On June 09 2012 19:35 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I was reading some wiki about season 2 cast and I spotted this one:
"Isaac Hempstead-Wright as Prince Brandon Stark" "Art Parkinson as Prince Rickon Stark"
Are they really a prince? I thought Robbs future kids gonna be titled prince and princess not his brothers. I mean Eddard Stark wasn't king right? Bran should be Lord of Winterfell not Prince of Winterfell.
I guess you missed that whole "king in the north" thing.
Lord Stannis and Lord Renly weren't prince, only lords. How is Bran and Rickon then?
Stannis and Renly were only Lords because Robert had his heir Joffrey (although we all know the truth xD)
Eddard wasnt King because this was when the 7 kingdoms were still united, but Robb decided to have an independent kingdom of the north for obvious reasons....
And Bran and Rickon are princes of Winterfell because Robb doesnt have any children - there is of course the possibility that Robb never has any children or only girls - then Bran would be King after Robb
Being a prince is a really wide thing. It can mean just about anything. Generally it means close male member of the royal family though. However it doesn't have anything to do with being heir. However there's also for instance the principality of Liechtenstein, so that's where things get messy. Reading on wikipedia it's all a big mess to be honest...
It doesn't get less messy by that every country has its own definition of these words either, but uses the same =(
On June 09 2012 19:35 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I was reading some wiki about season 2 cast and I spotted this one:
"Isaac Hempstead-Wright as Prince Brandon Stark" "Art Parkinson as Prince Rickon Stark"
Are they really a prince? I thought Robbs future kids gonna be titled prince and princess not his brothers. I mean Eddard Stark wasn't king right? Bran should be Lord of Winterfell not Prince of Winterfell.
I guess you missed that whole "king in the north" thing.
Lord Stannis and Lord Renly weren't prince, only lords. How is Bran and Rickon then?
Stannis and Renly were only Lords because Robert had his heir Joffrey (although we all know the truth xD)
Eddard wasnt King because this was when the 7 kingdoms were still united, but Robb decided to have an independent kingdom of the north for obvious reasons....
And Bran and Rickon are princes of Winterfell because Robb doesnt have any children - there is of course the possibility that Robb never has any children or only girls - then Bran would be King after Robb
Being a prince is a really wide thing. It can mean just about anything. Generally it means close male member of the royal family though. However it doesn't have anything to do with being heir. However there's also for instance the principality of Liechtenstein, so that's where things get messy. Reading on wikipedia it's all a big mess to be honest...
It doesn't get less messy by that every country has its own definition of these words either, but uses the same =(
The logic in the story follows what Vandrad said. As long as a King doest have heirs, his brothers are princes, and first in line of succession.
On June 09 2012 19:35 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I was reading some wiki about season 2 cast and I spotted this one:
"Isaac Hempstead-Wright as Prince Brandon Stark" "Art Parkinson as Prince Rickon Stark"
Are they really a prince? I thought Robbs future kids gonna be titled prince and princess not his brothers. I mean Eddard Stark wasn't king right? Bran should be Lord of Winterfell not Prince of Winterfell.
I guess you missed that whole "king in the north" thing.
Lord Stannis and Lord Renly weren't prince, only lords. How is Bran and Rickon then?
Stannis and Renly were only Lords because Robert had his heir Joffrey (although we all know the truth xD)
Eddard wasnt King because this was when the 7 kingdoms were still united, but Robb decided to have an independent kingdom of the north for obvious reasons....
And Bran and Rickon are princes of Winterfell because Robb doesnt have any children - there is of course the possibility that Robb never has any children or only girls - then Bran would be King after Robb
Being a prince is a really wide thing. It can mean just about anything. Generally it means close male member of the royal family though. However it doesn't have anything to do with being heir. However there's also for instance the principality of Liechtenstein, so that's where things get messy. Reading on wikipedia it's all a big mess to be honest...
It doesn't get less messy by that every country has its own definition of these words either, but uses the same =(
The logic in the story follows what Vandrad said. As long as a King doest have heirs, his brothers are princes, and first in line of succession.
They're always princes. Regardless of whether he has sons or not. Prince has nothing to do with heirs and line of succession. It has have to do with whether you have land or not, so if you're in charge of a castle for instance, you're referred to as a lord, and no longer a prince. Prince in itself is a pretty meaningless title. It practically means "landless relative to the king". Being a lord is a higher title than prince. It has a lot of different definitions, but it's never got anything to do with being heir or not.
On June 11 2012 10:44 Holdinga wrote: Just a quick question. Does Cersei really say in the books something in the lines of "...spread your legs, little dove... "? :D
It may not have used the same diction but the gist of the speech is there.
I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
There are like 2 scenes in the last episode that are technically from the 2nd book, but it definitely would not spoil the 2nd book for you.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
No need to be so agressive kiddo. He gave good arguments explaining why he advised this to his friends. You're just attacking him blindly, and trying to imply by the way that you're an awesome hard-working dude because you ... read.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
No need to be so agressive kiddo. He gave good arguments explaining why he advised this to his friends. You're just attacking him blindly, and trying to imply by the way that you're an awesome hard-working dude because you ... read.
Make your case or STFU
Ned has a dream in the first book that is so awesome, it makes reading the whole book worth it.
It also has the most and best hints for posible future plot twists that aren't shown in the series.
This said, "first series is about 95% accurate to the first book" is still true.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
No need to be so agressive kiddo. He gave good arguments explaining why he advised this to his friends. You're just attacking him blindly, and trying to imply by the way that you're an awesome hard-working dude because you ... read.
Make your case or STFU
Ned has a dream in the first book that is so awesome, it makes reading the whole book worth it.
It also has the most and best hints for posible future plot twists that aren't shown in the series.
This said, "first series is about 95% accurate to the first book" is still true.
Yeah. It's actually incredibly well done in season 1 in how close it is to the book. I just started reading like a madman, and just finished book 2. In book 1 you "only" get a richer environment, and more insight in how characters act and think etc. The actors really don't look a lot like what they're described as in the book for instance. Other than that, it's fully possible to skip right to book 2 if you want to continue with the story progression. Book 2 is like a whole different thing than the show though. So much is completely different that you probably have to read it to understand what's going on in book 3.
but I would like to highlight the point that you get more insight. For instance that moment where Stannis's maester dies after drinking the poison. In the book it would get like its own 10 minute scene. just as an example.
One can easily start at the second book, but would still benefit from the first book.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
I have to agree, without the insult part.
The books are quite different, some parts for the first 2 books were left out of the first two seasons, and some stuff from later books was added.
EPT
