EPT
[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 724
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
Thor.Rush
Sweden702 Posts
| ||
|
PerryHooter
Sweden268 Posts
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... Robb dying would be a good way for the author to transition from the "war of the five kings" storyline and into that with Daenerys and the White Walkers I guess. At least I expect we'll see Robb dying, or at least have something horrible happen to him (Talisa dying etc.), because the Game of Thrones-universe seems far to grim for allowing the "feel good"-element of a main character marrying for love and living happily ever after. His marriage with Talisa will come back and bite him in the ass at one point or another. I remember Karstark saying (in episode 2 season 3 I think?) that he believed they lost the war when Robb married Talisa. Foreshadowing perhaps? | ||
|
Odoakar
Croatia1837 Posts
and many others. | ||
|
ne4aJIb
Russian Federation3209 Posts
Since the end of the last episode of second season where Aria and Faceless left each other, I want to see him again. And most of all I want to see Braavos. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
i've never been held back from sleep by being so engaged in reading, as if it was a game or a show. so much mindfuck and shit happening in the upcoming episodes, HYPE HYPE HYPE!! | ||
|
Ziken
Ghana1743 Posts
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 I felt the same way when reading the first book, because by and large, the first season was quite true to the book. However, from the second season onwards there are definitely variations. Also I definitely found a lot more depth in the book, which is to be expected i guess. Would still recommend the books, if only for the second season onwards :D | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
PerryHooter
Sweden268 Posts
First viewing - the pleasure lies in the suspense, not knowing what's gonna happen. Second/third viewing - you focus more on the plot, settings and the characters, and the entertainment lies in understanding these elements. Third/Fourth+ viewing - You notice small details like foreshadowing, symbolism etc. and the entertainment lies in discovering these. What the aforementioned studies shows is that the greatest entertainment is at the second viewing, the second greatest entertainment is at the 1st viewing, and then in order of decreasing entertainment is the 3rd viewing, the 4th, the 5th etc. (Actually, some studies shows that the 1st and the 3rd viewing is about as entertaining, other's that 1st>3rd. It all depends on the work itself, how complex it is etc.) By having the plot spoiled you (partially) jump directly to the 2nd viewing, so in that sense it (generally) maximizes the entertainment. But it also means you're missing out on "the 1st viewing", and hence miss out on that particular piece of entertainment (you don't get the suspense of not knowing what's gonna happen), so overall the entertainment you experience will be less if you watch the series several times. A little off topic but I couldn't avoid mentioning it. | ||
|
Thor.Rush
Sweden702 Posts
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. This. User was warned for this post | ||
|
AFKPuezo
183 Posts
| ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
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. Quoting a study at me that was preformed on 30 people, statistically insignificant, with no explanation of how they measured the response variable "fun", if you can even measure "fun". Also no description of how they picked the sample group or who the sample group were, and then there is the completely flawed trail design of the study with no scientific credibility whatsoever, this is hardly a systematic review and meta-analysed random controlled trail is it? Which test did the preform? What's the confidence interval? What's the p value? Null Hypothesis? The type of trail indicated in that article is evidence just above the level of anecdotal, and would only be used to identify a possible hypothesis, were a much more methodical study would have to be carried out to make any real claims. I know quite a few books ive read and someone has personally spoiled them for me and it's ruined the experience totally, i read the epic part and get mad, because it doesn't feel right because i saw it coming. It's obvious that not knowing what is going to happen makes the experience better, if knowing what would happen was more exciting then it would stand to reason that watching episode 1 of game of thrones over and over again would be more enjoyable than watching the rest of the season and season 2. By your logic, at least for the second reading, it would be more exciting to read the fellowship of the ring twice back to back before moving on to the next book, but that's nonsense. Edit: Not to mention that the study is done on books, and books move at a much slower pace and are enjoyable more for the reading experiences, while tv series are much faster paced and visual, meaning suspense plays a much larger role. | ||
|
CursedRich
United Kingdom737 Posts
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. ROFL, some pertinent points but mainly tripe mate, dont like us much it seems | ||
|
CursedRich
United Kingdom737 Posts
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. Sorry but you're wrong its like this often because of the warming currents in the atlantic, Scotland is often cold when southern uk is hot, but not as extreme differences as portrayed in the land of westeros | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10665 Posts
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. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On April 26 2013 05:58 CursedRich wrote: ROFL, some pertinent points but mainly tripe mate, dont like us much it seems 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. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
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. She's only just turned 17 :/ | ||
|
B1nary
Canada1267 Posts
There's just too many story lines right now: Jon Snow and Wildlings Sam and nights watch Robb and his rebellion Arya with Robert's son and the assassins Bran and the "Wargs" Theon getting trolled The stuff going on in King's landing Jamie and Brienne Stannis and the fire lady Dany with her dragons Did I miss any? On average, each story only gets ~5min of screen time per episode. I really look forward to when the different stories start interweaving more and everything comes together. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
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. Britain isn't really Martin's world though. Martin was born in New Jersey. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/British_kingdoms_c_800.svg)
