[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 724

On April 26 2013 00:59 Djzapz wrote:
If Robb dies, I wonder what the main focus of the story would be. The Starks have been going against the odds for a while though, so it wouldn't be surprising...

On April 26 2013 01:53 Thor.Rush wrote:
I tried reading the first book after watching GoT, but it's just too slow and too detailed for me when almost all the events are the same and I know what's going to happen. TV show only, for me

On April 25 2013 18:52 UdderChaos wrote:
You can read the books and tell me it doesn't ruin it as much as you like, but knowing things like Ned's death would have ruined it for me. The "HOLY SHIT THEY JUST CHOPPED OFF THE MAIN CHARACTERS HEAD!" ect, i don't understand how knowing what is going to happen next doesn't ruin the experience for you? Tension is half the fun, and the best way of telling a story. Films like the 6th sense would be ruined if you knew the ending. Spoilers are called spoilers for a reason.

On April 26 2013 04:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:


http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/spoiler-alert-stories-are-not-spoiled-byspoilers.html

Personally I enjoyed Fight Club a lot more knowing that Tyler Durden was the narrator because there's so many little tidbits in the movie that make a whole lot more sense when you already know that.

The study basically suggests that once you know how the plot's going to turn out, you can focus more on the other elements of the story - setting, character development, foreshadowing (which you can see now that you know that X dies or Y betrays his brother or father or something), general atmosphere, etc.

On April 26 2013 04:47 Conti wrote:

Again, knowing the end makes it an entirely different experience, not a better one. Not knowing is part of the experience the first time around, knowing is part of the experience the second time around. Spoiling things robs you of the first experience. Therefore, it sucks.

On April 26 2013 04:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:


http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/spoiler-alert-stories-are-not-spoiled-byspoilers.html

Personally I enjoyed Fight Club a lot more knowing that Tyler Durden was the narrator because there's so many little tidbits in the movie that make a whole lot more sense when you already know that.

The study basically suggests that once you know how the plot's going to turn out, you can focus more on the other elements of the story - setting, character development, foreshadowing (which you can see now that you know that X dies or Y betrays his brother or father or something), general atmosphere, etc.

On April 25 2013 02:54 Yoav wrote:
I think overall in influence, like in many fantasy universes, you are getting an author's (usually British) cultural impression of the real world. A few examples from very popular works:

GoT: Historical British view of history. First Men=Celts, Andals=Saxons, Targaryens=Normans. Targaryens are from Europe, tracing a cultural lineage back to the great fallen empire of Rome/Valyria. Britain is extra big, but generally recognizable with Dorne/Cornwall, King's Landing/London, Winterfell/York, Casterly Rock/Lancaster, Wall/Wall, Scots, Wildlings, and so on, generally evoking the War of the Roses.

Essos is undersized for Europe/Asia, but go to school in England for a bit and try and tell me it's not about the right size for its role. Valyria is even in the right place for Italy. Dothraki are obviously Mongols. Syrio/Jaqen evoke Venice and its contemporaries in swordsmanship/spycraft in a "Free City." Slaver's Bay is a typical Imperialist view of Africa/Middle East. (Remember that the initial reason for the onslaught of European invaders into Africa was aimed at eradicating slavery.)

LotR: British view of WWII/I/The Crusades. Happy homes of a "nation of shopkeepers" must go and help its warlike but beleaguered friends fighting a losing battle against the forces of evil from the east and south. In the process, they must enlist the aid of a nation that was once a colony, which is unwilling to abandon its isolationist viewpoint.

Harry Potter: Contemporary British view that the world is divided into basically three categories: Plucky Brits, Sexy but Vapid French Girls, and Manly but Brutish Central/Eastern European Men.

Narnia: Again, historical British GoT-esque North is wild, South is civilized but foreign and hostile with a different religion, East is fascinating but unexplored, and not much is out to the West.

Star Trek: The heroic Federation of Earth/America, the plucky upstarts and Vulcan/England, their level-headed and tradition-minded allies, take on the world. Opposing them are the Romulan/Chinese and Klingon/Russian empires. The Romulan/Chinese are bad, but they have a breakaway state of good guys. The Klingon/Russians are really bad until 1990, then become our lovably barbaric quasi-allies, until the mid-late 00s, when they become evil again.

On April 24 2013 21:30 Fenrax wrote:


I like the comparison to Great Britain with the wall. Makes sense that it was inspired by that. And the scots=wildlings comparison is pretty funny.

But for the size of Westoros South America fits much better. Great britain is too small for such differencies in the climate where it can be warm and comfy on one end and dead cold on the other.

On April 26 2013 05:58 CursedRich wrote:


ROFL, some pertinent points but mainly tripe mate, dont like us much it seems

On April 26 2013 06:08 Emnjay808 wrote:
Are we ever gonna get to see Sansa's tits. She is so hot. I bet she has a red strip down there too.

On a more serious note. Im rewatching Season 1. And wow, Tyrion is like my favorite character even more now. When I first started watching, I just thought they added a dwarf to the cast to add color and variety. But seriously, this character alone brings so much depth and cunning-ness to the other characters that the show would be seriously boring without him.

On April 26 2013 06:08 Yoav wrote:

Hey, I love the UK. The only US-based world on the list (there's a reason for the dearth, we're worse at stories) is the least interesting and fleshed out world there. The UK invented modern fantasy, and they still do it better, and probably always will.

But fantasy means the making manifest of moral struggles. So the authors, to talk about things in a relevant way, are going to have to rely on their world. There are ways of getting around the issue of allegorizing our worldview, but I don't personally find them generally as convincing (His Dark Materials, set in our world with minor changes, for example).

Long story short, Brits rock, and their literature blows ours out of the water in every medium except film. And even then many of our best are adaptations of their stuff.