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 Fire Click Here for the spoiler-free thread.
On June 18 2015 12:13 FFGenerations wrote: edit: ok i read the wikis , the question is (since i read someone mention that the Dorne lord nodded his head to the bitch to poison mycella) why would he do that
In DnD's heads it would seem that's how to enact revenge on the Lannisters/King's Landing? No idea how. Is he willing to sacrifice the prince by having them likely taking revenge on the prince for the death of Myrcella? Because it seems he's attempting to conjure up a reason for Dorne to justify whatever it is he's planning to do. It's all just bizarre and illogical.
Wait, people actually think he was in on it? Really?
On June 17 2015 14:07 jinorazi wrote: but lets give credit where its due, we wouldnt have what we have without DnD and who could have done it better? i guess michael bay movie would have been better? (and some people would still love it)
That's a little unfair. DnD were both almost unknowns before GoT. Weiss literally has no credits on IMDB that predate GoT. Benioff has a few credits for writing/directing/producing that predate GoT (25th Hour, Troy, Stay, When the Nines Roll Over, The Kite Runner, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Brothers). Troy and the X-Men spinoff are the big names to me and those are both writing credits for Benioff. I don't think either one of them is known for the great writing.
They've done a nice job of adaptation when they stick closely to the books. However, their original writing skills seem to be really questionable. Here's a funny callout of DnD's writing by Preston Jacobs (lot's of interesting GoT conspiracy theories on his youtube channel):
The thing is, there are plenty of basically unknown writers who I'm thinking could have done a better job at writing the adaptation, especially when it comes to new plot lines. Unfortunately, nobody else has ever had the chance. New plot lines do not seem to be DnD's strength.
Instead, DnD do have strengths as producers and they seem to be good at getting things done, such as getting GoT made in the first place. And for that reason, I cut them a little bit of slack. I think they (or whoever is in charge of casting) is doing a nice job on casting overall. They've done a good job of getting the necessary budget from HBO to do big things. The CGI is usually good with the occasional understandable slip-ups. They've also usually been good at getting solid directors, but clearly made some mistakes this past season on directing choices. That can be remedied easily enough.
However, they need to leave the writing to someone who is willing to spend the time to understand the characters and the plots and understand how they fit together. That's where DnD seem to fail. Instead, they seems to just want to hit us with shock value over and over again since deviating from the books. That's not what the book series is about and I don't feel like that was what the first 3 seasons of GoT were about. Yes, they had shocking moments, but they made sense in-context and that's the huge difference between quality writing and the sub-par stuff we got this season.
I want DnD to stay on as producers, but they really need to hire an expert writer (whether known or unknown) to take over that part of it. They're just completely out of their league and are failing to live up to the quality they set when they followed the source material.
First, I agree with you.
Second, i watched the video and if his theory about Stannis is right, i might actually really ragequit.
For those who have not watched the video, he proposes that, and he doesn't believe it himself, Stannis has not lost half his men, he merely sent them away and his fighting at Winterfell is a distraction.
Now first, why do we even believe for a second they would do something like that? Because we don't want to believe what happened in the last two episodes to Stannis cannot be true. We expected his fight to be awesome, and it was not, so, there must be a trick, right? RIGHT?
I don't believe he sent half his army away as a trick. This is a stannis quote from the book.
"Half my army is made up of unbelievers," Stannis had replied. "I will have no burnings. Pray harder."
I think this was a nod to the books that half his army is made up of unbelievers and once he burned shireen they abandoned him. I just think it's too much of a coincidence that there's a quote like that in the book and then suddenly half his army left him after he burned his own daughter.
On June 18 2015 12:13 FFGenerations wrote: edit: ok i read the wikis , the question is (since i read someone mention that the Dorne lord nodded his head to the bitch to poison mycella) why would he do that
In DnD's heads it would seem that's how to enact revenge on the Lannisters/King's Landing? No idea how. Is he willing to sacrifice the prince by having them likely taking revenge on the prince for the death of Myrcella? Because it seems he's attempting to conjure up a reason for Dorne to justify whatever it is he's planning to do. It's all just bizarre and illogical.
It doesn't make any sense to do it like that and is absurd. If he wanted Myrcella dead, he could have done it at ANY point. In fact, he could have killed Jaime and Bronn as well for a more thorough revenge, instead of handing over his heir. It's clear Doran didn't want Myrcella dead, and the nod wasn't meant as Doran giving permission to Ellaria to murder Myrcella, but Doran nodding Ellaria forward as in "prove your submission to me is true; kiss and make up with Myrcella".
However, while that is slightly less stupid than Doran nodding off on the plot, it is still thoroughly shitty writing, but given the way they seem to have planned the Dorne story there is no escaping that. Dorne is just a hopeless case.
In fact, in addition to the individual scenes ranging from terrible to mediocre, the overarching Dorne story exemplifies everything that went wrong in the GoT series: 1. It destroys an interesting book character (Doran)
2. It depends on extreme coincidence (Jaime and Bronn just happen to arrive at the exact same time as the sand snakes plan their attack). And that is forgiving the first one, which is that the first thing Bronn and Jaime do when trying to remain inconspicuous is murder a band of swordsmen who conveniently stumble upon them, yet no alarm is raised at them not returning.
3. It is unclear how the individual's actions make sense in an overarching storyline: a) Doran doesn't seem to have a longterm plan at all, which ties into pont 1, because book Doran is one of the best players of the Game of Thrones, and a brilliant schemer) b) Even Jaime himself cannot come up with a reason for why it made sense for HIM to come to Dorne.
Okay, so we've got a boat manned by a Dornnish crew, with a dead Lannister and a prisoner Lannister. Off to King's Landing? Yeah... not so much. Off to where, then? Meereen! What's the fashionable gift to bring to the queen that has everything, with the hope that she listens to you and your marriage proposal? A Lannister... although she already has one. But this one killed her father, so that's got to count for something.
Hmm, someone remind me. Did the show ever managed to be that subtle about anything? I mean, I usually defend the show and its decisions, but even I would not say that the show is very good at dishing out very subtle hints about what happens in the future. To the contrary, everything that's subtly hinted at in the books is hinted at in a quite blatant fashion in the show.
Everyone expected something bad to happen at the red wedding, people just didn't know how bad it was. People have been speculating about Shireen's death by fire even before the season began. Jon's betrayal was also telegraphed in a rather blatant fashion..
I'm not saying that those are all examples of bad writing. You gotta be less subtle if your audience is orders of magnitude larger, and while I would've liked more subtly about these things.. eh, it doesn't break the enjoyment of the show for me. But it really makes me wonder why anyone would assume that the show suddenly is managing to be as subtle as the books about its hints for the future. I really don't buy any of the theories pointed out here in the past few pages. The show just isn't that deep.
On June 19 2015 05:01 Conti wrote: Hmm, someone remind me. Did the show ever managed to be that subtle about anything? I mean, I usually defend the show and its decisions, but even I would not say that the show is very good at dishing out very subtle hints about what happens in the future. To the contrary, everything that's subtly hinted at in the books is hinted at in a quite blatant fashion in the show.
Everyone expected something bad to happen at the red wedding, people just didn't know how bad it was. People have been speculating about Shireen's death by fire even before the season began. Jon's betrayal was also telegraphed in a rather blatant fashion..
I'm not saying that those are all examples of bad writing. You gotta be less subtle if your audience is orders of magnitude larger, and while I would've liked more subtly about these things.. eh, it doesn't break the enjoyment of the show for me. But it really makes me wonder why anyone would assume that the show suddenly is managing to be as subtle as the books about its hints for the future. I really don't buy any of the theories pointed out here in the past few pages. The show just isn't that deep.
Trystane = Quentyn would be a nice twist, but would dump Jaime in Dorne... a really really major deviation from the plot. It's also a way neater conclusion to the Dorne plot than has been hinted at anywhere in the show. And while it would be an elegant recovery, it has some serious loose ends. First of which is that Trystane has to be in on the plot, and there is absolutely no indication that he is anything other than a lovestruck young boy.
Stannis sending half his army away is ridiculous. First and foremost because it does not make any sense. You do not send half your army away and charge haphazardly at the enemy with your weaker half without the other half already being in place to ambush. You definitely definitely definitely don't do that if your plan requires you to ride with the weaker half, and have it get slaughtered around you, ending with you dead or captured (in this case magic Brienne gets there while Ramsay plays whack-a-mole with surrendering footmen).
On June 18 2015 12:13 FFGenerations wrote: edit: ok i read the wikis , the question is (since i read someone mention that the Dorne lord nodded his head to the bitch to poison mycella) why would he do that
In DnD's heads it would seem that's how to enact revenge on the Lannisters/King's Landing? No idea how. Is he willing to sacrifice the prince by having them likely taking revenge on the prince for the death of Myrcella? Because it seems he's attempting to conjure up a reason for Dorne to justify whatever it is he's planning to do. It's all just bizarre and illogical.
Wait, people actually think he was in on it? Really?
Yep. They seem to interpret his nod as a 'go kill her now my dear' nod.
On June 19 2015 04:17 SpikeStarcraft wrote: I liked the theory i read on reddit just now:
Trystane = Quentyn.
Okay, so we've got a boat manned by a Dornnish crew, with a dead Lannister and a prisoner Lannister. Off to King's Landing? Yeah... not so much. Off to where, then? Meereen! What's the fashionable gift to bring to the queen that has everything, with the hope that she listens to you and your marriage proposal? A Lannister... although she already has one. But this one killed her father, so that's got to count for something.
Only proving people on Reddit make better original plot lines than the writers of GoT.
Not in a way, like OMG its' true! but in a way, that it really shows the conscious and unconscious influences on GRRM, that he partially incorporated in his world and character-building.
No, the books wont take a 180 turn and be about Children vs Humans all of a sudden, and no, the main charcters dont have their northern god counterpart, but the similarities are there, i'm sure Martin uses some of these motives on purpose (war of the roses, wall of Hadrian), some out of convenience (Children resembling other species he invented) but probably he doesnt even realize that some stuff he read or heard about throughout the years kinda leaked into the story one way or another (the whole Bloodraven-Bran-Jamie Loki-Fenrir-Tyr parallel). I'm just guessing ofc.
Stannis sending half his army away is ridiculous. First and foremost because it does not make any sense. You do not send half your army away and charge haphazardly at the enemy with your weaker half without the other half already being in place to ambush. You definitely definitely definitely don't do that if your plan requires you to ride with the weaker half, and have it get slaughtered around you, ending with you dead or captured (in this case magic Brienne gets there while Ramsay plays whack-a-mole with surrendering footmen).
Well actually that is almost what Robb Stark did in the second season/second book. He send all his foot down the trident while he led his horse in a circle to ambush Riverrun and capture Jamie Lannister. Granted he wasn't with his footmen, but with the horse, and the commanders of the footmen stayed in the back, so where able to retreat when they engaged the Lannister forces. So the idea is not that far out, but I do agree - Stannis being in the middle of it all doesn't make sense.
Not in a way, like OMG its' true! but in a way, that it really shows the conscious and unconscious influences on GRRM, that he partially incorporated in his world and character-building.
No, the books wont take a 180 turn and be about Children vs Humans all of a sudden, and no, the main charcters dont have their northern god counterpart, but the similarities are there, i'm sure Martin uses some of these motives on purpose (war of the roses, wall of Hadrian), some out of convenience (Children resembling other species he invented) but probably he doesnt even realize that some stuff he read or heard about throughout the years kinda leaked into the story one way or another (the whole Loki-Bran-Jamie Loki-Fenrir-Tyr parallel). I'm just guessing ofc.
I have never read any of Martins other work. But after watching this video, i can't help to think that similiar themes and ideas will show in ASoIaF.
Regarding Ragnarok theory: Being danish and grown own up with Norse mythology i have speculated over the similiarities for some times now. That ending is, indeed "bittersweet" and that is the vibe i get from how the story is progressing.
The Bran = Fenris wolf and Jaime = Tyr is brilliant
Just saw the episode. Lol that at Merryn Trant, that whole scene was just so unnecessary and forced and drags down the legitimacy of the series. That and Dorne (coupled with a few other things)
I am just sad that a show I used to hold to such high regard is becoming cheaper and cheaper. I mean there are still good things in the series and I will continue watching but there is no denying it is getting worse.
The problem with the Ragnarok theory is that it has an agenda, in that it starts from the conclusion that ASOIAF must be retelling Ragnarok and overall norse mythology, and then makes everything fit the agenda. The biggest example is Bloodraven. If you think of general appearance and associations, Odin is clearly the answer that comes to mind. But if Asoiaf was a retelling of Ragnarok, Loki would be a better fit. And so the theory makes a convoluted effort to have Loki be Ragnarok instead of Odin. Starts from the conclusion, and ruins a very interesting analysis.
On June 20 2015 03:25 Nebuchad wrote: The problem with the Ragnarok theory is that it has an agenda, in that it starts from the conclusion that ASOIAF must be retelling Ragnarok and overall norse mythology, and then makes everything fit the agenda. The biggest example is Bloodraven. If you think of general appearance and associations, Odin is clearly the answer that comes to mind. But if Asoiaf was a retelling of Ragnarok, Loki would be a better fit. And so the theory makes a convoluted effort to have Loki be Ragnarok instead of Odin. Starts from the conclusion, and ruins a very interesting analysis.
My perspective may be biased, as my knowledge of Ragnarok (beyond some Wiki here and there) is limited to a book titled "Loki" by Mike Vasich. In that book it was Odin whose scheming brought Ragnarok onto the world. Because of his ability to see the future he had a strong conviction that this had to be done. Loki was manipulated into becoming someone he eventually did become. Bloodraven could fit this role really well, indeed.
As for Loki, he always felt unaccepted by other Asgardians, he felt that he did not belong there, like a bastard. His story was a story of ungratefulness and betrayal. Having learned of his true roots, he swore to seek vengeance. I am not sure how true to the original story written in Eddas this is, but seems an awful lot like what Jon Snow experienced both in Winterfel and as a member of the Watch. After being stabbed to death by his nominal brothers he would have a good reason to switch sides and become a leader of the dead.
As for ice giants (White Walkers) and fire giants (Dragons) working together, I don't think that would be the case in ASoIaF. However, despite not working as a team, they would both contribute to the demise of the gods (those in power) - for the simple fact that people in the south of Westeros do not believe in the mythical threat from the north. To them those are just stories. For that reason, I think the new dance of dragons/struggle for power between Aegon and Daenerys (and perhaps whoever is in control of King's Landing at the time) could ensue just on the brink of the White Walker invasion. Ignorance, vanity and hunger for power destroying any hope of creating a united front against the marching dead, bringing humanity to its knees.
Arthur Dayne, Tower of Joy/Harrenhall tournament flashback?
Brotherhood without Banners + LSH?
Umber, Lord Manderly = The North finally remembers
...
Hype?
Whats the point of having Lord Manderly without Davos though?
What I could see happening is a theon redemption arc where he tells Lord Manderly about Rickon but even then what the fuck is Davos gonna do for the next two seasons?
Arthur Dayne, Tower of Joy/Harrenhall tournament flashback?
Brotherhood without Banners + LSH?
Umber, Lord Manderly = The North finally remembers
...
Hype?
Whats the point of having Lord Manderly without Davos though?
What I could see happening is a theon redemption arc where he tells Lord Manderly about Rickon but even then what the fuck is Davos gonna do for the next two seasons?
Why does Lord Manderly need telling about Rickon? Rickon is with the Umbers, and presumably the revenge-plotting mutineering northerners will rally behind him. In the books Manderly has to send Davos out to go find him, because Skaggs are a bunch of unruly barbarians, and while Rickon will probably be safe(ish) there, he won't be in a position for the North to rally around. However, the show solves that by having Rickon hanging out at Last Hearth, presumably chilling with the Greatjon. Thus Manderly doesn't have to send Davos out on a boat.
Arthur Dayne, Tower of Joy/Harrenhall tournament flashback?
Brotherhood without Banners + LSH?
Umber, Lord Manderly = The North finally remembers
...
Hype?
Whats the point of having Lord Manderly without Davos though?
What I could see happening is a theon redemption arc where he tells Lord Manderly about Rickon but even then what the fuck is Davos gonna do for the next two seasons?
Why does Lord Manderly need telling about Rickon? Rickon is with the Umbers, and presumably the revenge-plotting mutineering northerners will rally behind him. In the books Manderly has to send Davos out to go find him, because Skaggs are a bunch of unruly barbarians, and while Rickon will probably be safe(ish) there, he won't be in a position for the North to rally around. However, the show solves that by having Rickon hanging out at Last Hearth, presumably chilling with the Greatjon. Thus Manderly doesn't have to send Davos out on a boat.
In the books isn't it an ironborn that tells Manderly in the first place? I would find it strange if the show introduced characters that magically knew Rickon was alive and knew exactly where he was tbh. Having Davos or Theon/Sansa with Manderly shows how he is playing the game and allows for the north remembers to have more impact.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ma23hVPKSQU/hqdefault.jpg)
