|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
On June 12 2013 11:57 Dakkas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. But you remember he killed his own brother with some kind of spooky sex magic and burned people alive to gain power? Besides from a few moments when Stannis actually gets his shit together he mostly preaches water but drinks wine. This argument always grinds my gears. Renly was going to have Stannis killed the next day in battle, Stannis merely struck first and was protecting his own life. The only difference with that and what Dany did to take Yunkai was Stannis used magical means. Both used 'under-handed' tactics You're just a selective reader
Stannis didn't have to fight Renly. Both of their claims were dubious (there still is little/no proof that Cersei's children are not from Robert).
The difference between what Dany does is that she recognizes that her claim is tenuous (at best) and does not assume anyone is going to roll over for her. Stannis says 'it's for the realm!' but really it's always about him. With Dany you believe she cares for the well being of others.
Or maybe she's just dragon crazy; we don't know just yet.
|
I'm tired of people complaining when we compare the book to the show. This is the fucking book thread, comparisons like this are bound to happen. If all you wan't to do is jerk off about how good you think the show is, go do it in the other thread. Otherwise accept the fact that people will be comparing the book and the show in this thread for many years to come.
Personally, as i've often expressed, I don't like many of the changes they make in the show. Some are understandable. TV is its own medium, I get that. But many just seem like dumb pandering to a mindless audience. In fact, I often feel like the writers themselves are underestimating the tv audience, and dumbing it down unnecessarily. It keeps me sane to be able to come in here and vent about the silly things they do.
Edit: If you like the changes the show makes, great. More power to you. But don't get whiney when people want to vent about it.
|
On June 12 2013 12:25 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 11:57 Dakkas wrote:On June 12 2013 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. But you remember he killed his own brother with some kind of spooky sex magic and burned people alive to gain power? Besides from a few moments when Stannis actually gets his shit together he mostly preaches water but drinks wine. This argument always grinds my gears. Renly was going to have Stannis killed the next day in battle, Stannis merely struck first and was protecting his own life. The only difference with that and what Dany did to take Yunkai was Stannis used magical means. Both used 'under-handed' tactics You're just a selective reader Stannis didn't have to fight Renly. Both of their claims were dubious (there still is little/no proof that Cersei's children are not from Robert). The difference between what Dany does is that she recognizes that her claim is tenuous (at best) and does not assume anyone is going to roll over for her. Stannis says 'it's for the realm!' but really it's always about him. With Dany you believe she cares for the well being of others. Or maybe she's just dragon crazy; we don't know just yet.
You're a selective reader as well
|
On June 12 2013 13:36 itkovian wrote:
I'm tired of people complaining when we compare the book to the show. This is the fucking book thread, comparisons like this are bound to happen. If all you wan't to do is jerk off about how good you think the show is, go do it in the other thread. Otherwise accept the fact that people will be comparing the book and the show in this thread for many years to come.
Personally, as i've often expressed, I don't like many of the changes they make in the show. Some are understandable. TV is its own medium, I get that. But many just seem like dumb pandering to a mindless audience. In fact, I often feel like the writers themselves are underestimating the tv audience, and dumbing it down unnecessarily. It keeps me sane to be able to come in here and vent about the silly things they do.
Edit: If you like the changes the show makes, great. More power to you. But don't get whiney when people want to vent about it.
To be honest, this is the TV/book thread. If people want to defend how great they think the TV series is, they can do it in this thread all they want. Same with people who love the books, or love both.
The writers have their own take on the story. Some changes seem stupid, but we don't really know their motives behind the change. And in many cases, we don't even know how the story is going to pan out (shae changes for example). I do agree that they should have kept Stannis closer to how he was in the books, but let's just wait and see how his character evolves? They've done a pretty damn good job with the series as a whole imo.
|
|
|
On June 12 2013 11:11 WickedBit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 10:12 kidleaderr wrote:
theon's story arc got tiresome real quick so i don't think adding more torture/sadistic scenes would make tv viewers more likely to sympathize with him. he also betrayed the starks man!!!!! (tv watcher voice). and let's be honest, when yara gave the huge hurrah i'm going to save theon's life, who really cared? the final dany scene and theon/ironborn scene (although the actor that played balon was good) was probably the worst part of the episode.
Actually I think the torture scenes they showed were probably more than enough. I cringed at the pinky flaying and couldn't stand more of it if they want to show more. Not all the stuff needs to be shown and I think they needed to imply more and show less. I think showing Theon as broken down and weak was more important than showing the actual torture.
Instead of Theon getting punched in the face twice and giving in, they should have just showed Ramsay sharpening his knives, and had him say something like "By the end of the day you will only answer to Reek". Implying what will happen works as well or better than showing it. I think they over did it with how many scenes they dedicated to Theon this season.
In addition to the Stannis changes to his character, it will be interesting to see what he is actually going to have to do next season. They rushed the story line up significantly by having him give in to Mellisandre after only one king died, and freeing Gendry already. Now they are going to have nothing of significance to do until the battle at the wall, which if it follows previous seasons, would happen episode 9. So they cut all this stuff like Stannis needing all 3 to die before he gives in to Mellisandre, and will have to now make up new scenes to give them something to do...
|
On June 12 2013 13:36 itkovian wrote:
I'm tired of people complaining when we compare the book to the show. This is the fucking book thread, comparisons like this are bound to happen. If all you wan't to do is jerk off about how good you think the show is, go do it in the other thread. Otherwise accept the fact that people will be comparing the book and the show in this thread for many years to come.
Personally, as i've often expressed, I don't like many of the changes they make in the show. Some are understandable. TV is its own medium, I get that. But many just seem like dumb pandering to a mindless audience. In fact, I often feel like the writers themselves are underestimating the tv audience, and dumbing it down unnecessarily. It keeps me sane to be able to come in here and vent about the silly things they do.
Edit: If you like the changes the show makes, great. More power to you. But don't get whiney when people want to vent about it.
On the flipside, when people like you continuously moan about the same issue it gets boring and pointless. We get it, Stannis' characterization in the show sucks (or whatever this week's complaint is). Many people don't like it and that's fine, you've been heard. But at some point people will need to move on.
So yeah, the more people get fixated on an issue the more you'll hear people getting tired of that fixation. It's bound to happen.
Let's just talk about the books, no? That's the whole point of this thread.
|
On June 13 2013 04:18 Serek wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 13:36 itkovian wrote:
I'm tired of people complaining when we compare the book to the show. This is the fucking book thread, comparisons like this are bound to happen. If all you wan't to do is jerk off about how good you think the show is, go do it in the other thread. Otherwise accept the fact that people will be comparing the book and the show in this thread for many years to come.
Personally, as i've often expressed, I don't like many of the changes they make in the show. Some are understandable. TV is its own medium, I get that. But many just seem like dumb pandering to a mindless audience. In fact, I often feel like the writers themselves are underestimating the tv audience, and dumbing it down unnecessarily. It keeps me sane to be able to come in here and vent about the silly things they do.
Edit: If you like the changes the show makes, great. More power to you. But don't get whiney when people want to vent about it. On the flipside, when people like you continuously moan about the same issue it gets boring and pointless. We get it, Stannis' characterization in the show sucks (or whatever this week's complaint is). Many people don't like it and that's fine, you've been heard. But at some point people will need to move on. So yeah, the more people get fixated on an issue the more you'll hear people getting tired of that fixation. It's bound to happen. Let's just talk about the books, no? That's the whole point of this thread.
The beautiful thing about the forums is that you don't have to read if it bothers you. You find it boring to continue the discussion? Great, good for you, now how about you start a discussion of your own instead of starting an argument about the discussion that you find boring.
|
On June 11 2013 21:52 Telcontar wrote:
What is up with GRRM's motivation to finish the series? Is he stuck again on something or does he not enjoy writing the series anymore? It's so friggin frustrating!
Give the guy a break. He's probably getting emotional writing the book 6 chapter where he kills off another Stark.
|
All this talk about Stannis, when Melisandre is the one who got hurt by her portrayal on the show...
At least Stannis is still a believable character, even if he isn't the one from the books. Melisandre isn't right now.
|
|
|
On June 13 2013 04:43 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 04:18 Serek wrote:On June 12 2013 13:36 itkovian wrote:
I'm tired of people complaining when we compare the book to the show. This is the fucking book thread, comparisons like this are bound to happen. If all you wan't to do is jerk off about how good you think the show is, go do it in the other thread. Otherwise accept the fact that people will be comparing the book and the show in this thread for many years to come.
Personally, as i've often expressed, I don't like many of the changes they make in the show. Some are understandable. TV is its own medium, I get that. But many just seem like dumb pandering to a mindless audience. In fact, I often feel like the writers themselves are underestimating the tv audience, and dumbing it down unnecessarily. It keeps me sane to be able to come in here and vent about the silly things they do.
Edit: If you like the changes the show makes, great. More power to you. But don't get whiney when people want to vent about it. On the flipside, when people like you continuously moan about the same issue it gets boring and pointless. We get it, Stannis' characterization in the show sucks (or whatever this week's complaint is). Many people don't like it and that's fine, you've been heard. But at some point people will need to move on. So yeah, the more people get fixated on an issue the more you'll hear people getting tired of that fixation. It's bound to happen. Let's just talk about the books, no? That's the whole point of this thread. The beautiful thing about the forums is that you don't have to read if it bothers you. You find it boring to continue the discussion? Great, good for you, now how about you start a discussion of your own instead of starting an argument about the discussion that you find boring.
Then don't bitch about people complaining about your book/show comparisons. 
|
I know I'm late coming back but I will eat crow for my "guarantee of the PW".
I seriously thought they would just rush the introductions of dorne party/Mace and do it in EP 10. 10 Episodes of build up to it....
My "last episode" would have been much more satisfying than what we got I think. And Jamie and Brienne coming back in almost no time and before the PW is almost unacceptable. I mean how is that going to work?
Worse was the Jon/Ygrette scene. What.The.Fuck.Was.That.jpg.exe
Anyway, I was wrong and disappointed. It was a bad Sunday.
|
On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not?
Melisandre is clearly showboating with the leeches in the book: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned).
The way Stannis states the names in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense.
I also disagree with the idea that she would see so much of the future and be unaware of where the danger comes from. Stannis saw a battle in the snow even before her in the show, ffs... It's much better to create a flawed character, who sees what's coming, but fails to interpret it the right way or react correctly against the threat she sees, instead of creating this tunnel vision character who has just to see a single vision from a burned scroll of the NW to change her whole point of view on the situation. Melisandre disagrees with Stannis's choice to go north in the book, doesn't she? Not because she doesn't know where the danger lies, but because she thinks Stannis needs to have the whole of the seven kingdoms behind him before he can face those dangers. This is a consistent thought process. It's wrong, but it's consistent.
|
Melisandre might as well have already seen the deaths in the fires and made Stannis do the ritual to convince him of her religion.
You're interpreting everything from the show in the worst possible way. Of course the show sucks when you do that. There's lots of other ways to interpret the actions of the characters that does not make them look like badly written characters.
|
Show me this other believable way of interpreting what we have been shown. I agreed with everything else they did this season, except the Theon scenes, so don't try and push me into the hate corner.
|
On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense.
I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? But it's left to the viewer to decide whether it was the magical influence of the red god, working through the Lannisters, Freys and Boltons, or just straight up conniving treachery of those 3 families who brought Robb down. Viewer decides, just as the reader decides. And presumably the same will happen for Balon and Joffrey's deaths.
I also disagree with the idea that she would see so much of the future and be unaware of where the danger comes from. Stannis saw a battle in the snow even before her in the show, ffs... It's much better to create a flawed character, who sees what's coming, but fails to interpret it the right way or react correctly against the threat she sees, instead of creating this tunnel vision character who has just to see a single vision from a burned scroll of the NW to change her whole point of view on the situation. Melisandre disagrees with Stannis's choice to go north in the book, doesn't she? Not because she doesn't know where the danger lies, but because she thinks Stannis needs to have the whole of the seven kingdoms behind him before he can face those dangers. This is a consistent thought process. It's wrong, but it's consistent.
Hrmm, while you have a point here, this particular scene was bad for about 10 different reasons. You just add another one 
|
On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they?
Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names...
|
On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names...
Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say..
|
On June 13 2013 08:00 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 07:38 Acrofales wrote:On June 13 2013 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2013 06:04 Conti wrote:
Why not? When Melisandre states the name of the three leeches herself, like she does in the book, you can say she's showboating: she's pretending that the Red God has the power to kill people with leeches of king's blood, when actually she has just seen in her visions of the future that the three kings were about to die (all the plots to kill the kings were already in motion before the leeches were burned). When it's Stannis that states the names, like he does in the show, it can only be magic at work. So the question arises, why the hell would she go to the trouble of creating a babyshade killer to kill Renly, significatingly weakening Stannis in the process, when she could instead have burned a leech with Stannis's blood in it and let Renly die that way? That makes no sense. I don't follow. It doesn't matter who says the names. It's clearly Melisandre who instructs Stannis on the procedure. It can equally well be showboating in the series. As Davos says himself, nobody really believes that Melisandre caused Robb's death do they? Except we have the whole meeting, and Melisandre never tells him what names to burn. What if he had chosen someone different, like Cersei or Varys or Tywin? That's a large gambit to make. One line would have been enough: "name the three kings that usurped your throne" or something like that, and there's nothing to be criticized. But she said nothing, and he just "happened" to choose the three right names... Oooor they actually talked about this beforehand, off-screen, and both knew which names he would say..
Beforehand, Stannis was allowing the full sacrifice to occur, with Gendry dying instead of just giving some of his blood. He hasn't met Melisandre after Davos made him change his mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
