EPT[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 1710
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23848 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On September 23 2017 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: They could always use this to their advantage. Showing that people were actually keeping a secret history that diverges from the one everyone knows in the original series. That works for some things where it makes sense, but you cannot just make dumb shit up and potentially ruin the lore to have twists  | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18258 Posts
On September 23 2017 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote: They could always use this to their advantage. Showing that people were actually keeping a secret history that diverges from the one everyone knows in the original series. Just to clarify: you mean that the history as "known" in ASOIAF is inaccurate, right? And that because people write down what they want other people to know, and not that people were deliberately writing inaccurate accords to fool future generations. Yes, people lie all the time, and accounts of what happened are all inaccurate. But that's mainly because people want to hide stuff from their peers, not the future. If given a choice, they would obviously like to be remembered favourably, but in day-to-day affairs that is hardly ever see consideration: they are concerned with their immediate goals in life, not how they will be immortalized. That said, you could probably do an interesting spin-off about some of the Tagaryens. Baelor the Blessed, for instance was mad as a hatter, but is mainly remembered for building the Sept (which Cersei will be remembered for blowing up). | ||
|
PM_ME_NICE_PUPPERS
Pakistan51 Posts
If you read the companion piece about the history of the Seven Kingdoms, the Maesters make that clear on every page. So what we know about the history of Westeros is heavily coloured and could be mostly bullshit. | ||
|
Hyperbola
United States2551 Posts
On September 26 2017 18:06 PM_ME_NICE_PUPPERS wrote: There's a lot of misconceptions about history in the real world, and moreso in Westeros. If you read the companion piece about the history of the Seven Kingdoms, the Maesters make that clear on every page. So what we know about the history of Westeros is heavily coloured and could be mostly bullshit. Bird Kings in the Eyrie that fly on top of eagles? Sea stone cthulu chair? Forest elves flooding the arm of dorne and the neck? Yeah it's all bullshit. Or more like fantastical stories to explain mundane events. | ||
|
PM_ME_NICE_PUPPERS
Pakistan51 Posts
On September 26 2017 23:46 Hyperbola wrote: Or more like fantastical stories to explain mundane events. Which is almost exactly the wording one of the Maesters in the companion history wrote. | ||
|
FreakyDroid
Macedonia2616 Posts
In another article EW has some news about the list of directors for the last season. Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
No word yet when the final season of Game of Thrones will debut, but we do know when the HBO blockbuster is going to start shooting. “We’re doing the first table read on Sunday for the first three episodes, second table reading on Monday, then we start rehearsals, then we start shooting,” Game of Thrones cast member Liam Cunningham said today at New York Comic-Con. The actor who plays Ser Davos Seaworth on the series based on George R.R. Martin’s bestsellers told a crowd at a packed Hammerstein Ballroom this morning that he has received all six scripts for the final season of the show executive produced by David Benioff and David Weiss. Cunningham, who also appears in the upcoming Amazon series Philip K. Dick’s Electric Dreams — which had a panel and dropped its first trailer at NYCC — joked that while he usually did not have problems with technology, there was such an extensive verification process on the well-guarded scripts that he actually hadn’t looked at them yet. Even though HBO suffered a hack and several episodes of GoT were leaked this past season, the show still emerged with its highest viewership ever for its seventh season. Source | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On September 27 2017 20:52 FreakyDroid wrote: Apparently the shooting will start next month, which probably means we wont have to wait a year and a half for the final season. In another article EW has some news about the list of directors for the last season. Source Their shooting until Summer though. So we are definitely not getting the next season until 2019. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
Plot holes everywhere and fuck all happens. Only reason to watch this show is the beautiful cinematography. (at times) | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1961 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I enjoy GoT more than any other show I have ever watched, partly thanks to the hype around it, which produced more content outside the series and together with the existence of the books it lead to a vibrant universe around the series. But foremost, I find actually watching the episodes almost unbelievably pleasant. I honestly can't think of anything I would rather do than watch a new GoT episode, that attractive it is to me. I don't care if people come with their "objectively researched" reasons why it sucks, plotholes and whatever faults. This is supposed to be entertainment and I have literally never been as entertained before in my whole life. So I definitely don't find it overrated. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
The rating of entertainment is subjective and anyone who's trying to argue otherwise is a pretentious hipster. Yeah i heavily disagree with that, this is the "all art is subjective" thing. While that might be true in theory we still defined what "good" and "bad" means. That's why we can say that mozart has more artistic value than justin bieber and that's a good thing. Enjoying justin bieber is still fine ofc, but recognizing that there is a gap in quality is still meaningful if you ask me Same logic can be applied to GoT as well, or any other form of "entertainment" / art for that matter | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On October 18 2017 01:44 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yeah i heavily disagree with that, this is the "all art is subjective" thing. While that might be true in theory we still defined what "good" and "bad" means. That's why we can say that mozart has more artistic value than justin bieber and that's a good thing. Enjoying justin bieber is still fine ofc, but recognizing that there is a gap in quality is still meaningful if you ask me Same logic can be applied to GoT as well, or any other form of "entertainment" / art for that matter Well then this should become generally acknowledged and people should say, when talking about raking a show, which one they mean - their enjoyment or the "artistic quality" and then everything will be clear. Until then, there will be this kind of conflict, when different people mean different thing by the same name. Because I can't give a damn about how people rate anything regarding "artistic quality", I am literally not interested in knowing how a piece of entertainment measures to some artificially defined standards that have no bearing on what I will enjoy - instead I am interested in hoe people rate a given thing subjectively, because people are generally at least to some extent alike and a lot of people liking something gives it a reasonable chance that I will like it. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
It's just that there are so many different aspects to any form of art and people prioritice different things. (for their enjoyment) Like if we talk about GoT as a tv show, you can talk about the writing, the acting, the music, the cinematography, the directing, etc (and every aspect there has subparts as well) That's why i think GoT is a "good" show still, it does a lot of these things really well, it's mainly the writing that is way worse than before and personally it think that is the most important part even in a visual artform. With that being said, yeah i think people in general should try to differentiate between enjoyment and quality, i have no problem to enjoy something which probably isn't that good, realizing that there is a difference is meaningful though imo. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I like the show better. Now some people will probably tell me that I am "not a reader" or something along those lines, but quite the opposite, reading is something I normally enjoy; I also read quite fast so even the volume of the works isn't a problem. I just genuinely just like the way many things are done in the show better. A big part of it is just that the books are in many respects "stereotypical fantasy" despite people trying to hype them as something groundbreaking in this respect. It's just so needlessly medieval in tone in many places and a lot of the "modernisation" GoT is so praised for is purely show material and missing from the books. A great example of this is Shae, who is completely braindead in the books, while in the show, she has great chemistry with Tyrion (until the... unfortunate events of the trial, of course), but many other side characters suffer from lack of any character as well in the books, while the show format itself makes it so that they have to show something, if they are already on the screen. I guess book fans think the exact opposite, but for me, reading the Jaime/Brienne and Hound/Arya parts was almost painful after having seen how the show approached them. Also the show does a very good job in keeping the most "fairy-tale-ish" things out, again in the same vein of bringing a more modern approach to fantasy. My second big quarrel with the book is the tendency to describe wildly unnecessary menial details - I think there are a couple dozen pages of purely the description of food a main character just had. What I find even more irritating is that the reader is forced to go through this stuff because it's impossible to know which little detail will be important later. In general, it seems like Martin's idea of a reader is someone who likes to take notes - or at least has monstrous memory, because the amount of unimportant names being thrown at me is incredible. Why can't he just name those that will ever be mentioned again? Who the hell cares about a guy who will literally never do anything again and his name and sigil? Finally, one thing that really isn't Martin's fault is that simply some of the material is so much better on screen - it's not really bad in the book but I don't think that he could even have foreseen how great it will be when acted out and how it will overshadow the source. The perfect example is Tyrion's final speech in the trial ("I demand trial by combat.") which when written doesn't give even a fraction of the intensity of Dinklage's delivery. Surely, there are good things in the books that are missing from the show - in particular I think that instead of epic shots of scenery, long silent walking and so on, the show could have easily done some of the in-brain thinking of some of the title characters as voice-overs, because as it is done, the show struggles to show the inner struggles of Jamie, Tyrion and others. But in comparison to things the show does better, these are minor issues. To be fair, I don't think I would be ever much interested in reading the books if it weren't for the show. Sure, they are well written and read pleasantly, but I don't really see them standing out much. As it is, I read them with interest, but mostly coming from wanting to know how things I know from the show are done there. I am quite looking forward to getting into the territory of larger divergence now (however I am a little afraid that I will be have to go through a full book of just Jon soon ...) | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
On November 24 2017 04:35 Yoav wrote: I agree in general with the comments but I am so very happy for the show's lack of voiceovers. You don't want endless scenes of characters staring out at the ocean vocally pondering their place in the world? | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
Martin's reason for writting books was that he felt limited by TV. Just he just went overbiard with characcters in books. And a lot of tjem might seem really minor but have a purpose. In the show a lot of small characters roles were just dumped on top of the main characters. Lot of criticism of the show is changing characters and motives. You can argue it's for the best, others wll argue it's not. Did you reach the part where Tyrion and Jaime meet when jaime releases him? The conversation is different and has a huge impact on both Jaime and Tyrion. So much that their words don't leave their heads in the following books and make their characters different from the show. In fact the show!diverges a lot!after the 3rd book, and the final chapter of the third book togheter with its epilogue is still the strongest moment for me in franchise. And all those small characters get to serve some point which is indeed interesting. Book is the best book. Book 4 and 5 have very interesting twists and nice line delivery. Manderly speech to Davos is still gives me the chill, and that's not in the show. The priest talk about war in book4 is also great. Book4 is a!borefest on the first read though after the 3rd you are hyped so much and then you get that. Meh. But on a re-read you get why a lot of people say it's their favorite re-read. And Stannis is actually decent. The show didn't really do s great job with him. Even tough the actor was good. | ||
| ||
