|
On January 03 2012 16:18 Critter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 15:51 visual77 wrote:On January 03 2012 14:08 KevinIX wrote:
Is there a way to watch Game of Thrones without HBO? Not legally, unless you wait until the DVDs come out in a few months. This, which is a shame because I'd love to support HBO (I'm buying the DVD's, but I'm not waiting until they are released to watch the show). I just can't justify buying cable and then a further HBO package just to watch one show. I wish they would get with the times and offer an online pay per view or something. I'd gladly pay as the books were amazing and I loved the show as well.
Yeah, it would certainly be nice to have them give us a reasonable offering. I calculated it out once, and it comes to roughly $100 per month for me to get Game of Thrones in HD on cable. I cancelled cable because I never watch it and don't want to renew for just this one show.
But I preordered the Blu-Ray set the instant it went on Amazon. So they'll get money out of me in time. I just wish they would have given me a less awkward transaction.
|
On January 03 2012 11:45 greendestiny wrote:A long time ago, I've read books from 'Song of Ice and Fire' series until one of them ended with + Show Spoiler +a female character (forgot her name) reviving dragons from fossilized eggs. I eagerly bought the next one only to find out + Show Spoiler +next 300 pages contain no fucking mention of dragons at all. It's like 'hey, here are these dragons, now for some political intrigue and personal drama'. The final page of the book even had the author's announcement "I know there are no dragons in this book, I promise the next one will have more info" or in other words "TROLOLOL" I've dropped it with a vengeance since then. Spoiler #1 may not be entirely accurate, I'm going from my memory here, but it was a final chapter for that character and something spectacular happened, if you've read it, you know exactly what I'm referring to.
Haha. That announcement at the end of the book explaining why some characters were missing was in AFFC, and those + Show Spoiler + were in AGOT. Meaning you read book 1 and then bought book 4. Time to buy 2 and 3 :D
|
btw, just to throw this out there. why are people having issues with dragons hatching from stasis.....but not anything happening in the North....i mean...come on.
|
On January 03 2012 11:52 TheBamf wrote:
Reading through A Feast for Crows, I do not get what the fuzz of it being the worse of the books is all about.
At least for me, the level of detail was just to much in this book. F.E, it takes like 5 chapters for brienne to travel to a cave, kill three bandits, and travel back. What i started to experience in book four is that you just read a chapter to get to the end, where a big cliffhanger waits for you, which then motivates you to continue reading.
Of course detailled writing is nice and makes a story get alive, but putting in so much details like in book 4 lead to nearly no plot development. The first three books were kind of different i think, because the story was much more interesting as a whole and it was not just about some cliffhangers, at least for me.
I also disagree with Brans chapters being the most boring ones, i liked them the most, because the nearly meet up with Jon and the whole mystic raven/north thing made it quite interesting.
|
On January 04 2012 02:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 11:52 TheBamf wrote:
Reading through A Feast for Crows, I do not get what the fuzz of it being the worse of the books is all about. At least for me, the level of detail was just to much in this book. F.E, it takes like 5 chapters for brienne to travel to a cave, kill three bandits, and travel back. What i started to experience in book four is that you just read a chapter to get to the end, where a big cliffhanger waits for you, which then motivates you to continue reading. Of course detailled writing is nice and makes a story get alive, but putting in so much details like in book 4 lead to nearly no plot development. The first three books were kind of different i think, because the story was much more interesting as a whole and it was not just about some cliffhangers, at least for me. I also disagree with Brans chapters being the most boring ones, i liked them the most, because the nearly meet up with Jon and the whole mystic raven/north thing made it quite interesting.
Yeah, agreeing with the lack of plot in book 4. One of the things that I enjoy about the series is the author's ability to keep things moving. You're constantly jumping from character to character, and everyone is involved in things that have huge impacts on the plot and the world around them.
Then there's book 4. Most of the book takes place in a minor province, it's not even one of the seven kingdoms. If that weren't bad enough, the chapters almost double in average length. That doesn't mean that more stuff happens each chapter though, just that we get more words. So not only do I not really care about most of the stories in book 4, it takes twice as long to tell them as any other book.
I won't go so far as to call it bad. It's just not as good as the other books. Book 3 will probably forever be my favorite, but they're all excellent.
|
On January 04 2012 02:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 11:52 TheBamf wrote:
Reading through A Feast for Crows, I do not get what the fuzz of it being the worse of the books is all about. At least for me, the level of detail was just to much in this book. F.E, it takes like 5 chapters for brienne to travel to a cave, kill three bandits, and travel back. What i started to experience in book four is that you just read a chapter to get to the end, where a big cliffhanger waits for you, which then motivates you to continue reading. Of course detailled writing is nice and makes a story get alive, but putting in so much details like in book 4 lead to nearly no plot development. The first three books were kind of different i think, because the story was much more interesting as a whole and it was not just about some cliffhangers, at least for me. I also disagree with Brans chapters being the most boring ones, i liked them the most, because the nearly meet up with Jon and the whole mystic raven/north thing made it quite interesting.
The problem is not level of writing, but more like as a reader you sign with the author for a specific journey in Tome 1 and 2, you find out by the end of Tome 3 that your journey is is in a harsh situation since half of your characters ends up dying, and finally in book 4 you have to agree to follow another journey, leaving the old one.
It's like going to the cinema to watch a batman just to find out the lead character is the joker... oh wait.
|
The problem is not level of writing, but more like as a reader you sign with the author for a specific journey in Tome 1 and 2
Well actually the level of writing is the problem, because if you compare what happened in book 3 and 4 you can easily observe that book 4 is literally "a feast for crows", because after all the major plot is done, book 4 feasts on the rest. Don't get me wrong, its not necessary to have a giant war in each book, but book 4 lacks any interesting encounter.
Basically everyone is isolated and travels from A to B, with an accident here and there. Book 4 is more like a travel guide with panorama description.
Also while i basically like the idea of side-character descriptions, like the "priest of the drowned god" perspective(forgot his name), the only thing that happends is an election, but the whole story takes up like 1/4 of the book.
|
On January 03 2012 12:13 Omsomsoms wrote:
Am I the only one that almost completely skipped the Bran chapters during the latest book (and parts of the previous), I just find him and his motley crew so boring, I mean I love pretty much every other character in the book's point of view for a different reason, I just cannot bring myself to slog through the first page of any Bran chapters. Am I missing out on anything earth-shattering or engrossing by skipping them?
What!? The Bran chapters in the latest book were some of my favorite. The chapters are are at least better than half of the Dany/Jon chapters in DwD at least.
|
+ Show Spoiler +I'm just over halfway through Storm of Swords and finished the chapter where Robb and Catelyn are murdered by the Freys. I was so caught off guard! I haven't been able to pick it up for 2 days. These books are so fucking good, but MAN are these story arcs vicious!
|
On January 04 2012 05:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is not level of writing, but more like as a reader you sign with the author for a specific journey in Tome 1 and 2 Well actually the level of writing is the problem, because if you compare what happened in book 3 and 4 you can easily observe that book 4 is literally "a feast for crows", because after all the major plot is done, book 4 feasts on the rest. Don't get me wrong, its not necessary to have a giant war in each book, but book 4 lacks any interesting encounter. Basically everyone is isolated and travels from A to B, with an accident here and there. Book 4 is more like a travel guide with panorama description. Also while i basically like the idea of side-character descriptions, like the "priest of the drowned god" perspective(forgot his name), the only thing that happends is an election, but the whole story takes up like 1/4 of the book.
I always felt the main point of AFFC was time for reflection on the consequences of what has happened in the preceding 3 books, hence the name. Most of the slower parts do a good job of giving more story and exposition to the current state of the common folk (Brienne's travel is a good example of this) and minor keeps.
|
On January 04 2012 05:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is not level of writing, but more like as a reader you sign with the author for a specific journey in Tome 1 and 2 Well actually the level of writing is the problem, because if you compare what happened in book 3 and 4 you can easily observe that book 4 is literally "a feast for crows", because after all the major plot is done, book 4 feasts on the rest. Don't get me wrong, its not necessary to have a giant war in each book, but book 4 lacks any interesting encounter. Basically everyone is isolated and travels from A to B, with an accident here and there. Book 4 is more like a travel guide with panorama description. Also while i basically like the idea of side-character descriptions, like the "priest of the drowned god" perspective(forgot his name), the only thing that happends is an election, but the whole story takes up like 1/4 of the book.
Yeah, what I was basically saying is that you would not have felt this way if it was the travel or the history of a non-side-character. The fact that the first 3 books are so oriented around the Starks / Tyrion and lastly Daenerys just leave a huge whole in the 4th book, as you said "a feast for crows".
|
All the books are amazing. The worst one of the five is book 4. I base this off the fact that it's the only book I managed to read 1 chapter a day. Every other book it was somewhere between 4-10 a day lol.
|
Ok I finished the A dance with dragons last (I started with A game of thrones in october ).
I have the ominous feeling that some characters might not end up dead.
+ Show Spoiler +
- I think everyone expects Cold Hans to be the wight version of Benjen Stark, so kind of alive still.
- In the book Arya never really sees Syrio Forell die, while deaths are usually pretty wel described. I think/hope he will turn up somewhere someday.
- Also Jon Snow beeing stapped not necessarily imply that he also dies. For me this would make the Wall storyline far less interesting.
- The business with Stannis Baratheon and the fight for Winterfell is also quite strange, because Ramsay Snow would not have to look for Jeyne Poole if Stannis was defeated (unless she escaped or the banker from Tyrosh left with her before the attack). So I'm also not convinced he is dead.
Do you agree, what other suspicions do you have?
|
George made it pretty clear that Syrio was killed when he was asked about it in an interview. I wish I could find the source for you but he has an insane amount of interviews out there now so you'll just have to believe me =)
|
On January 04 2012 07:30 mrgerry wrote:
George made it pretty clear that Syrio was killed when he was asked about it in an interview. I wish I could find the source for you but he has an insane amount of interviews out there now so you'll just have to believe me =)
I'm pretty sure he never made that clear, because it was a lot of fuss about it when they were going to show that scene on the tv show. People wanted the tv series to make a clear statment of whether or not he died (it didn't) because that would end the discussion, and that it would be trollish of GRRM to not make this clear unless it would be revealed in the books eventually. Since the discussion of whether or not Syrio died blossoms on the fan forums from time to time, it is strange that it would not be shut down by somebody quoting that interview.
Regardless, he is probably dead. If he is alive, I can't see him playing any role in the future story. And his chances were pretty low when facing several armed and armored people with a broken wooden sword. He tells Arya to run because he sees that he can't hold the guards off any longer. He could have tried to run away himself (giving Arya less time to get away), but he would probably not be successful, and it would probably not be in his character to do so.
Edit: The quote from Martin is second hand and goes as this "At another signing in NY someone asked him about Syrio and he said to draw your own conclusions but consider that Syrio had half a wooden sword, no armour and was facing an armoured and armed Meryn Trant."
|
On January 04 2012 07:42 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 07:30 mrgerry wrote:
George made it pretty clear that Syrio was killed when he was asked about it in an interview. I wish I could find the source for you but he has an insane amount of interviews out there now so you'll just have to believe me =) I'm pretty sure he never made that clear, because it was a lot of fuss about it when they were going to show that scene on the tv show. People wanted the tv series to make a clear statment of whether or not he died (it didn't) because that would end the discussion, and that it would be trollish of GRRM to not make this clear unless it would be revealed in the books eventually. Since the discussion of whether or not Syrio died blossoms on the fan forums from time to time, it is strange that it would not be shut down by somebody quoting that interview. Regardless, he is probably dead. If he is alive, I can't see him playing any role in the future story. And his chances were pretty low when facing several armed and armored people with a broken wooden sword. He tells Arya to run because he sees that he can't hold the guards off any longer. He could have tried to run away himself (giving Arya less time to get away), but he would probably not be successful, and it would probably not be in his character to do so. Edit: The quote from Martin is second hand and goes as this "At another signing in NY someone asked him about Syrio and he said to draw your own conclusions but consider that Syrio had half a wooden sword, no armour and was facing an armoured and armed Meryn Trant."
This isn't the exact quoting, but it's a little closer to a source on GRRM's words on Syrio:
http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/Is_Syrio_dead/
Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks he is 100% dead. He was not a Faceless Man, he did not escape, he is not a Merling warg Targaryen. He was just there to act as yet another father figure for Arya who gets taken away from her early (along with Ned and Yoren).
|
Just finished ADWD, and I already miss + Show Spoiler +
I don't see certain characters dying at this point, at least not by the next book:
+ Show Spoiler +Tyrion-could happen, but I expect he'll return to Westeros first
Arya- sidelined too long to just kill off without doing something major. I hardly know her character anymore.
Bran- Possibly a long term main character. He's been there since the word "go" and he's finally getting interesting.
Dany- duh.
Sansa- pretty ornamentation. Could be killed off, but I doubt it. She'll do something big first.
|
On January 06 2012 00:28 visual77 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 07:42 Maginor wrote:On January 04 2012 07:30 mrgerry wrote:
George made it pretty clear that Syrio was killed when he was asked about it in an interview. I wish I could find the source for you but he has an insane amount of interviews out there now so you'll just have to believe me =) I'm pretty sure he never made that clear, because it was a lot of fuss about it when they were going to show that scene on the tv show. People wanted the tv series to make a clear statment of whether or not he died (it didn't) because that would end the discussion, and that it would be trollish of GRRM to not make this clear unless it would be revealed in the books eventually. Since the discussion of whether or not Syrio died blossoms on the fan forums from time to time, it is strange that it would not be shut down by somebody quoting that interview. Regardless, he is probably dead. If he is alive, I can't see him playing any role in the future story. And his chances were pretty low when facing several armed and armored people with a broken wooden sword. He tells Arya to run because he sees that he can't hold the guards off any longer. He could have tried to run away himself (giving Arya less time to get away), but he would probably not be successful, and it would probably not be in his character to do so. Edit: The quote from Martin is second hand and goes as this "At another signing in NY someone asked him about Syrio and he said to draw your own conclusions but consider that Syrio had half a wooden sword, no armour and was facing an armoured and armed Meryn Trant." This isn't the exact quoting, but it's a little closer to a source on GRRM's words on Syrio: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/Is_Syrio_dead/Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks he is 100% dead. He was not a Faceless Man, he did not escape, he is not a Merling warg Targaryen. He was just there to act as yet another father figure for Arya who gets taken away from her early (along with Ned and Yoren).
"More recent reports (but, it should be said, unconfirmed) indicate GRRM does not understand why he gets asked the question repeatedly, pointing out that Syrio is not immortal; if accurate, this seems to more heavily imply that Syrio Forel is dead."
I don't understand how he could have any problem with people questioning this when it has been shown that dead does not necessarily mean dead in this series. (Though at that point, there wasn't too much as far as the supernatural goes.)
|
On January 15 2012 11:59 Juvant wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:28 visual77 wrote:On January 04 2012 07:42 Maginor wrote:On January 04 2012 07:30 mrgerry wrote:
George made it pretty clear that Syrio was killed when he was asked about it in an interview. I wish I could find the source for you but he has an insane amount of interviews out there now so you'll just have to believe me =) I'm pretty sure he never made that clear, because it was a lot of fuss about it when they were going to show that scene on the tv show. People wanted the tv series to make a clear statment of whether or not he died (it didn't) because that would end the discussion, and that it would be trollish of GRRM to not make this clear unless it would be revealed in the books eventually. Since the discussion of whether or not Syrio died blossoms on the fan forums from time to time, it is strange that it would not be shut down by somebody quoting that interview. Regardless, he is probably dead. If he is alive, I can't see him playing any role in the future story. And his chances were pretty low when facing several armed and armored people with a broken wooden sword. He tells Arya to run because he sees that he can't hold the guards off any longer. He could have tried to run away himself (giving Arya less time to get away), but he would probably not be successful, and it would probably not be in his character to do so. Edit: The quote from Martin is second hand and goes as this "At another signing in NY someone asked him about Syrio and he said to draw your own conclusions but consider that Syrio had half a wooden sword, no armour and was facing an armoured and armed Meryn Trant." This isn't the exact quoting, but it's a little closer to a source on GRRM's words on Syrio: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/Is_Syrio_dead/Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks he is 100% dead. He was not a Faceless Man, he did not escape, he is not a Merling warg Targaryen. He was just there to act as yet another father figure for Arya who gets taken away from her early (along with Ned and Yoren). "More recent reports (but, it should be said, unconfirmed) indicate GRRM does not understand why he gets asked the question repeatedly, pointing out that Syrio is not immortal; if accurate, this seems to more heavily imply that Syrio Forel is dead." I don't understand how he could have any problem with people questioning this when it has been shown that dead does not necessarily mean dead in this series. (Though at that point, there wasn't too much as far as the supernatural goes.)
I just finished watching the show after reading the books, and as Arya leaves the room you can pretty clearly hear a scream, for me I think that confirms he's dead.
Also, was the term "White Walkers" created by the show, or was it in the book somewhere, because I don't really remembering reading it ever.
|
in dance with dragons does anyone feel that the actions leading to Jon Snow's death were inconsistent with his character? He spent so much time and resources building the walls defenses then he wants to take 1000s of men to take back winterfell? Also, besides the the incedent in AGOT he has stayed very loyal to wall even after word of the red wedding.
I feel like it was as a last minute idea by GRRM as a cliff hanger for TWOW. I'm pretty sure the red priestest is going to bring him back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
