EPT[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 1817
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9268 Posts
| ||
|
Rasalased
89 Posts
This is why Warner Bros was able to make the very bad Hobbit movies. Tolkien himself sold all the rights in 1968-1969. Long before things like video games were even a thing. This is why the Tolkien estate is disowning all the stuff the corporations are now doing with Tolkien's universe. It would be strange if GRRM actually reversed this and has HBO by the balls. And d&d are just some employers. Yes, they get paid a lot of money and get a lot of game and prestige. But they are also hired to be fired, if it is in the interest of profit to do so. And it seems that GRRM and HBO were in agreement on the number of episodes and both disagreed with d&d. It must be that HBO just didn't want to risk having completely new writers on the show. It would be hard to guard continuity when d&d and GRRM are no longer involved at all. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Like it's something GRRM realized (or had planned for better) and that's why we have AFFC. Side rant, I think AFFC is actually a strong book which is probably unpopular opinion but oh well. It's just that it's an unsatisfying follow-up to a Storm of Swords because of the pacing shift. A lot of the things I'm most interested in going forward come from AFFC though. I just don't think the show invested enough in S4-S6 in fleshing out support for the ending which lead to a troublesome S7 and then S8. | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
We shall see if it has a negative impact on the GoT spin off shows, but they have completely different writers. | ||
|
Rasalased
89 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:12 karazax wrote: By that standard, everyone who wanted to be king was a bad person. Conversely Dany's main driving force beyond just conquest was freeing the slaves and protecting the weak, so there was plenty to say she was decent, if not good. Ideally GRRM wants most of his characters to be grey though. Capable of doing good and bad things in different situations. If she wanted to free slaves, why did she come to Westeros, then? Of course the story presented you the veil of that she was good and compassionate. That is why it was so well-written. Yet I thought everyone would see right through it and that the writing was supposed to be as if you would see right through it. I get that people see the jump from Daenerys who wanted to conquer Westeros to the one that burns down KL is sudden. But what about the transition from the girl she was in season 1 episode one and the woman she was when she arrived in Westros. When did she become a worse version of her brother? Because that did happen. I guess that plot was much better done than I thought because I hadn't realized people didn't recognize a general greyness plus moral dilemmas with a transformation into someone with a deep hunger for power and a messiah complex. | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:52 Rasalased wrote: If she wanted to free slaves, why did she come to Westeros, then? Of course the story presented you the veil of that she was good and compassionate. That is why it was so well-written. Yet I thought everyone would see right through it and that the writing was supposed to be as if you would see right through it. I get that people see the jump from Daenerys who wanted to conquer Westeros to the one that burns down KL is sudden. But what about the transition from the girl she was in season 1 episode one and the woman she was when she arrived in Westros. When did she become a worse version of her brother? Because that did happen. I guess that plot was much better done than I thought because I hadn't realized people didn't recognize a general greyness plus moral dilemmas with a transformation into someone with a deep hunger for power and a messiah complex. Before she burned down King's Landing, how was she worse than her brother? | ||
|
Rasalased
89 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:51 karazax wrote: There is more to it than that regarding HBO and D&D, and adding more seasons. Actor contracts would need to be renewed and some of them may be ready to move on. HBO wouldn't know that season 8 was good or bad until after it was made, especially with all the super secrecy to limit leaks. If you only judge by viewership rather than quality, this season was a huge success for HBO. This is no problem at all as long as the actors know they will be working on GoT. None of these actors have any guarantee that they will ever be in a big tv series or movie again. For almost all of them, this is by far the high point of their career. None of the actors on GoT have become bigger than the show because they all lack acting/star power for that. Now, there can always be failed negotiation tactics or personal problems that can cause an actor to quit. But the idea that the show has to end because the actors have better things to do than GoT is nonsense. Kit Harington, Sophie Turner, and Emilia Clarke are probably the only ones with an actual hope of a big movie career. | ||
|
Rasalased
89 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:58 karazax wrote: Before she burned down King's Landing, how was she worse than her brother? She was about to conquer all of Westeros with evil dragons, barbaric horse nomads, and brainwashed traumatized mercenaries. All because she felt Westeros belonged to her because of a mix of destiny, birthright, and vengeance. You realize that she knew almost nothing about Westeros and Westerosi internal politics played zero role in her decision. For all she knew it was completely at peace, and she would still have invaded. But apparently half the audience bought the idea that Daenerys coming to Westeros when Cersei was super evil was a good for the people in Westeros. | ||
hexhaven
Finland955 Posts
On May 21 2019 22:59 Yosheekee wrote: Except GOT actually didn't have these kind of mistakes before. It was a great show for a lot of other reasons, but it was also clear from this stuff. And then, you have the final season that is rushed, badle written and OH, surprise, mistakes like starbuck cup and water bottle. I think it's kinda related. I got real bad news for you. https://io9.gizmodo.com/8-more-game-of-thrones-goofs-that-show-maybe-we-shouldn-1834582280 https://screenrant.com/game-of-thrones-mistakes-bloopers-goofs/ And just to clarify, the writing is (mostly) something you can point to as being an example of a rushed production. And hell, you absolutely should. However, goofs like bottles and coffee cups are just that, goofs. Doesn't matter if it's a well run production or a shitshow, things like that pretty much always slip through. It's simply in the nature of film making. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 22 2019 01:06 Rasalased wrote: She was about to conquer all of Westeros with evil dragons, barbaric horse nomads, and brainwashed traumatized mercenaries. All because she felt Westeros belonged to her because of a mix of destiny, birthright, and vengeance. You realize that she knew almost nothing about Westeros and Westerosi internal politics played zero role in her decision. For all she knew it was completely at peace, and she would still have invaded. But apparently half the audience bought the idea that Daenerys coming to Westeros when Cersei was super evil was a good for the people in Westeros. I dunno if these dragons should really be called evil. At least in these last two seasons they were basically just flying horses with flamethrowers attached. Drogon just peaces out after the show is over, after all, and has less of a thirst for vengeance and more awareness of political intrigue than Dany judging by his decision to spare Jon and burn the throne. Hell I was half expecting him to start speaking with Sean Connery's voice and give Jon a wise sermon on the evils of absolute power corrupting absolutely. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:12 karazax wrote: When their motivations were not altruistic, yeah, which amounts to basically every king save tommen because he was a child. Is that really controversial? That kings are people who have made, at the very least, a dramatically incorrect moral claim regarding their legitimacy? Surely you are a democrat and not a monarchist, yeah? By that standard, everyone who wanted to be king was a bad person. Conversely Dany's main driving force beyond just conquest was freeing the slaves and protecting the weak, so there was plenty to say she was decent, if not good. Ideally GRRM wants most of his characters to be grey though. Capable of doing good and bad things in different situations. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18191 Posts
On May 22 2019 01:04 Rasalased wrote: This is no problem at all as long as the actors know they will be working on GoT. None of these actors have any guarantee that they will ever be in a big tv series or movie again. For almost all of them, this is by far the high point of their career. None of the actors on GoT have become bigger than the show because they all lack acting/star power for that. Now, there can always be failed negotiation tactics or personal problems that can cause an actor to quit. But the idea that the show has to end because the actors have better things to do than GoT is nonsense. Kit Harington, Sophie Turner, and Emilia Clarke are probably the only ones with an actual hope of a big movie career. Yes, and they are also the ones who have to carry the show. So if they don't feel like tying up time for another 3 years in GoT, then that's a problem. John Bradley, Jacob Anderson or Iain Glen might've been thrilled if the project was longer, but if the actors of your two main characters are impatient to move away, then you just have to wrap it up, regardless. That said, they appeared capable of accommodating the actors just fine. Emilia Clarke found time to do Solo while GoT was still running, and Sophie Turner also found time for 2 X-Men movies. Also, you forgot Carice van Houten already has a pretty successful career away from GoT  Not that she had much to do in seasons 7 or 8. And Lena Headley too. I'd also suspect that Peter Dinklage has plenty of options. GoT actually has a remarkable amount of star power for a TV show. | ||
|
Jek
Denmark2771 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:07 Logo wrote:
You just convinced me to pick up the books. | ||
zatic
Zurich15359 Posts
All Cercei chapters in AFFC are pure gold. I loved AFFC, and Cerceis arc is just amazing. A perfectly described POV voyage of a person sliding into madness without realizing it until it's too late and everything comes crashing down. | ||
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
In the show the Lannister army regened to full hp, the West found a bunch of extra money, and even after losing Casterly Rock they were still able to somehow defeat the Reach. The whole point of Tywin was that the Reach were the true power but he maneuvered then into aligning their interests with his and then held them hostage to his goals. Cersei’s plan of soloing them, despite their overwhelming military supremacy, and then finding enough money in their castle for an entire mercenary army (which they apparently chose not to use to defend their castle), doesn’t make any sense. It’s a classic example of the kind of insane dumb plan book Cersei would try but the whole point of those plans is that they’re dumb and they destroy Tywin’s legacy. If we accept show Cersei then Tywin was a moron not to immediately seize the Reach decades ago because apparently anyone can just do that. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7950 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:07 Dazed. wrote: To be fair it was always more than self evident danny was a bad person; her very fucking initial goal is to conquer a foreign land because she thinks her blood gives her that right. She starts out as an advocate of: right of conquest, nobility, absolute monarchy, feudal society. She gets worse from there consistently every season. There was never any serious indication that danny was even half way decent let alone good. I actually always hated Danny. She was a merciless, cold hearted bitch with a messiah complex. I think her last line summarizes her perfectly: "because they don't get to chose". Ultimately, all she truly believed in was strength. Also, worse than anything else, she had no humour. At all. And that's never a good sign. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7950 Posts
On May 22 2019 02:56 KwarK wrote: The whole point of the Cersei stuff is that Tywin is smart and Cersei is arrogant. In the books the Lannister army is getting mauled by the North and the Riverlands, Stannis is going to headshot the Crown Lands, and the Westlands are kinda drained. Through diplomacy Tywin binds the strongest remaining force, the Reach, to the crown and snatched victory from defeat at Blackwater. After he dies Cersei decides she can play the game just as well as him and gets played by pretty much everyone. But it’s told as Cersei so you have this awesome unreliable narrator who keeps telling you about her clever plans and it slowly becomes apparent that she’s a moron. In the show the Lannister army regened to full hp, the West found a bunch of extra money, and even after losing Casterly Rock they were still able to somehow defeat the Reach. The whole point of Tywin was that the Reach were the true power but he maneuvered then into aligning their interests with his and then held them hostage to his goals. Cersei’s plan of soloing them, despite their overwhelming military supremacy, and then finding enough money in their castle for an entire mercenary army (which they apparently chose not to use to defend their castle), doesn’t make any sense. It’s a classic example of the kind of insane dumb plan book Cersei would try but the whole point of those plans is that they’re dumb and they destroy Tywin’s legacy. If we accept show Cersei then Tywin was a moron not to immediately seize the Reach decades ago because apparently anyone can just do that. Tbh, this kind of political stuff get lost anyway in a show like that anyway. I watched the whole show and still had to google what the Reach was. Of course as a book reader you can see those subtleties; but if you watch one episode a week over years, all you perceive is that Cercei is growing increasingly isolated and that she doesn't understand that she needs allies and friends to fight her wars. And that despite temporary success, it makes her a terrible leader. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On May 21 2019 04:53 Odoakar wrote: Has anyone read Fire & Blood? Is that stuff worth reading or is it shit like last two asofai books? careful, red viper will get triggered if you say the last two books were shit and then go to great lengths deny that the fans consider them shitty as well | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 22 2019 00:52 Rasalased wrote: If she wanted to free slaves, why did she come to Westeros, then? Of course the story presented you the veil of that she was good and compassionate. That is why it was so well-written. Yet I thought everyone would see right through it and that the writing was supposed to be as if you would see right through it. I get that people see the jump from Daenerys who wanted to conquer Westeros to the one that burns down KL is sudden. But what about the transition from the girl she was in season 1 episode one and the woman she was when she arrived in Westros. When did she become a worse version of her brother? Because that did happen. I guess that plot was much better done than I thought because I hadn't realized people didn't recognize a general greyness plus moral dilemmas with a transformation into someone with a deep hunger for power and a messiah complex. It is a feudal world after all, I felt the scene was only included as a borderline 4th wall break referencing a particular possible ending, but even largely good characters laughed Sam’s democracy suggestion out of dodge. People did recognise the greyness, plenty called Dany doing something awful because of her messianic leanings. Not actively burning civilians in the manner she did, that flip just seems too abrupt by far vs her previous behaviour and rhetoric. As many said, and I agreed with, Dany blowing up the Red Keep in a fit of rage and taking tons of innocents as collateral damage would have been fine. Your messiah complex ultimately doing more damage to the people you want to free vs actively butchering those people for no real reason. The added bonus effect of doing it that way is also that Jon has an actual dilemma there rather than well, of course he’s going to kill her after that. | ||
| ||
