varys is part of that faction given he explicitly tells Tyrion how he is motivated by hatred of wizards in both book and show.

Bran's show visions link prior rows with the Others to sillyness involving magic.

The 700 ft magic wall also gives a strong hint that the builders felt a need to protect the kingdoms from the tide of magic.

But as you say, not actually revealed as yet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Ceryse on May 23, 2019, 05:30:33 AM
I find it interesting to see all the talk about how the last two seasons were rushed and for what reasons. Ironically, the plan, from D&D, was always seven seasons. HBO, apparently, was quite interested in adding two to five more seasons, but in the end only got D&D to extend it by three episodes, resulting in the seventh season being split into the season seven and eight we got. D&D commented as far back as 2014 that their plan was seven seasons. What this means, of course, is that there was no rush outside of them wanting to have a set end date for the show. It also looks like the had the finale details worked out shortly after finishing season six -- the rest of the episodes in between were then used to bridge the gap, thus why so much got kicked to the side. As for changing show runners.. number of reasons why that likely didn't happen, but I wish it had (of course, who knows; their replacements could have been worse -- we'll never know).

Lastly, it looks like a lot of the GoT spin-offs  are dead in the water after the back-lash. I think there's one prequel currently filming, two other prequels were planned but are now on hold, and the two 'sequels' (such as Arya going west) didn't even make it that far. Depending on how the prequel they are already filming is received will likely decide the fate of the rest.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 23, 2019, 06:02:04 AM
To be fair to D&D I read a bunch of the actors were refusing to do more,  wanted to move on and had other projects so scheduling shooting was already getting very difficult


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 23, 2019, 06:06:49 AM
I keep hearing this talk of both D&D and the actors wanting to move on.  Anybody got links for this?  All I ever see it is in forum chatter, so curious to see what is being said.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Paelos on May 23, 2019, 07:33:41 AM
I keep hearing this talk of both D&D and the actors wanting to move on.  Anybody got links for this?  All I ever see it is in forum chatter, so curious to see what is being said.

I've never understood that mentality btw. It's usually career suicide when you're on a long running wildly successful show to move into other roles.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 23, 2019, 07:43:54 AM
And its not like you have to ditch your successful show to do other stuff. Emilia did Terminator, Star Wars and some other stuff while filming the show after having two brain hemorrhages.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 23, 2019, 08:17:26 AM
I think actors just get bored of the same characters after awhile. While I didn't hear they wanted to move on, I did hear HBO would have to renegotiate all of their contracts which apparently it was willing to do. I'm sure some did want to move on and with a show like this that would be a big problem. Game of Thrones has a huge ensemble and it's far too late to recast and some of the key players absolutely could not be easily written out. (The Lannisters and Starks primarily.)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 23, 2019, 08:51:14 AM
https://youtu.be/jAhKOV3nImQ

I love the Pitch Meeting guy, and that one is spot on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 23, 2019, 09:07:43 AM
https://youtu.be/jAhKOV3nImQ

I love the Pitch Meeting guy, and that one is spot on.
Yeah. Thank you.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tebonas on May 23, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
That was really good, and so true.

"Council of Surviving Characters", snicker.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 24, 2019, 12:57:58 AM
Lastly, it looks like a lot of the GoT spin-offs  are dead in the water after the back-lash. I think there's one prequel currently filming, two other prequels were planned but are now on hold, and the two 'sequels' (such as Arya going west) didn't even make it that far. Depending on how the prequel they are already filming is received will likely decide the fate of the rest.

There is no way on earth decisions have changed that quickly, stop reading bullshit click bait. Most of these spin offs are just a guy who had lunch anyway - there is not so much to cancel.

Obviously the success the next series will decide how interested HBO are in follow ons.

And I doubt HBO are bothered that s8 got such high ratings.

https://youtu.be/jAhKOV3nImQ

I love the Pitch Meeting guy, and that one is spot on.
Yeah. Thank you.

This is good though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 24, 2019, 02:04:51 AM
Any spinoff would probably end up being less successful, but I imagine if they include most of the same elements they would still do far better than most random crap that gets produced.  In terms of ratings, earnings, or whatever metrics matter.

Arya goes West of West?  We'd watch it.  You know we would.  Send Bronn with her because of reasons and it would be must-watch tv.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Jeff Kelly on May 24, 2019, 02:37:42 AM
Bronn and Arya is a buddy cop show waiting to happen


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 24, 2019, 02:58:02 AM
"cop" implies they need would be the good guys.  They need to be whoring it up and stabbing people in the neck.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Wasted on May 24, 2019, 03:34:39 AM

And I doubt HBO are bothered that s8 got such high ratings.


I've heard a few times that HBO care more about good critical reviews than they do ratings.  I think they can also understand that just because something does well ratings wise doesn't mean it hasn't burned up a lot of goodwill if it didn't succeed.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 24, 2019, 03:50:01 AM
They care about whether something they're airing is so interesting/important/acclaimed that it makes people feel compelled to subscribe. Though after their acquisition, who knows? Their new dumb corporate overlords seemed to have had some different ideas.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 24, 2019, 03:57:08 AM
I am talking out my ass here, but it is not unreasonable to expect that HBO loses subscriptions every year once GoT season is done, only to gain them back once the season comes back around.  Now that the series is over, they will hemorrhage bunches of subs, although how much a bite that takes out of their pie, I have no idea.  I myself am probably going to hang onto my sub to rewatch Westworld and to finish watching The Office (only streaming service I have that has it)....then I am probably done with it.  Maybe forever.  I won't be the only one.

Arya and Bronn go west buckling swashes, stabbing necks and stealing chickens?  That might get me back.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Draegan on May 24, 2019, 04:45:30 AM
"We need a new Master of Whisperers."

Why? Bran can just go "Hey I wonder what <any random person in the world> is up to and if they are doing shit that they shouldn't? I'll just go check."

I don't think that's how it works. You need those trees to be around to get into the memory core. That's why they lost power in the south where they cut down all those trees.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 24, 2019, 05:45:04 AM
If nothing else, His Dark Materials would have me hanging on.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 24, 2019, 06:54:09 AM
HBO already shot down the Arya spin off idea. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2019/05/22/hbo-is-already-shooting-down-that-game-of-thrones-arya-spin-off-you-wanted/#55a934b9256a)

I don't think that's how it works. You need those trees to be around to get into the memory core. That's why they lost power in the south where they cut down all those trees.

Bran was perfectly able to see Ned at the Tower of Joy in the far south, even with all those tree's cut down.  So I think it does work that way.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 24, 2019, 07:14:31 AM
Arya going west would indeed be more interesting to me than any prequel they could spin, especially if that prequel didn't address what the fuck this whole North/South/Winter/Humans conflict was about, since the series itself couldn't be arsed to answer that question. Or any question.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 24, 2019, 07:24:59 AM
I agree that an Arya spinoff would be the most interesting idea I've heard so far for another GoT show. Robert's Rebellion seems like the obvious choice for a GoT reboot in a decade; it's too close to the events of the main show to be interesting right now. I'll probably watch whatever stupid ancient Targaryen history show they put out, but I don't have high hopes for it.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 24, 2019, 08:32:21 AM
Need the dance of dragons or the Blackfyre rebellion. The rumored "long night" prequel about the creation of the white walkers seems utterly pointless now.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Khaldun on May 24, 2019, 10:05:18 AM
Look, they kind of fucked a lot of potential spinoffs in the last three seasons simply by shrinking the world so dramatically--there's almost nowhere that feels far-away from anywhere else any longer, and thus nowhere that you could reasonably feel characters might go and find a completely new situation. Way back in the beginning, you really felt that when Jon went to the Wall and Tyrion went along to see it that they were going somewhere remote, and that when Jon went further North and joined the Free Folk as a spy, he was in an utterly remote circumstance. By the end, it feels like you could pick up some bread from Hot Pie's inn and get home to the Iron Islands for supper, and that the supposed vastness of Essos is just a bit further to go than that.

Now maybe the world of Westeros and Essos is fucking huge--two or three times the size of Earth--and what's west of Westeros is something completely new and far-away. But maybe it's just the east of Essos, separated by some empty ocean. And from there it's maybe not so far from Qarth and basically familiar places. But I really think the way the series ended has undercut some of its potential value--prequel or sequel.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 24, 2019, 10:20:19 AM
I really don't want them to do a prequel series but I'm against prequels just on general prinicple. They almost always over-explain stuff I don't care about and make things I imagined much less cool. Star Wars and Star Trek have convinced me prequels are just not the way to do things.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Polysorbate80 on May 24, 2019, 01:24:46 PM
Martin has analogues of Asia and Africa in the books, at least one entire continent he's done fuck-all with.  I hope he forgets they exist, or he'll wind up detouring there for six of the imaginary books he'll never write.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 24, 2019, 03:02:06 PM
Martin has analogues of Asia and Africa in the books, at least one entire continent he's done fuck-all with.  I hope he forgets they exist, or he'll wind up detouring there for six of the imaginary books he'll never write.

He'll write filler books that goes exhaustively into their history so he can delay the Winds of Winter for another decade.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 24, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
He's 70, turns 71 in September.  At his weight I give him 2-3 more years max.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 24, 2019, 08:19:13 PM
He's 70, turns 71 in September.  At his weight I give him 2-3 more years max.

trump


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 24, 2019, 11:19:02 PM
It's not perfect but it's a shit ton better than anything in S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mncEl4nVU


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: schild on May 24, 2019, 11:46:36 PM
It's not perfect but it's a shit ton better than anything in S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mncEl4nVU
cancellation would've been better


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 25, 2019, 07:08:31 AM
Chaos is a ladder and perhaps Brynden got another chance to climb it via Bran.

Holy shit, someone just reminded me his primary characteristic as a child is Bran the climber. The books and the show open with all the stuff about Bran being quite the climber, and then it gets repressed by his disability, and...

"You always look at your feet before you lie." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-umQF3dvn8) - Maybe I gotta rewatch every Bran scene for him looking at his feet...

Vision just as he's headed towards being the 3ER, and the look Jojen gives him: "Promise me, Bran, no more climbing." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h5zgsBbv9s)


Also Bran chose to leave Jamie alive, why? he didn't do a damn thing for the good guys. He sure did a ton to make sure Bran ended up King though.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 25, 2019, 08:48:59 AM
The "Bran was the puppetmaster all along" idea could have made for a really cool "oh fuck, that was clever" moment in the final episode if they did a little Bran-POV montage in one of those scenes that flashed back to all the earlier scenes in the series where Bran had set up his chess pieces.  They could even show Bran doing his "time warging" thing from his throne, implying that he is RIGHT NOW going back and setting up everything that led to him becoming king, Bill-and-Ted style.  It'd be fun for the audience to go "oh, I remember that," and it'd make the "Bran the Broken" ending feel more like something that was planned out and that caused a lot of earlier stuff to pay off in a satisfying way while also raising interesting new questions about what happens next.

As it is, I'm pretty sure that the fact that you COULD imagine that Bran set everything up deliberately was completely accidental on the part of the showrunners.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 25, 2019, 09:53:03 AM
The problem with all this is we got the cliff notes version of the season.  Bran the chess master would have worked if they set it up.  Dany being insane would have worked if they eased into it more.  D&D were in such a hurry to get done they didn’t care about the quality anymore.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 25, 2019, 10:27:53 AM
Oh definitely.  What I'm saying is that Bran the chessmaster is something that you could plausibly retcon using actual events from the show (as many people are kinda doing on their own) in the space of about a minute without having to shoot any new footage.  It would be incredibly cheap and easy, and the fact that they didn't even do something like that kinda underscores their general incompetence IMO.

I expect after reading a few of these theories on the Internet they'll claim later that that's what they INTENDED but they wanted to leave it ambiguous.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 25, 2019, 11:47:23 AM
All that could have made the choice of Bran as king more palatable. However, I think it still would have been unsatisfying mainly because of how little of a charcter Bran was as the 3-eyed raven. There was no explanation for what that really meant other than he can apparently see shit in the past and take over animals. He did very little with either ability that could have reasonably been considered to have affected events. For that matter, we don't really even have a good feel for why anyone believed him at Winterfell other than he was Bran. His most significant contribution other than as bait was telling Sansa and Arya that Jon was Aegon, which also seemed to have little effect other than turning Dany against Jon (and by extension Westeros).

There's certainly a credible story nugget in the idea that Westeros traded being ruled by one dynasty with weapons of mass destruction (dragons) for another weapon of mass destruction (unlimited, godlike knowledge). Unfortunately, that wasn't explored because of what I just said - there just wasn't enough done with Bran's abilities. I keep going back to that overlong destruction of Kings Landing. Was there anything done in that 30 minutes of screen time spent burning women and children that couldn't have been accomplished with 5 minutes, leaving 25 minutes to actually flesh some of this shit out?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on May 25, 2019, 11:57:25 AM
You hit it right as that is what some of the Youtube commentators have been saying.  A GoT episode usually has lots of plotting and scheming and very little of fights and action sequences.  As the book material ran out they have been shifting from plot to spectacle.  So it no longer feels like Thrones but more like a big dumb action movie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 25, 2019, 12:01:26 PM
To some degree, that's what the audience wanted. All the non-book-reading guys I work with complained when things moved slow and only seemed to enjoy the big, spectacle battles. This is a sample size of three, I know, but if that's what people were saying in reviews/focus groups/whatever, maybe that's why D&D focused things in that direction.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 25, 2019, 12:33:37 PM
Yup, and the reason people are really pissed about the ending is the Dany heel turn, not the rushed plot, the bad writing or the complete departure in tone from earlier seasons. That silly petition came up right after ep 5 for a reason.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 25, 2019, 03:34:21 PM
I was in favor of the big spectacle battles, in fact I loved the Battle of Winterfell episode despite recognizing some of the flaws. However, the destruction of King's Landing was just gratuitous, just over and over the same scenes of wanton destruction. By about the 10th minute, I was just "HOLY FUCK, WE GET IT."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 25, 2019, 06:39:21 PM
It's not perfect but it's a shit ton better than anything in S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mncEl4nVU

That's pathetic writing that doesn't understand Game of Thrones at all. Doesn't even approach it.

Much like videogames, it's a GOOD thing when the fantasy nerds don't write the plot. You get writers to do the writing, not devs who think their fanfic skills are awesome.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 26, 2019, 01:41:19 PM
It's not perfect but it's a shit ton better than anything in S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mncEl4nVU

That's pathetic writing that doesn't understand Game of Thrones at all. Doesn't even approach it.

Much like videogames, it's a GOOD thing when the fantasy nerds don't write the plot. You get writers to do the writing, not devs who think their fanfic skills are awesome.

Hence it not being perfect but better than S8. If a fan can at least put together a semi coherent story that is loosely based on the preceeding season, why couldn't D&D? Because S8 made no sense at all.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: lamaros on May 26, 2019, 04:01:32 PM
You hit it right as that is what some of the Youtube commentators have been saying.  A GoT episode usually has lots of plotting and scheming and very little of fights and action sequences.  As the book material ran out they have been shifting from plot to spectacle.  So it no longer feels like Thrones but more like a big dumb action movie.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/

Pretty decent points, even if it does gloss over some of the book issues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 26, 2019, 04:11:23 PM
So what exactly was out of the blue and not based upon what was laid out in prior seasons?


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 26, 2019, 05:00:28 PM
Much like videogames, it's a GOOD thing when the fantasy nerds don't write the plot. You get writers to do the writing, not devs who think their fanfic skills are awesome.

Hence it not being perfect but better than S8. If a fan can at least put together a semi coherent story that is loosely based on the preceeding season, why couldn't D&D? Because S8 made no sense at all.

Daenerys was always a weird scary mess that we were led to forgive because she was a main character on a clear path.
Jon was always the confused tool of an unseen hand, and really just wanted to be a wildling.
Everyone else became what they were destined to be, though some stories could have been better realised.
It was put together from Sketches For Two Novels I May Not Write Excuse Me My Burger Is Here, but to me it was a B+ and made sense.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 26, 2019, 09:25:03 PM
So what exactly was out of the blue and not based upon what was laid out in prior seasons?

Dany was a scary mess, but she never willingly executed women and children to my memory.
Jamie went through an entire complete, sensible story arc where he became a more complete character, only to piss it all away for a shitty death by stones.
Bran is... well, honestly, I still don't know what the fuck Bran is supposed to be and clearly neither did the showrunners. Or Martin, I'm guessing.
The entirety of the King choosing council.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 26, 2019, 09:52:35 PM
So what exactly was out of the blue and not based upon what was laid out in prior seasons?

Dany was a scary mess, but she never willingly executed women and children to my memory.
Jamie went through an entire complete, sensible story arc where he became a more complete character, only to piss it all away for a shitty death by stones.
Bran is... well, honestly, I still don't know what the fuck Bran is supposed to be and clearly neither did the showrunners. Or Martin, I'm guessing.
The entirety of the King choosing council.

Tyrion actually fairly well lays out what was going on with Dany when he talks to Jon. Paraphrasing but it was a series of "She killed these people, and we cheered because they were bad people. Repeat over and over. Now she's decided that what she does is for the greater good always." Dany's heelturn wasn't out of the blue and to say it was is fairly ridiculous. It was handled way too quickly but the groundwork had been there since season one when she coldly watched her brother die in a horrible way.

Jamie's story is interested. I'll try to find the Youtube video later but it basically boils down to his redemption could never be fully realized simply because if he had truly "redeemed" himself and left his sister and their unborn child to do, he would not have truly been redeemed at all. You can say dying by being crushed to death was unworthy but in many ways, his story had to end as it did to stay true to his character. Sure, a lot of us wanted him to totally change and stay with Brienne but it'd have been false.

Bran. Nothing to say. He suffered the most because of the shortened seasons I think.

I liked the council though I saw a great meme about it.

Tyrion talks about how a story has power and no one has a better story than Bran.
Arya who has traveled all over Westeros, learned to kill from some of the scariest people on the planet, knows how to switch faces after learning from and then defying the Faceless Men, and also killed the Night King.  "Bran has what now?"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 26, 2019, 10:36:54 PM
Jamie's story is interested. I'll try to find the Youtube video later but it basically boils down to his redemption could never be fully realized simply because if he had truly "redeemed" himself and left his sister and their unborn child to do, he would not have truly been redeemed at all. You can say dying by being crushed to death was unworthy but in many ways, his story had to end as it did to stay true to his character. Sure, a lot of us wanted him to totally change and stay with Brienne but it'd have been false.

I'm on board with a lot of the complaints about this season, but I think the cries of "but Jamie's redemption arc!" are kinda dumb. The guy pushed a 10 year old kid out a window because he got caught fucking his sister. I realize we're dealing with Fantasy fiction here and all, but it's still maybe a bridge too far to me when people suggest his slate is wiped clean because he's been a decent fella the last few years. In a series filled with horrible people, attempted child-murder is still one of the more cold-blooded acts we witness. I think they actually ended up going the better route by having him acknowledge that he's kind of a shit person, doesn't deserve a happy ending with Brienne, and still cares enough about his sister/ex that he wants to try to prevent her from being melted by a dragon.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 26, 2019, 10:45:43 PM
Thinking back on it, Jaime is basically constantly telling people "no, I am still a shit person" in one way or another whenever they try to lavish praise on him. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 27, 2019, 01:29:10 AM
That goes for everyone who turns. It is GRRMs main trick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Comstar on May 27, 2019, 04:09:16 AM
Jamie should have died, but before he does, Arya finds him in the ruins. He gives a sorry speech and THEN dies.  and kills his sister and tells her it was all because Bran got pushed out of a window. The End.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Wasted on May 27, 2019, 05:17:05 AM
There certainly was a distinct lack of face stealing in the final season.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2019, 05:26:20 AM
So what exactly was out of the blue and not based upon what was laid out in prior seasons?

Dany was a scary mess, but she never willingly executed women and children to my memory.

Not only did she never willingly execute women and children but almost every time she was a "scary mess" was a direct result of others harming innocents.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hoax on May 27, 2019, 05:57:09 AM
Put me in the Dany heel turn could have felt less her going insane but it wasn't some terrible gaping plot hole.

Example if we had seen a few more peasants rejecting her. Or some kind of insurgency type action killing of one of her unsullied. Just some kind of fuck these ugly people trigger. That would have been nice. The bells bit was handled very poorly but the overall idea was not a problem worth crying over.

Magic crossbows + magic boats were way worse.

Bran is the only choice for king because of his story was worse.

The rest of the season did fine. But internet is going to internet.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2019, 06:11:08 AM
It would have made a lot more sense if it was as it probably was intended to be: against Aegon, loved by the people and allied with Dorne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on May 27, 2019, 08:32:44 AM
Yeah, at this point my assumption is that Dany starts losing it in the books with everything that's happening at Mereen.  Then gets news that Aegon is a thing and has rightfully taken the thing she's spent so much time obsessing over.  Finally listens to what the crazy witch people have been telling her, and goes East to Asshai.  There she fully flips either from power or magics corrupting her or whatever the fuck, and fully becomes a villain.  THEN sails to Westeros.  Then becomes mad queen on Dragons burning everything for the glory of the Lord of Light.  If you want to take the major plot beats of the show and put them into the current trajectory of the books.

Which would be an awesome turn of events, unexpected but not illogical, and I'd totally love!  But instead we got Dany going from completely stable child loving over the top goody two shoes who only ever hurt the worst people on the planet (unlike most other characters in this show who are far more shades of grey) up until Season 8 Episode 4, where suddenly she breaks down from friends dying.  Then in Episode 5, she back tracks and decides she will not take what is hers by fire and blood as she promised all these years.  Instead when what is hers was handed to her, she decided to burn down her entire birth right because she no longer wants it and the sweet sound of children screaming to death is the only thing that makes her feel human anymore after the loss of her friends (which is the only motivation one can assume based on events shown on screen.  Else her reason was 'no reason').  It's just a bit jarring.

Again, if the napkin outline GRRM handed to them was: "Dany goes crazy and burns Kings Landing, Jon eventually stabs backstabs her (finally doing something very un-Jon Snow like), and Bran ends up on the thone."  I'm totally fine with that.  There are a hundred ways to get to that.  But from a mix of self inflicted rushed story telling, and just lazy writing, we got the ridiculousness that was season 8.
It's not perfect but it's a shit ton better than anything in S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mncEl4nVU

That's pathetic writing that doesn't understand Game of Thrones at all. Doesn't even approach it.

Much like videogames, it's a GOOD thing when the fantasy nerds don't write the plot. You get writers to do the writing, not devs who think their fanfic skills are awesome.
That ending is still silly, but way better than what we got, and most importantly, 100% more Game of Thrones that what we got.  The writers the last two seasons showed they did not understand Game of Thrones, and what made it a cultural phenomenon watched by everybody.  This season is night and day different than almost everything that came before it.  I 100% defended this series from everybody (on this board and without) up through season 5.  Season 6 suddenly became very hit or miss, swinging between awesome episodes and some terribly lazy writing episodes, but I was still on board because it was still hitting some great high notes despite the unevenness.  Then season 7 was mostly a god damned waste of time that finally pierced my wall of naive solidarity, but still, I was pumped for this season assuming the 2 fucking year break they took would let them flesh out a well crafted ending.  ALAS.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Hoax on May 27, 2019, 10:03:22 AM
the book ending if it had ever been made would be worse. way worse. stop telling yourself otherwise.

GRRM has no plan let alone a good plan. the most honest telling by him would completely sideline the north -you know the region where everyone readers give a fuck about comes from- they have almost no adult high lords left and would be licking their wounds ignoring any ravens at this point if he were being honest. the lords of the vale don't make any more sense and they are just as boring in the books as the show though so that's a mess he'd have to clean up somehow if he's going to use them. so we have crownlands/reach/west v fresh dorne/depleted stormlords. could be fun but where's the ending?

Dany and her dragons in the book short of euron's magic horn better be unstoppable in the books. sure someone will treachery kill one of them because its GRRM and that's his actual only move but a fight where its Dany vs whoever won from the Griff vs Cersei fight is a boring fucking thing.

maybe the show dropped the ball by not having her just burn all king's landing from the start. we could have had the massive cost of the war vs the dead played up (very few unsullied left, the last dothraki desert her instead of suddenly there are tons of both like we got, lots of shots of how everyone is walking wounded or don't want to fight any more etc), how she now barely had the forces to win without unleashing drogon all because cersei left her to fight the damn thing by herself. so fuck them. that would have worked fine. could have had a cool scene where someone is racing to ring the bells and she just blows up the goddamn belltower. i would have loved that.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 27, 2019, 10:22:40 AM
I didn't say Dany's madness was a heel turn or out of the blue. The DEPTH of her mad queen burninating the women and children felt so sudden because it WAS so sudden. There was just no time for buildup and I get that the writers tried. However, she went from "free the slaves!" to "fuck it, kill them all" and the only real motivators we got from the show was her gradual isolation from the nobility of Westeros because they clearly favored Jon over her as a ruler. Yes, the deaths of Missandei and Jorah would have impacted her but without the time to actually see that happen, it made the change feel more like a flipped switch than a gradual descent into madness. It felt very Anakin turns to the Dark Side because neither of them gave that part of the character arc time to breathe.

As for Jamie, just because he would choose to stay with Brienne doesn't mean his arc was one of full redemption, nor did anyone have to stop feeding him a heaping pile of shit to remind him of just how shit he is. The entirety of the show just the name he kept getting called was a painful reminder of how his reputation was earned. He stabbed his king in the back in order to save thousands of innocents. I'm perfectly fine with a character who recognizes that he's not at all a good person being rewarded for trying to get his shit straight. His regression was infuriating simply because of how far he'd come and, like Dany, how quickly he snapped back to a one-dimensional idiot.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 27, 2019, 10:56:52 AM
As for Jamie, just because he would choose to stay with Brienne doesn't mean his arc was one of full redemption, nor did anyone have to stop feeding him a heaping pile of shit to remind him of just how shit he is. The entirety of the show just the name he kept getting called was a painful reminder of how his reputation was earned. He stabbed his king in the back in order to save thousands of innocents. I'm perfectly fine with a character who recognizes that he's not at all a good person being rewarded for trying to get his shit straight. His regression was infuriating simply because of how far he'd come and, like Dany, how quickly he snapped back to a one-dimensional idiot.

I don't see it as a regression. It's not like he did anything evil in the course of the last couple episodes. Thankfully I don't think any of us will have to experience the ex that we had three kids with (and another on the way) also being our sister, but I can understand Jamie not wanting to see her killed despite everything she's done.

Redemption arcs are generally Fantasy trope nonsense. People don't go through their lives being evil and then come to the revelation that they've been a bit of a cunt this whole time and should probably change. If someone told you they once tried to kill a kid by pushing him out a window, it probably wouldn't matter to you that they later fought off a bear to help protect a woman. Again, I get that this is fiction so we might excuse some shit we would never excuse in real life, but it baffles me how some people praise early GoT for subverting tropes, but then get upset that the TV show didn't fully follow through with one of the tropiest tropes that ever troped.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 27, 2019, 11:45:28 AM


Which would be an awesome turn of events, unexpected but not illogical, and I'd totally love!  But instead we got Dany going from completely stable child loving over the top goody two shoes who only ever hurt the worst people on the planet (unlike most other characters in this show who are far more shades of grey) up until Season 8 Episode 4, where suddenly she breaks down from friends dying.  Then in Episode 5, she back tracks and decides she will not take what is hers by fire and blood as she promised all these years.  Instead when what is hers was handed to her, she decided to burn down her entire birth right because she no longer wants it and the sweet sound of children screaming to death is the only thing that makes her feel human anymore after the loss of her friends (which is the only motivation one can assume based on events shown on screen.  Else her reason was 'no reason').  It's just a bit jarring.



Completely stable? Are you sure you've watched this show and/or read the books? The hints have been there from the very start. There are several times where she says something like "I'm going to burn down their cities" and someone in her retinue talks her out of it. Usually Tyrion or Missandei. The most logical reading of this final season is that the pressure became too much and she lost or stopped trusting those who essentially acted as her conscience. It was way too rushed. The comparison to Anakin made by Haemish is right on point. But it wasn't as massive of a turn as you seem to believe here. The only way to make that statement is to have willfully ignored the hints we've gotten all along. I think most of us thought it was just teases but it was there.

As for Jamie, just because he would choose to stay with Brienne doesn't mean his arc was one of full redemption, nor did anyone have to stop feeding him a heaping pile of shit to remind him of just how shit he is. The entirety of the show just the name he kept getting called was a painful reminder of how his reputation was earned. He stabbed his king in the back in order to save thousands of innocents. I'm perfectly fine with a character who recognizes that he's not at all a good person being rewarded for trying to get his shit straight. His regression was infuriating simply because of how far he'd come and, like Dany, how quickly he snapped back to a one-dimensional idiot.

I don't see it as a regression. It's not like he did anything evil in the course of the last couple episodes. Thankfully I don't think any of us will have to experience the ex that we had three kids with (and another on the way) also being our sister, but I can understand Jamie not wanting to see her killed despite everything she's done.

Redemption arcs are generally Fantasy trope nonsense. People don't go through their lives being evil and then come to the revelation that they've been a bit of a cunt this whole time and should probably change. If someone told you they once tried to kill a kid by pushing him out a window, it probably wouldn't matter to you that they later fought off a bear to help protect a woman. Again, I get that this is fiction so we might excuse some shit we would never excuse in real life, but it baffles me how some people praise early GoT for subverting tropes, but then get upset that the TV show didn't fully follow through with one of the tropiest tropes that ever troped.

I find it odd that people are referring to Jaime's actions as one dimensional. Having him stay with Brienne and live happily ever after would be the one dimensional choice. He was always a character with conflicted loyalties and ideals and at the end of the day he couldn't bring himself to abandon Cersei in her time of need. He knew she was a bad person. Tyrion calls him out on this. But he just can't help himself.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2019, 11:58:37 AM
Yes, Dany always talked a lot of shit but all the times she actually did do something it was to protect innocents.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 27, 2019, 04:19:19 PM
Redemption arcs are generally Fantasy trope nonsense. People don't go through their lives being evil and then come to the revelation that they've been a bit of a cunt this whole time and should probably change.

That's kind of the problem though... Jamie wasn't evil. That's one of things that I found very intriguing about the character and I think it was actually one of the triumphs of Martin's writings. We spent most of a book finding out about this dashing knight who was clearly a bastard (since the first two things we find out about are 1) he killed the king he was supposed to protect and 2) he pushes a kid out of a window to protect his incestuous relations with his evil sister). He seems proud to be a bastard but we find out he's not just an evil cunt - the scene where he discusses the reason he's killed his king was to save thousands of innocents. And then his own internal struggles about saving Brienne from rape and bear rape that caused him to lose his swordfighting skills, which were the only things that ever made him proud of himself. Over the course of the books and the shows, he went from being the embodiment of a fantasy trope to a multidimensional character.

And then all of a sudden he wasn't. And the only reason the showrunners could give us was "I pushed a kid out of a window, I'm just as bad as her." It rang hollow, just as Dany's flipped switch to genocide. Perhaps had we had more chance for some internal struggle to play out, it might not have felt like such a regression but again, that's where most of this season has fallen apart.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2019, 04:31:07 PM
Throwing a kid out a window = evil. There's no redemption arc short of him being the one who dies defending Bran instead of Theon that would redeem that. That's how fucking evil that is.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 27, 2019, 04:41:20 PM
My point is it's a terrible fantasy trope that all characters are either all good or all evil - good characters are humans who sometimes do some evil fucking things, often for the shittiest of reasons. And I think part of Jamie's redemption arc was that he recognized how evil he was and even tried to apologize for it, as if he was truly remorseful and not just because he was caught.

Pure evil don't apologize.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 27, 2019, 04:48:20 PM
Throwing a kid out a window = evil. There's no redemption arc short of him being the one who dies defending Bran instead of Theon that would redeem that. That's how fucking evil that is.
It's true, but when the kid forgives you to your face because that throw eventually made him become the All Seeing Godking it's not irredeemable evil. A more satisfying closure for Jaime would have been for him to take the black; attempted murder isn't really worse than murdering your aunt-girlfriend-queen.

I didn't say Dany's madness was a heel turn or out of the blue. The DEPTH of her mad queen burninating the women and children felt so sudden because it WAS so sudden. There was just no time for buildup and I get that the writers tried. However, she went from "free the slaves!" to "fuck it, kill them all" and the only real motivators we got from the show was her gradual isolation from the nobility of Westeros because they clearly favored Jon over her as a ruler. Yes, the deaths of Missandei and Jorah would have impacted her but without the time to actually see that happen, it made the change feel more like a flipped switch than a gradual descent into madness. It felt very Anakin turns to the Dark Side because neither of them gave that part of the character arc time to breathe.
My biggest problem with Dany was solely the bells moment. If she had just decided she was burning King's Landing down once they had killed Missandei, that makes perfect sense. Lock Tyrion up or tell him to go to hell, and make it clear that there will be no surrender. Instead, it felt like the showrunners wanted an "OH SHIT!" moment and had her just flip post-surrender for shock value; it was completely immersion ruining because there had been no trigger. Missandei's death makes sense; Rhaegal dying mid-battle (or better, post surrender) would also have sold it, or even a single arrow at Drogon from a not-quite-surrendered-yet Lannister soldier. Anything.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 27, 2019, 05:01:03 PM
Bran forgave him either because he wasn't really Bran anymore or because he knew Jamie alive would lead to Tyrion betraying Dany and helping him get closer to the throne.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 27, 2019, 05:53:49 PM
Throwing a kid out a window = evil. There's no redemption arc short of him being the one who dies defending Bran instead of Theon that would redeem that. That's how fucking evil that is.
It's true, but when the kid forgives you to your face because that throw eventually made him become the All Seeing Godking it's not irredeemable evil. A more satisfying closure for Jaime would have been for him to take the black; attempted murder isn't really worse than murdering your aunt-girlfriend-queen.

Are we really going to try to get into shades of grey for pushing kids out windows? He wasn’t trying to kill baby Hitler or something. He was saving himself and his sister from the murdering that would happen if the King found out about the incest, and the kids not actually being his.

That some good might have inadvertently come out of it doesn’t in any way make Jaime a better person. That’s not how morality works. If I kick someone in the nuts for no reason and while they’re on the ground in pain they spot a $20 under the couch that doesn’t make me less of a dick.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 27, 2019, 05:59:13 PM
My point is it's a terrible fantasy trope that all characters are either all good or all evil - good characters are humans who sometimes do some evil fucking things, often for the shittiest of reasons.

I think good character who did terrible things in his past but now feels awful about them has become a worse trope than one dimensional characters. It can work in cases like Iron Man where he wasn’t trying to do evil, but things he created were used for evil. “He pushed a kid out a window but now he’s better” is not one of those cases.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 27, 2019, 07:04:13 PM
Not "he's better" more like "he's trying." Also, he's not a "good" character who did terrible things in his past anymore than he's an evil character who does good things. I think prior to running back to Cersei, he was just a more realized, deeper character than just about anyone in the series. He certainly had more depth than Jon Snow or Dany or late-stage retardation Tyrion or Varys or even Cersei, or a whole host of other prominent characters.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on May 27, 2019, 07:10:17 PM
Are we really going to try to get into shades of grey for pushing kids out windows? He wasn’t trying to kill baby Hitler or something. He was saving himself and his sister from the murdering that would happen if the King found out about the incest, and the kids not actually being his.

That some good might have inadvertently come out of it doesn’t in any way make Jaime a better person. That’s not how morality works. If I kick someone in the nuts for no reason and while they’re on the ground in pain they spot a $20 under the couch that doesn’t make me less of a dick.
Sure, skip over the word "forgives" as if it's unimportant. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Velorath on May 27, 2019, 07:17:58 PM
Are we really going to try to get into shades of grey for pushing kids out windows? He wasn’t trying to kill baby Hitler or something. He was saving himself and his sister from the murdering that would happen if the King found out about the incest, and the kids not actually being his.

That some good might have inadvertently come out of it doesn’t in any way make Jaime a better person. That’s not how morality works. If I kick someone in the nuts for no reason and while they’re on the ground in pain they spot a $20 under the couch that doesn’t make me less of a dick.
Sure, skip over the word "forgives" as if it's unimportant. :oh_i_see:

It absolutely is unimportant. It doesn’t retroactively change the immorality of the act.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 27, 2019, 08:41:35 PM
Not "he's better" more like "he's trying." Also, he's not a "good" character who did terrible things in his past anymore than he's an evil character who does good things. I think prior to running back to Cersei, he was just a more realized, deeper character than just about anyone in the series. He certainly had more depth than Jon Snow or Dany or late-stage retardation Tyrion or Varys or even Cersei, or a whole host of other prominent characters.

Him going back to Cersie doesn't invalidate any of that. He made a choice. You might not like it but it doesn't suddenly make him a one-dimensional character. I'd argue it shows just how complex of a character he was.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 28, 2019, 01:08:54 AM
Throwing a kid out a window = evil. There's no redemption arc short of him being the one who dies defending Bran instead of Theon that would redeem that. That's how fucking evil that is.

You know, there are some kids that need to be thrown out of a window I swear  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on May 28, 2019, 01:29:34 AM
Not "he's better" more like "he's trying." Also, he's not a "good" character who did terrible things in his past anymore than he's an evil character who does good things. I think prior to running back to Cersei, he was just a more realized, deeper character than just about anyone in the series. He certainly had more depth than Jon Snow or Dany or late-stage retardation Tyrion or Varys or even Cersei, or a whole host of other prominent characters.

Him going back to Cersie doesn't invalidate any of that. He made a choice. You might not like it but it doesn't suddenly make him a one-dimensional character. I'd argue it shows just how complex of a character he was.

I agree.  Problem was more the ham-fisted pacing.  The last 3 or 4 episodes probably should have been shown playing out over at least one year, but instead it looks like Jaime goes to Winterfell, defends Winterfell the next day, sleeps with Brienne the day after that, packs his bags and heads to King's landing the following day, and gets crushed under a pile of rubble trying to rescue his sister on Day 4.  That is what we see on screen, and even if we are smart enough to know that time has passed, our brains refuse to look at it that way.  Khaldun had a post a few pages ago showing how they could have easily addressed some of these complaints.  Showing the correct passage of time, it turns out, is really fucking important.  We disconnect from what we are seeing when they don't manage it properly.  There are dozens of examples of this same shit in this series.  It was questionable in the early seasons, downright terrible in the last few.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 28, 2019, 04:23:15 AM
Isn't that ending what you tv only fans always wanted? Its not rushed! There was plenty of "foreshadowing"


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Draegan on May 28, 2019, 12:59:18 PM

That some good might have inadvertently come out of it doesn’t in any way make Jaime a better person. That’s not how morality works. If I kick someone in the nuts for no reason and while they’re on the ground in pain they spot a $20 under the couch that doesn’t make me less of a dick.

I'd like to say that this is an excellent quote.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Tale on May 28, 2019, 05:15:18 PM
Kit Harington (Jon Snow, now married IRL to Ygritte) has been in rehab for stress and alcohol since May 19 (https://pagesix.com/2019/05/28/kit-harington-checked-into-luxury-rehab-for-stress-and-alcohol/).

Quote
A friend told Page Six of Harington, “The end of 'GoT' really hit Kit hard …

“He realized ‘this is it — this is the end’, it was something they had all worked so hard on for so many years. He had a moment of, what next?

“He’s in the clinic predominantly for stress and exhaustion and also alcohol.

“His wife Rose is being extremely supportive. Everyone close to him really wanted him to get some rest. Right now, he just needs peace and quiet.”

A rep for the actor told us, “Kit has decided to utilize this break in his schedule as an opportunity to spend some time at a wellness retreat to work on some personal issues.”


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 28, 2019, 05:23:35 PM
That sucks, i hope it helps him.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 28, 2019, 07:47:27 PM
I'm not surprised. He seemed very emotionally invested in his character. For these younger actors, this show has been a big part of their early lives. I'm surprised none of the other Stark kids are in therapy to be honest.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Trippy on May 28, 2019, 08:23:58 PM
Sophie Turner has talked about her mental health issues.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on May 28, 2019, 08:31:36 PM
They pretty much all have in some fashion.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 29, 2019, 07:04:38 AM
Regarding Jaime: Evil and Good are not exclusive.  Have you never met a person that has done good for the right reasons, but also done wrong for selfish reasons?

Jaime tried to kill Bran to protect his sister and himself. He also murdered his King to save tens of thousands of lives.  He also lept into a bear pit to save someone he respected. He also charged a dragon suicidally because there was a small chance he could end a war in one stroke. He wasn't a simple fascade of a character... he had depth. Like the rest of the last season, his story was not executed well at the end, but his actions all were true to his character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 30, 2019, 11:59:31 AM
Agree with that. I understand why some people think it was a turnaround for him, but this one was of the few things that can actually be argued for.

I know I am not saying anything. Just agreeing with jgsugden so he doesn't feel alone. :p


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2019, 02:39:17 AM
"A good act does not wash out the bad nor a bad act the good, each should have its own reward"

Nobody gets redeemed in asoiaf, nobody gets entirely damned in the first place. They do good things and bad things, the things have consequences.

I don't understand the compliants about Jamie's ending undermining his arc either.

After doing the right thing to protect the realm, he went back to the person he loves, with little expectation of surviving. Not living happily ever after with Brienne does not make him a baddie.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on May 31, 2019, 11:02:07 AM
A large number of the complaints boild down to us not getting American style nicely wrapped up binary endings for these characters.  It is not all "Happily ever after" or "Ultimate sacrifice redeems", but a lot of "they died as they lived" or "and they suffer for doing the right thing". 

My expectation is that I will be much happier with the book endings if he manages to complete them.  The execution of the final season(s) was disappointing, but the core of the story doesn't seem out of place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on May 31, 2019, 12:02:33 PM
Cersei as Billie Elish Song: https://youtu.be/jZGdpyT93us

This is seriously good. Listen!

No, like, seriously. Damn. Walking through town humming to kill the silver haired bitch first!


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on May 31, 2019, 12:22:07 PM
A large number of the complaints boild down to us not getting American style nicely wrapped up binary endings for these characters. 

You are wrong.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on May 31, 2019, 12:52:15 PM
A large number of the complaints boild down to us not getting American style nicely wrapped up binary endings for these characters. 

Bullshit. I'm sure there is a great story about Dany losing the people closest to her and slowly becoming more paranoid and suspicious about those around her that ends with her burning down Kings Landing, we just didn't get that story. We got maybe two scenes over three episodes of that story. We got a bunch of cool looking scenes and an a pre determined ending with almost no context.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: MediumHigh on May 31, 2019, 01:27:01 PM
A large number of the complaints boild down to us not getting American style nicely wrapped up binary endings for these characters.  It is not all "Happily ever after" or "Ultimate sacrifice redeems", but a lot of "they died as they lived" or "and they suffer for doing the right thing".  

My expectation is that I will be much happier with the book endings if he manages to complete them.  The execution of the final season(s) was disappointing, but the core of the story doesn't seem out of place.

TV Only Fans:
Sure the story telling relies on flimsy out of character decision making, straight up stupid decision making, and lazy hamfisted conclusions...
BUT at least it wasn't what you expected.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Setanta on May 31, 2019, 04:59:33 PM
It's not about happily ever after, it's about hamfisted, lazy writing with no plot development or real resolution. It's more of a "fuck you, we don't care anymore" to the audience.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Samwise on May 31, 2019, 06:15:55 PM
BUT at least it wasn't what you expected.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: jgsugden on June 02, 2019, 04:57:41 PM
Not.  Even.  Worth.  It.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2019, 11:21:06 PM
Filming for prequels underway, which is fine I guess.  Naomi Watts involved.  Fine.

A sequel with Arya officially ruled out.  Which we already knew, but I cannot help but laugh at the exec who addressed it:

Quote
"Nope, nope, nope. No," he told the news outlet.  "I don't want to take characters from this world that they did beautifully and put them off into another world with someone else creating it. I want to let it be the artistic piece they've got," Bloys said.

Good that you have your artistic integrity, bro.  Never mind that literally everyone who watched your series would rather have, and be far more likely to pay for, an Arya sequel.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on June 19, 2019, 01:45:34 AM
If was CBS driving their shitty subscription service then maybe. But it is HBO, and long or even medium term, a bad Arya spin off would hurt HBO's brand more than it would help.

A bit of distance from GoT means they get a bump in interest but not absurd expectations.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on June 19, 2019, 01:58:06 AM
Well, if your whole schtick is "which of these bad spinoffs will hurt us the least", then sure.  But an Arya spinoff has more chance of pleasing fans then probably whatever they are coming up with.

I don't know enough about HBO's service, however, so I don't know how risk-averse they are or should be.  Seems to me that HBO has a pretty limited library, which means they need hits hits hits.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on June 19, 2019, 02:02:25 AM
They have a limited library because they have a specific brand of 'limited library of things that are not shit'.

If they start churning out shit, their brand becomes just 'limited library' and they are fucked.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on June 19, 2019, 02:58:32 AM
Well, yeah....which is kinda why I wonder about the approach they are taking.  People are basically telling them "no, we want this not that".  And they are saying they know better.  Maybe they do, we'll see. 


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on June 19, 2019, 06:16:37 AM
They absolutely do know better, which is why we pay them.

Also noone sane is asking for a Arya spin off. So really everyone knows better. The question is being asked by hacks looking for a quote they can twist into clickbait, and by nobody else ever.

I'm entirely up for a GoTverse series produced by good people, set well away from the headaches of the last 4 years of GoT. It is a really good setting.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on June 19, 2019, 06:33:59 AM
Anyone asking for an Arya sequel is a dumbass that shouldn't be listened to in the first place.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on June 19, 2019, 07:38:51 AM
They have a limited library because they have a specific brand of 'limited library of things that are not shit'.

If they start churning out shit, their brand becomes just 'limited library' and they are fucked.

HBO is owned by AT&T now. Those guys don’t give a shit about quality, they just want to see revenue.

Expect the production quality to go down and the number of shows green lit to go up. AT&T will want hem to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Rendakor on June 19, 2019, 07:50:10 AM
Well, if your whole schtick is "which of these bad spinoffs will hurt us the least", then sure.  But an Arya spinoff has more chance of pleasing fans then probably whatever they are coming up with.

I don't know enough about HBO's service, however, so I don't know how risk-averse they are or should be.  Seems to me that HBO has a pretty limited library, which means they need hits hits hits.
A completely new story told in the GoT universe has a coinflip chance of being good, but if it's mediocre it won't make anyone really angry. A bad Arya spinoff would piss off a lot of people, and Arya's content in the last two seasons doesn't really inspire me to think they know what to do with her post-Books. If the Hound had lived, I'd have more faith in a potential Arya spinoff because at least we'd have had good banter between the two of them.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on June 19, 2019, 09:18:56 AM
I personally would rather have that Arya goes west spinoff than whatever the fuck they are trying to shoehorn Naomi Watts into.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on June 19, 2019, 10:06:58 AM
Yeah, and so would most people, despite what the above neckbeards are trying to intimate to the contrary.

Granted, HBO may still have the right of it.  Time will tell.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on June 19, 2019, 04:32:54 PM
Yeah, and so would most people

(https://i.imgur.com/tCUOaqd.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Cyrrex on June 19, 2019, 10:40:11 PM
Apropos, the only thing people would want more than an Arya spinoff is and Arya+Hound spinoff.  Had he not fallen to his death.  Or hey, revive his ass somehow, wouldn't be the first time.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: eldaec on June 20, 2019, 06:16:49 AM
I personally would rather have that Arya goes west spinoff than whatever the fuck they are trying to shoehorn Naomi Watts into.

Time to do this would be in decade when everyone has calmed the fuck down about season 8, and Dream of Spring is hypothetically being published.

Or never. Never is good.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on June 22, 2019, 03:55:44 AM
Talking about pregnancy: Did you notice that Cersei was pregnant at the end of the last season but now drinks wine again and almost cried when Euron made that line about putting a baby in her stomach. She is really not having any luck with her kids. :/

That was indeed what happened :
https://www.thewrap.com/game-of-thrones-cersei-had-a-miscarriage-in-deleted-season-7-scene-lena-headey-says/

(https://i.imgur.com/CjW0nLr.jpg)

Showing that would have distracted from turning her into a comic book black queen, so good they cut it out.  


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: calapine on June 22, 2019, 04:29:53 AM
https://youtu.be/IsBA4VRx278

A Cersei compilation video. Very professionally made and think showing well rounded picture of her character.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on October 30, 2019, 08:25:21 AM
Rezzing this thread due to something IainC linked in Discord.  For your amusement:

After hiding from fan rage at the big stage and spot light of Comic-con this year, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss showed up for the first time since GoT ended to talk at a panel at the Austin film festival.  Somebody live tweeted what they discussed, and it's been picked up across the internet.  Now, I try to be slightly wary of bias just because so far, only what this one twitter user wrote seems to be what every article is quoting (though some state they confirmed with other sources it's true).  Still, they basically seem to have talked at length (in a very tone deaf manner) how they had no idea what they were doing from the get go, learned everything about film making as they did the series, and in general confirmed every dumb thing people thought.  If accurate, some of the shit they say at this panel.....

Here is the original twitter thread to read:

https://twitter.com/ForArya/status/1188186578071556102

Random articles commenting on the internet (you can find others):

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a29608442/benioff-weiss-game-of-thrones-showrunners-writers-panel-austin-film-festival/

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/game-of-thrones-david-benioff-d-b-weiss-panel


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: HaemishM on October 30, 2019, 08:34:08 AM
Yeah, there was a lot of things in that thread where I thought, "You really shouldn't have said that, brother."


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Threash on October 30, 2019, 10:07:06 AM
Well their Star Wars trilogy got canceled so i guess they are in "fuck it" mode. Also the GoT prequel got canceled, the one with Naomi Watts.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Chimpy on October 30, 2019, 10:49:32 AM
And Netflix gave them $300million


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Brolan on October 30, 2019, 10:50:12 AM
Well their Star Wars trilogy got canceled so i guess they are in "fuck it" mode. Also the GoT prequel got canceled, the one with Naomi Watts.

So you aren’t buying the story they were too busy with Netflix?  Neither do I.


Title: Re: Game of Thrones [SPOILERS]
Post by: Teleku on October 30, 2019, 11:09:03 AM
Well, if Netflix did just offer them $200 million (that's what I'm seeing, but numbers seem to be speculation all over the place), to fuck around and do their own shit..... I could totally see walking away from the insanity of the Disney\Star Wars.  Especially if you are a duo of no talent ass clowns who have no idea wtf is going on.

On the other hand, they are a duo of no talent ass clowns, and with the talent the Disney board has on their side to oversea even basic level film making skill.......  I can easily see Disney handing them the paperwork equivalent of a Luger, and asking them to do the honorable thing.