The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on April 04, 2014, 04:36:13 PM

Title: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 04, 2014, 04:36:13 PM
Is your body ready?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2014, 06:09:21 PM
Nope. If I wanted to watch seedy softcore porn I would watch Cinnemax at night.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on April 04, 2014, 06:13:52 PM
I am totes ready. I wanted to have a viewing party with friends since I have the Game of Thrones cookbook. We would have done the mead with pot roast dish in northern fashion. But that fell through. :/
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 04, 2014, 11:56:33 PM
So ready for the purple wedding.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lemon on April 05, 2014, 12:13:59 AM
I'm ready for the next fucking book, I'll tell you that much.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 05, 2014, 12:52:53 AM
I'm ready for the next fucking book, I'll tell you that much.

We've been ready for the next book for years now. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 05, 2014, 01:17:12 AM
Martin's probably going to die before the series can be finished.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 06, 2014, 02:40:45 AM
Martin's probably going to die before the series can be finished.

This is the first time someone has said this on the internet.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 07, 2014, 04:14:49 AM
Martin's probably going to die before the series can be finished.

This is the first time someone has said this on the internet.

Complaining about how slow Martin is and the dire future of the series is a required element in any GoT/ASoIaF discussion.  It's better that we get it over with now.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeee it was great
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 07, 2014, 05:35:04 AM
Why Saddam?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 07, 2014, 01:55:55 PM
Because it's been a year and therefore anything that they show us must be great.  And they're skipping a lot of crap from the books, too, which is a good thing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 07, 2014, 05:07:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylod6Ij32c8
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 07, 2014, 06:36:10 PM
Daario's re-casting was pretty jarring, though.  The new actor doesn't look even remotely like the last one.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on April 07, 2014, 06:43:19 PM
They changed him?! That sucks. He really doesn't look like the other one at all. My mom will be disappointed.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 07, 2014, 08:52:40 PM
Sooooft wieners, nice and soft, non-errect wieneeeers
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 08, 2014, 03:26:18 AM
I agree that it was good. Still had unnecessary bewbz though.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on April 08, 2014, 11:47:39 PM
**** spoiler alert ****
First tits are about 10 minutes in.
**** spoiler alert ****

Basically it was "previously on Game of Thrones" then "OK now lets get the obligatory titty shot out of the way"

I think its to make people cum early so they pay attention to the rest of the episode. I was disappointed to learn that Emilia Clarke has refused to get the out for this season. So selfish. Fucking celebrities.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 09, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
I was disappointed to learn that Emilia Clarke has refused to get the out for this season.

That wasn't her, it was the lady who played that pointless prostitute character that wasn't in the books.  The idea that it was Clarke was just some wild speculation from another actress, and then a lot of news sites ran with that as if it had been confirmed.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on April 09, 2014, 12:16:19 AM
Has anyone thought to ask her?

Also pointless prostitute characters proved 78% of the tits in Game Of Thrones so please show some respect.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 09, 2014, 12:19:36 AM
Actors are important people.  One does not simply "ask" them.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 09, 2014, 09:18:07 AM
People wanks it to this show?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 09, 2014, 09:46:06 AM
The Daario actor change was jarring. He looks absolutely nothing like the previous Daario.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 14, 2014, 03:42:45 AM
wheeeeeeeeeeeeee it was great
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 14, 2014, 06:35:32 PM
floppy wieners
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Blanko on April 14, 2014, 06:55:35 PM
drink drink
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 14, 2014, 07:06:25 PM
drink drink
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 14, 2014, 08:51:56 PM
GUIZE THEY DID THE PURPLE WEDDING Y IS THERE NO EXCITEMENT HERE

Yay.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: man-bear-man on April 15, 2014, 12:46:16 AM
floppy wieners
Wiener Party!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cNACsbSwAHY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cNACsbSwAHY)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 15, 2014, 10:08:07 AM
That was good. I especially loved Olenna consoling Sansa about the killing of her brother at a wedding.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on April 15, 2014, 05:39:57 PM
I want to suck Natalie Dormers tits so much.

Ideas how we can make this happen please.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 15, 2014, 07:15:43 PM
I want to suck Natalie Dormers tits so much.

Ideas how we can make this happen please.

Find a genie.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 21, 2014, 04:08:29 AM
wheeeeeeeeeeeeee it was great

Of course, I'm sure there are some fanboys who will whine about how much they're changing from the books, but let's face it, there's a lot to improve on.  The one thing I didn't really like was the stalling with Stannis and the Night's Watch.  Well, at least they're trying to give the Watch something to do, but Stannis and Davos are just twiddling their thumbs now.  Why bother have them decide to go to the Wall at the end of the last season if they're not going to actually get on with it for another few episodes?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 21, 2014, 10:14:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46GcvoTjuIM
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on April 22, 2014, 01:34:07 AM
Never having seen the actual Game of Thrones opening, that was one of the weirdest experiences of my life
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 22, 2014, 02:02:08 AM
I can't believe I forgot to mention how the sex scene was turned into a rape scene.  That was really, really bad.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 22, 2014, 02:10:23 AM
Annnnd now it's spread here as well.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on April 22, 2014, 10:29:16 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46GcvoTjuIM

Further evidence the earth is flat. Please add this to the wiki.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 22, 2014, 10:34:41 AM
floppy wieners
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 22, 2014, 12:52:30 PM
You know what, I think I'll just stick to the old site for this discussion from now on.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on April 22, 2014, 01:04:08 PM
I can't believe I forgot to mention how the sex scene was turned into a rape scene.  That was really, really bad.
I saw some headline about this, I think I'll go hunt for an article. I haven't watched the new episodes yet cause I like to wait for them all and then marathon. But yeah, rape never turns into sex. Maybe rough sex can seem like rape and still be consensual, but I haven't seen it yet.


And seriously, why is SGC being so stubborn about the migration?!



EDIT:
Quote
While power is definitely a turn-on for most characters in "GoT," it's a hard fight to win insisting that anything resembling rape can be excused as a turn-on.
Apparently this writer has never heard of rape fantasies.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on April 22, 2014, 06:00:41 PM
You know what, I think I'll just stick to the old site for this discussion from now on.

Traitor traitor traitor traitor traitor
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 22, 2014, 06:35:47 PM
You know what, I think I'll just stick to the old site for this discussion from now on.

Traitor traitor traitor traitor traitor

floppy wieners
Soft wiener, nice and soft, non-errect
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 28, 2014, 02:48:07 PM
wheeeeeeeeeeeeee it was great

inb4floppywieners
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on April 28, 2014, 03:38:44 PM
wieners
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 28, 2014, 08:40:05 PM
So, uh, apparently the show this week contains plot that isn't actually in the book.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on April 28, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
So, uh, apparently the show this week contains plot that isn't actually in the book.

I predict jumping of the shark.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 28, 2014, 09:10:27 PM
So, uh, apparently the show this week contains plot that isn't actually in the book.

More than any other episode so far, I'd say.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 29, 2014, 09:52:13 AM
Wow. They really threw a lot into this week.

SPOILERS



So they confirmed that Olenna was the poisoner, and LF helped. Books never did this, although hinted at it heavily. Bran & co now have a plot for the rest of the season, which is good because it wouldn't be fun to watch Jon sit around doing fuck all until the Wildling's attack. The Night King reveal was interesting, since we never knew what happened to the kids. The ability of the Others to turn living men into white walkers adds heaps to speculate on.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EnigmaZV on April 29, 2014, 09:17:51 PM
Yes, we had to pause/rewind a couple of times to figure out what exactly was going on.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on May 02, 2014, 04:00:05 PM
They're probably going to have to add a bunch of stuff to Bran's story that isn't in the books.

I don't think Jon is going to actually meet up with Bran at Craster's.  I think Bran will be gone by the time he arrives.  While watching the scene I thought they might get attacked by wights with Bran and co. fleeing in the chaos.  Now I think that Ghost and Summer are going to get free and kill a bunch of dudes while Bran and co. escape.  Jon will get to Craster's and find nothing but dead people and maybe some evidence that Bran is alive.  Maybe he gets Ghost back or something.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 02, 2014, 11:19:52 PM
Is Little Finger sometimes Irish in the books like he sometimes is in the TV show?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 05, 2014, 03:39:53 AM
Is Little Finger sometimes Irish in the books like he sometimes is in the TV show?

It's fantasy, bro.  Any accent is welcome as long as it's not American, because American accents are too familiar to American audiences.  Non-American accents all sound equally foreign and exotic to us.

moar

I'm glad the show took the time to tie up the mutiny subplot nicely.  I never liked how in the books it's basically just forgotten about, with only a vague insinuation that Coldhands killed them eventually.  This is filler done right.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 05, 2014, 03:56:22 AM
moar

I'm glad the show took the time to tie up the mutiny subplot nicely.  I never liked how in the books it's basically just forgotten about, with only a vague insinuation that Coldhands killed them eventually.  This is filler done right.

It's a somewhat large deviation from the books though. I'm looking forward to the conclusion of the subplot, but if this were LotR then you'd have people crying bloody murder.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 05, 2014, 08:12:54 AM
I quite liked the way they ended that, especially the bit with Hodor. I felt really sorry for him. Longsword vs 2 daggers was bloody retarded though, a longsword would win every time.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 05, 2014, 09:56:11 PM
Is Little Finger sometimes Irish in the books like he sometimes is in the TV show?

It's fantasy, bro.  Any accent is welcome as long as it's not American, because American accents are too familiar to American audiences.  Non-American accents all sound equally foreign and exotic to us.

We have the same thing in the UK. Any time we want to portray someone from a fantasy realm we just give them an American accent. It doesn't really matter where abouts in America because it all sounds the same.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on May 05, 2014, 09:57:17 PM
It doesn't really matter where abouts in America because it all sounds the same.

What do they sound like?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 05, 2014, 10:00:04 PM
It doesn't really matter where abouts in America because it all sounds the same.

What do they sound like?

*shrugs* Like dwarves or elves or some shit like that. Google "Lord of the Rings UK dubbing".
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 06, 2014, 08:23:06 AM
I've watched the first three or four episodes of GoT and, I'll be honest, I don't really get it. I mean, it's nicely shot, competently acted, and the music is quite nice but nothing which seems to set it apart from any other fantasy series except for tedious and endless sex scenes, oh and some blood-n-guts.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 06, 2014, 08:27:57 AM
I've watched the first three or four episodes of GoT and, I'll be honest, I don't really get it. I mean, it's nicely shot, competently acted, and the music is quite nice but nothing which seems to set it apart from any other fantasy series except for tedious and endless sex scenes, oh and some blood-n-guts.

Er.. Have you read the books? ASOIAF is very grounded and 'realistic' compared to other fantasy series that I've read. Major characters are not protected by plot armour, magic is a mysterious and rare force that isn't well defined.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on May 06, 2014, 08:30:24 AM
I've watched the first three or four episodes of GoT and, I'll be honest, I don't really get it. I mean, it's nicely shot, competently acted, and the music is quite nice but nothing which seems to set it apart from any other fantasy series except for tedious and endless sex scenes, oh and some blood-n-guts.

Er.. Have you read the books? ASOIAF is very grounded and 'realistic' compared to other fantasy series that I've read. Major characters are not protected by plot armour, magic is a mysterious and rare force that isn't well defined.

But I love plot armor.


Oh, and that acronym sucks.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 06, 2014, 09:32:46 AM
I've watched the first three or four episodes of GoT and, I'll be honest, I don't really get it. I mean, it's nicely shot, competently acted, and the music is quite nice but nothing which seems to set it apart from any other fantasy series except for tedious and endless sex scenes, oh and some blood-n-guts.

Er.. Have you read the books? ASOIAF is very grounded and 'realistic' compared to other fantasy series that I've read. Major characters are not protected by plot armour, magic is a mysterious and rare force that isn't well defined.

No, I haven't. How does that affect whether or not I like the TV series?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 06, 2014, 11:00:28 AM
I've watched the first three or four episodes of GoT and, I'll be honest, I don't really get it. I mean, it's nicely shot, competently acted, and the music is quite nice but nothing which seems to set it apart from any other fantasy series except for tedious and endless sex scenes, oh and some blood-n-guts.

Er.. Have you read the books? ASOIAF is very grounded and 'realistic' compared to other fantasy series that I've read. Major characters are not protected by plot armour, magic is a mysterious and rare force that isn't well defined.

No, I haven't. How does that affect whether or not I like the TV series?

Well, the show is pretty hollow. It's missing a lot of the details, despite their best efforts to shove them into every bit of dialogue. The books also do a better job of explaining my point. If I hadn't read the books, I probably wouldn't watch the show. At least.. maybe not every week.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 06, 2014, 02:04:24 PM
Ignore Vindictus, he's being a stereotypical book snob.  There are millions of people who enjoy the show without having read the books, so they're not mandatory background.  That being said, I have no idea what fantasy series you think that it isn't all that different from.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 06, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
I'm not a massive fantasy fan, in fact the only fantasy series I've enjoyed are Discworld and the Wind Singer series. The little I've seen of GoT doesn't look likely to change my mind. Even with gratuitous sex scenes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on May 06, 2014, 05:25:11 PM
wieners
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 06, 2014, 08:12:18 PM
floppy?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EnigmaZV on May 06, 2014, 09:27:51 PM
I've watched the first three or four episodes of GoT and, I'll be honest, I don't really get it. I mean, it's nicely shot, competently acted, and the music is quite nice but nothing which seems to set it apart from any other fantasy series except for tedious and endless sex scenes, oh and some blood-n-guts.

Er.. Have you read the books? ASOIAF is very grounded and 'realistic' compared to other fantasy series that I've read. Major characters are not protected by plot armour, magic is a mysterious and rare force that isn't well defined.

No, I haven't. How does that affect whether or not I like the TV series?

Well, the show is pretty hollow. It's missing a lot of the details, despite their best efforts to shove them into every bit of dialogue. The books also do a better job of explaining my point. If I hadn't read the books, I probably wouldn't watch the show. At least.. maybe not every week.

It's true, there is much more emphasis being put on what's being eaten in the books.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 06, 2014, 10:18:47 PM

It's true, there is much more emphasis being put on what's being eaten in the books.

This is a good thing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 12, 2014, 05:08:33 PM
moar

Asha Yara's plan to rescue Theon petered out rather lamely.  Apart from that, this episode was good.  It was great to see more of Varys, and Peter Dinklage gave a fine performance.

@Chris: I guess the show just isn't for you, which is fine.  It's okay to not like things.  I just wouldn't really criticize the show for being too similar to other fantasy series, because, well, it's not.  It deconstructs the high fantasy format by putting an emphasis on the political shenanigans and the lengths to which the elite will go to obtain and keep power.  The one show that it's the most similar to thematically is The Wire.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on May 12, 2014, 05:14:45 PM
flo...

sorry.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 12, 2014, 05:30:57 PM
It's basically medieval/renaissance history with some dragons, some weird creatures up in the north, and direwolves. It's one of the most realistic fantasies out there with a lot of character depth. If you don't like it that's probably more to do with the drama than the fantasy aspect. The boyfriend can't get into it and he loves fantasy, he just isn't much of a character-driven drama person.

Apparently Dinklage blew people away in the episode last night. People were making status updates about his performance. What was going on with Tyrion in this one?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on May 12, 2014, 05:35:23 PM
Does this series still suck?

The boyfriend can't get into it and he loves fantasy, he just isn't much of a character-driven drama person.

For me it has nothing to do with drama. I love good character drama, it's what makes a series for me. Your generalization is incorrect.
It's probably because of all the gratuitous sex scenes. It is extremely unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the plot other than "omg so edgey HBO lol". That is my #1 issue with the series. I have no problem with sex scenes normally, however, there are ways to imply sex or show romance or betrayal without showing a 10 minute scene of the characters doing it. It is extremely distasteful and uncomfortable to the point where I cannot and will not watch it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 12, 2014, 07:15:34 PM
I don't like the nudity either, but I'd hesitate to call them gratuitous and I certainly don't think they ruin the series.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on May 12, 2014, 07:31:04 PM
I don't like the nudity either, but I'd hesitate to call them gratuitous and I certainly don't think they ruin the series.

If I have to skip 20 minute long sex scenes then I think that qualifies as a ruined series, for me at least. Of course, everyone is different.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 12, 2014, 08:46:05 PM
I don't like the nudity either, but I'd hesitate to call them gratuitous and I certainly don't think they ruin the series.

If I have to skip 20 minute long sex scenes then I think that qualifies as a ruined series, for me at least. Of course, everyone is different.

Is there a sex scene that long in any of the episodes?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 12, 2014, 09:18:09 PM
A more realistic fantasy. Oh my jesus. You nerds will argue about anything, won't you?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 12, 2014, 09:31:01 PM
20 minute long sex scenes

What TV show are you watching?!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on May 12, 2014, 10:11:34 PM
20 minute long sex scenes

What TV show are you watching?!

A show with 45 minute sex scenes. Game of Bones.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 12, 2014, 10:12:16 PM
Does this series still suck?

The boyfriend can't get into it and he loves fantasy, he just isn't much of a character-driven drama person.

For me it has nothing to do with drama. I love good character drama, it's what makes a series for me. Your generalization is incorrect.
It's probably because of all the gratuitous sex scenes. It is extremely unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the plot other than "omg so edgey HBO lol". That is my #1 issue with the series. I have no problem with sex scenes normally, however, there are ways to imply sex or show romance or betrayal without showing a 10 minute scene of the characters doing it. It is extremely distasteful and uncomfortable to the point where I cannot and will not watch it.
10-20 minute sex scenes? No.

The books have a lot of sex so it's not all HBO's doing. And I find this kinda weird in general. I hate porn but these scenes don't make me uncomfortable at all. I could understand if you thought they were just thrown in there pointlessly, but they're generally not.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 13, 2014, 04:30:05 AM
Come on, guys, let's not be fanboys here.  The sex scenes are objectively terrible.  Almost all of them are just there to liven up some exposition, not to actually establish relationships or anything.

Apparently Dinklage blew people away in the episode last night. People were making status updates about his performance. What was going on with Tyrion in this one?

His trial.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 13, 2014, 10:10:47 AM
Admittedly it's been awhile since I've read the books but from what I remember the sex was mostly the same. Rose was gratuitous but she's not around anymore and I think she usually filled in for "random whore sex".
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 13, 2014, 10:18:59 AM
Naw, the books don't have a whole lot of sex in them. They have some nudity and adult themes, but most sex is implied or happens behind the scenes. Actual sex scenes only happen a few times.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 13, 2014, 12:12:10 PM
Naw, the books don't have a whole lot of sex in them. They have some nudity and adult themes, but most sex is implied or happens behind the scenes. Actual sex scenes only happen a few times.
I think I'm going to double check this. Maybe it is that it's just implied, but it's certainly implied as much as it happens in the show. I remember some pretty graphic instances though.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on May 13, 2014, 12:48:36 PM
In what manner are the sex scenes described in the books? I do understand it's not just wiener wiener floppy wiener.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on May 13, 2014, 04:12:17 PM
Rooster hasn't read the books. Nerd outrage!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 13, 2014, 07:18:01 PM
I have read them but it would be going on 2-3 years ago. I remember the sex scene by dead Joffrey for sure and I remember some raunchy Theon Grayjoy scenes. I don't think they are outright making it up for the most part but I will concede that they may be showing what the books only implied.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 13, 2014, 08:14:40 PM
Yeah Theon has some sex scenes, from memory with that girl on the ship and Winterfell whores (although I'm less certain on that). Besides that I don't recall any for him.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 14, 2014, 07:58:46 AM
I know I'm late to the party, but Peter Dinklage was damn good this week.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 14, 2014, 06:24:26 PM
20 minute long sex scenes

What TV show are you watching?!

A show with 45 minute sex scenes. Game of Bones.

Doesn't seem to have the full HBO budget. I have written to HBO to complain.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 14, 2014, 06:37:34 PM
Yeah Theon has some sex scenes, from memory with that girl on the ship and Winterfell whores (although I'm less certain on that). Besides that I don't recall any for him.

The Winterfell scene was only in the show.  Theon didn't become a viewpoint character until A Clash of Kings.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 14, 2014, 07:55:55 PM
Yeah Theon has some sex scenes, from memory with that girl on the ship and Winterfell whores (although I'm less certain on that). Besides that I don't recall any for him.

The Winterfell scene was only in the show.  Theon didn't become a viewpoint character until A Clash of Kings.

I'm pretty sure he mentioned whores to Rob Stark, or something like that.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EnigmaZV on May 16, 2014, 09:05:45 PM
Does this series still suck?

The boyfriend can't get into it and he loves fantasy, he just isn't much of a character-driven drama person.

For me it has nothing to do with drama. I love good character drama, it's what makes a series for me. Your generalization is incorrect.
It's probably because of all the gratuitous sex scenes. It is extremely unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the plot other than "omg so edgey HBO lol". That is my #1 issue with the series. I have no problem with sex scenes normally, however, there are ways to imply sex or show romance or betrayal without showing a 10 minute scene of the characters doing it. It is extremely distasteful and uncomfortable to the point where I cannot and will not watch it.
10-20 minute sex scenes? No.

The books have a lot of sex so it's not all HBO's doing. And I find this kinda weird in general. I hate porn but these scenes don't make me uncomfortable at all. I could understand if you thought they were just thrown in there pointlessly, but they're generally not.

Speaking of uncomfortable scenes, I don't particularly care for the Theon story at all.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 19, 2014, 03:25:13 AM
moar

Thank God they changed Brienne's awful, awful storyline.  Now they won't have to bother covering about two or three hundred pages' worth of Brienne investigating dead ends, going on scenic tours of Westeros, and accomplishing absolutely nothing by the end of it all.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 19, 2014, 04:22:05 AM
moar

Thank God they changed Brienne's awful, awful storyline.  Now they won't have to bother covering about two or three hundred pages' worth of Brienne investigating dead ends, going on scenic tours of Westeros, and accomplishing absolutely nothing by the end of it all.

What happened to Brienne?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2014, 04:51:15 AM
Isn't she the one who finds Catlynn? Or however you spell her name.


Also, I started watching season 4 finally and I'm 3 episodes in. I expected more sex. So far it's just Oberyn at the whore house and the Cersei/Jaime kinda rape. She really just seemed uninterested in having sex by Joeffrey rather than the sex itself so the outrage seems a bit excessive.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 19, 2014, 04:57:40 AM
Catelyn finds her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 19, 2014, 05:13:41 AM
In other news, people are freaking out about a picture on Lena Headey's instagram:

http://instagram.com/p/nEeNM0PA3L/#

Looks like we have Lady Stoneheart confirmed.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Blanko on May 19, 2014, 05:32:36 AM
More like game of social media AM I RIGHT
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2014, 10:56:30 AM
Catelyn finds her.
While Brienne is exploring Westeros in search of the girls.

I think I read something about HBO killing off characters that aren't dead in the books. I'm on my phone or I would look myself. In any case, I would really hate if that happened.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 19, 2014, 04:23:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuaqKdA7VjA

It already has happened, though.  Robb's wife is the obvious example, but there's also Xaro, Pyat Pree, Irri, and Doreah.

Anyway, of course they're going to include Stoneheart.  They could hardly cut her out.  Although I do worry that her appearance won't have quite the impact that it did in the books, seeing how Catelyn's character was so neutered in the series.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2014, 05:47:07 PM
I thought it sounded like they meant bigger characters since the article I saw said "main characters".


That's the first time I've seen a video of G.R.R. Martin. What an adorable man.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 19, 2014, 08:31:52 PM
I expected more sex.

I am using this quote out of context to humourously imply you have slatternly ways. Thus demonstrating my control over any expressions of sexuality you may wish to express. This is my privilege.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 25, 2014, 04:19:08 AM
http://winteriscoming.net/2014/05/23/characters-confirmed-game-thrones-season-5-new-details/

What?  Maggy?  They're including that bullshit!  No!

Seriously, the whole subplot about Maggy and her prophecy was a really bad move on Martin's part.  It basically destroyed any complexities or subtleties to the relationship between Cersei and Tyrion.  There were so many interesting potential explanations of Cersei's animosity towards Tyrion, all relying on her warped psychology.  Was it simply because he caused her mother's death?  Was it because she felt that she had to compete with him for Jaime's attention?  Was it an unconscious attempt to imitate her father, whom she both admired and resented?

No, actually it's none of the above.  See, the real reason that Cersei has always hated Tyrion is because long ago she heard a prophecy basically saying that her younger brother would destroy her.  That's it.  Nothing to do with their family or the complex emotions that people experience or anything like that.  Hell, that kind of thing might be understandable, or even relatable, and we can't very well have that, can we?  Nah, so much better to say that it's just because of some bullshit prophecy that Martin pulled out of his ass at the last second.  And now the show is actually going to include it. ::)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 25, 2014, 04:55:00 AM
Uh. I thought it was all of those things. Cersei just happens to latch on to the prophecy because she's, you know, nuts.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 25, 2014, 05:28:35 AM
Does that matter?  Her relationship with Tyrion is never once explored, analyzed, or even properly acknowledged.  It doesn't make a difference if those details technically exist when the book - not simply the character, but the book itself - completely ignores them.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 25, 2014, 06:14:00 AM
She's a lot like Tywin. Their distaste for a dwarf in the family is probably it. It doesn't need to be analyzed any more than that. Hell, everyone dislikes Tyrion except for Jaime and Cersei hates everyone except for Jaime and her kids.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 25, 2014, 08:49:46 AM
Does that matter?  Her relationship with Tyrion is never once explored, analyzed, or even properly acknowledged.  It doesn't make a difference if those details technically exist when the book - not simply the character, but the book itself - completely ignores them.

I think this is a very petty argument.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on May 25, 2014, 03:48:52 PM
No Euron or Victarion Greyjoy in series 5?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 25, 2014, 04:06:40 PM
No Euron or Victarion Greyjoy in series 5?

They have to make time for the important stuff, like the prostitutes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on May 25, 2014, 04:16:23 PM
But Euron gets his floppy wiener out.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 25, 2014, 04:18:04 PM
The Greyjoys are boring.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 25, 2014, 11:56:48 PM
Most of the next book is boring. Still gonna film it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2014, 01:47:28 AM
Hey guys, are you ready for tonight's episode oh wait they're skipping a week never mind.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 26, 2014, 01:49:39 AM
I'm still not all caught up anyway. I'm 2 episodes behind.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 26, 2014, 01:51:25 AM
This show sounds like an lotr soap opera.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 26, 2014, 01:58:39 AM
This show sounds like an lotr soap opera.

Completely different to LotR in every way.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on May 26, 2014, 02:25:17 PM
This show sounds like an lotr soap opera.

No its totally different. There's only one dwarf and he doesn't have a beard and he collects prostitutes not gold.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on May 26, 2014, 10:02:33 PM
And there are female characters that speak and do stuff.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on May 26, 2014, 10:07:08 PM
The only difference is a lot more sex and no ring.

Terror, did you miss all the parts with Legolas in LotRs?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 26, 2014, 10:57:26 PM
And there are female characters that speak and do stuff.
It has more female characters than LotR. Galadriel, Eowyn, and Arwin speak and do stuff.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 27, 2014, 02:35:49 AM
I like the Greyjoy storyline.  Euron in particular is so batshit that he'd definitely be a lot of fun to watch.  Anyway, that list isn't an official announcement, remember.  It's quite possible that it's incomplete.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 27, 2014, 02:46:52 AM
The only difference is a lot more sex and no ring.

Terror, did you miss all the parts with Legolas in LotRs?

Lol no. Completely different.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 27, 2014, 02:53:42 AM
I started watching it reluctantly, expecting a lot of HBO sex. There's plenty of that so far and it's like an Ancient Greek soap opera instead of an lotr one. It's entertaining, but overrated.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 27, 2014, 08:30:15 AM
I started watching it reluctantly, expecting a lot of HBO sex. There's plenty of that so far and it's like an Ancient Greek soap opera instead of an lotr one. It's entertaining, but overrated.

Read the books, pleb.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 27, 2014, 09:22:03 AM
I started watching it reluctantly, expecting a lot of HBO sex. There's plenty of that so far and it's like an Ancient Greek soap opera instead of an lotr one. It's entertaining, but overrated.

Read the books, pleb.

I'm sure they're 10x better than the show. I wish Martin had time to write the episodes also, but he probably has his hands full.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 27, 2014, 10:40:09 AM
He does write episodes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on May 27, 2014, 01:24:43 PM
The only difference is a lot more sex and no ring.

Terror, did you miss all the parts with Legolas in LotRs?

Sadly not.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 29, 2014, 10:57:17 PM
I'm up to episode 6 of season 2 right now. So far all that's happening is I'm getting carrot on a stick'd. But I just can't look away. Smart writers.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 02, 2014, 03:27:22 AM
moar

I have to criticize Jaime and Tyrion's discussion about their cousin killing insects.  Yeah, I'm sure the writers thought they were being all "deep" and clever in a subtle way and all, but it seems like they forgot to actually make a point.  And it went on for way too long, too.  Also, Arya's contrived laughter at a situation that wasn't actually funny was dumb.  But apart from that, cool episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 02, 2014, 03:49:27 AM
Wasn't the big duel in this week's episode?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 02, 2014, 04:11:25 AM
Yes, it was.  It was good.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 02, 2014, 07:48:13 AM
Jesus Christ, that was a thousand times more brutal than the book. Fuck.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on June 02, 2014, 07:50:49 AM
This show sounds like an lotr soap opera.

No its totally different. There's only one dwarf and he doesn't have a beard and he collects prostitutes not gold.
He's not even a dwarf. He's just a regular human midget, isn't he?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 02, 2014, 10:19:01 AM
I just finished Mockingbird.

Was the poisoned spear mentioned in last night's show or does no one know about that yet?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 02, 2014, 10:58:32 AM
No one knows yet. The spear looked quite clean as well.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Particle Person on June 03, 2014, 12:29:05 PM
This show sounds like an lotr soap opera.

No its totally different. There's only one dwarf and he doesn't have a beard and he collects prostitutes not gold.
He's not even a dwarf. He's just a regular human midget, isn't he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on June 03, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
e
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: spoon on June 03, 2014, 12:57:01 PM
Is this show actually good? It's all I hear about from anybody, but I feel like it's a shitty, overhyped show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on June 03, 2014, 01:00:33 PM
Is this show actually good? It's all I hear about from anybody, but I feel like it's a shitty, overhyped show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 03, 2014, 03:09:05 PM
Yes, of course the show is good.  That's why we watch it.  Unfortunately, it is also incredibly overhyped.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on June 03, 2014, 07:34:03 PM
Which is unfair because they keep choking the files on usenet.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on June 03, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
Is this show actually good? It's all I hear about from anybody, but I feel like it's a shitty, overhyped show.

It is a shitty overhyped show. Second only to Breaking Bad.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: spoon on June 05, 2014, 01:13:53 PM
Is this show actually good? It's all I hear about from anybody, but I feel like it's a shitty, overhyped show.

It is a shitty overhyped show. Second only to Breaking Bad.

bro no don say dat
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 08, 2014, 07:52:56 PM
Almost every character in the show has been a cunt except for Ned Stark.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 08, 2014, 08:21:28 PM
The show has a new fan.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 08, 2014, 08:26:46 PM
Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 08, 2014, 08:28:09 PM
I'm finally caught up. Oberyn's death traumatized me a little. I watched it right before going to bed and couldn't stop seeing his face squished like a big orange. But they did a great job on his movements, I believed the Red Viper.

Generally it was a good episode, it had turning points for my favorite story lines: Jorah/Daenerys, Sansa/Littlefinger, Tyrion. I'm a little sad there hasn't been more sexual tension between Jorah/Daenerys cause there was a lot in the book, you'd think HBO would be milking that one for all it's worth.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 08, 2014, 08:37:19 PM
Tonight's the big battle for Castle Black.  Unfortunately, they really haven't done a very good job of building it up over the course of the season, not like with Blackwater in the second season.  At least then the characters were doing things that advanced the plot and logically led up to the battle.  Here, they're just stalling and dragging their feet.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 08, 2014, 08:39:26 PM
Tonight's the big battle for Castle Black.  Unfortunately, they really haven't done a very good job of building it up over the course of the season, not like with Blackwater in the second season.  At least then the characters were doing things that advanced the plot and logically led up to the battle.  Here, they're just stalling and dragging their feet.
Yeah, I didn't realize it was happening so soon until I saw a promo picture for the show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 09, 2014, 04:44:30 AM
HOLY SHIT THIS EPISODE WAS AWESOME

My one main complaint about it was Jon and Ygritte's reunion.  Who the fuck was that kid, and why did the writers feel that he needed to be the one who killed Ygritte?  Why not have, you know, an actual character do it?  Sam could have done it.  Or Gilly.  Anyone would have been better than that fucking random kid.  And then grieving for her in the middle of the battle like that was such a silly cliché.  Also, I'm confused about what happened to Thorne.  Is he dead?  We don't see him die, but everyone's kind of acting like he's dead, without coming right out and saying that he's dead.

But apart from that, it was fantastic.  Jon was great, Sam was great, Thorne was great, hell, pretty much everyone in this episode got a few badass moments - with the obvious exception of Slynt.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 09, 2014, 08:12:14 AM
HOLY SHIT THIS EPISODE WAS AWESOME

My one main complaint about it was Jon and Ygritte's reunion.  Who the fuck was that kid, and why did the writers feel that he needed to be the one who killed Ygritte?  Why not have, you know, an actual character do it?  Sam could have done it.  Or Gilly.  Anyone would have been better than that fucking random kid.  And then grieving for her in the middle of the battle like that was such a silly cliché.  Also, I'm confused about what happened to Thorne.  Is he dead?  We don't see him die, but everyone's kind of acting like he's dead, without coming right out and saying that he's dead.

But apart from that, it was fantastic.  Jon was great, Sam was great, Thorne was great, hell, pretty much everyone in this episode got a few badass moments - with the obvious exception of Slynt

lol the kid has been built up for like 3 episodes now, Ygritte killed his dad. He's always shown at the wall, he was shown throughout this episode too. It was obvious what they were gonna do with him, and it was retarded in practice. He's cowering the entire episode, then he just shoots a chick and nods at Jon like some badass. Cliche as fuck.

(http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/jeremiah_johnson_nodding-Robert-Redford.gif)

Terrible, just terrible.

I also feel cheated. I was expecting Stannis the Mannis. Now what the fuck is gonna happen? They going to shove Tywin's death and the Wildlings getting rekt by Stannis in one episode? And what is happening with Jon, that's so weird.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 09, 2014, 04:26:40 PM
Okay, I remember the kid now.  It's still stupid.

And yeah, I guess Stannis is going to be in next week's charming little Father's Day episode.  It'll be manageable if they have some good direction and writing.  In fact, Martin should be writing this final episode, seeing how he hasn't written one so far this season. lol I'm dumb
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 09, 2014, 07:59:54 PM
He wrote Joffrey's death.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 10, 2014, 08:07:04 AM
The Crows had a giant problem when the wildlings attacked the wall.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on June 10, 2014, 06:02:18 PM
I like The Crow.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 10, 2014, 06:25:11 PM
A friend and I bought the teefury shirts today.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on June 10, 2014, 09:13:22 PM
Tonight's the big battle for Castle Black.  Unfortunately, they really haven't done a very good job of building it up over the course of the season

I think they built up to it, but not in a way that you'd give a fuck.

TBH I think there are too many plot lines for this show to handle.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 11, 2014, 02:37:36 AM
I really hope the next episode isn't solely the Night's Watch.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 11, 2014, 04:35:42 AM
I really hope the next episode isn't solely the Night's Watch.

Can't be. They need to wrap up Tyrion's plotline, and probably Bran's and Stoneheart as well. The episode is called 'The Children' so presumably it'll be a send off for Arya, Bran, Stoneheart (and her rage at losing her son), Tyrion and Tywin.. and the Night's Watch finale. So there's a lot of crap they've got to shove into it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 11, 2014, 05:07:03 AM
If Tyrion dies so does the show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 11, 2014, 05:27:11 AM
Read the God damn books.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 11, 2014, 08:07:57 AM
Not yet.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 11, 2014, 10:10:13 AM
Right, the finale. I forgot.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 11, 2014, 02:36:38 PM
Not to mention the fact that it's Father's Day next Sunday.  They've got to do Tyrion and Tywin.  Ingenious timing.  They've no doubt been planning this from the start!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 11, 2014, 02:58:14 PM
I can't wait to see that scene, but I'll be sad to see Charles Dance go. I always love him.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 11, 2014, 03:03:53 PM
Thanks for spoiling it, roosroos.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 11, 2014, 03:07:57 PM
Whatever the books have been out for years!  >o<
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EnigmaZV on June 11, 2014, 06:20:04 PM
I've no idea who Charles Dance is, so I'm still good.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 11, 2014, 10:18:13 PM
I've no idea who Charles Dance is, so I'm still good.

He plays Tywin.

heheheh spoiled
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 11, 2014, 10:34:55 PM
I will always remember him as my dear brother Numpsay!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 12, 2014, 12:07:50 AM
I will always remember him as my dear brother Numpsay!

Hey dipshit, it's bad manners to spoil TV shows.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 12, 2014, 12:26:32 AM
It ain't my fault you don't like to read.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on June 12, 2014, 04:10:22 AM
I've no idea who Charles Dance is, so I'm still good.

He plays Tywin.

heheheh spoiled

That was pretty shitty
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Particle Person on June 12, 2014, 04:46:57 AM
Saddamised.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 12, 2014, 05:51:42 AM
Yes, I have spoiled the big reveal of Tywin announcing his retirement and riding off into the sunset.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 12, 2014, 06:01:42 AM
It ain't my fault you don't like to read.

I love to read.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 12, 2014, 10:41:47 AM
We haven't explicitly said anything. Tywin could be going back to Casterly Rock for all you know.

Then why haven't you read these books yet?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 12, 2014, 11:09:00 AM
This thread should really be considered spoiler territory. Still, no need to go blatantly spoiling things.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 12, 2014, 11:28:24 AM
Brienne is and always has been a Faceless Man.  Robb is revealed to have faked his death and takes over Meereen.  Tyrion and Bronn become homosex bros.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 12, 2014, 12:25:58 PM
This thread should really be considered spoiler territory.
Obviously this is what I was thinking as well. I could swear we've already spoiled things before when just talking about the books. Speaking of which, why can't we talk about the books here? It is a GoT thread not GoT TV Show Discussion Only thread. If people haven't read the books they should really just stay away.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: EnigmaZV on June 12, 2014, 05:33:48 PM
I tried reading the books, they just made me hungry.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 12, 2014, 06:10:58 PM
I tried reading the books, they just made me hungry.
You can tell the man loves food.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: NewSeeker on June 13, 2014, 02:24:34 AM
Yes, I have spoiled the big reveal of Tywin announcing his retirement and riding off into the sunset.  Sorry.

Bullsh!t!

They would never?
This would be worse than the Red Wedding.
I don't even watch Game of Thrones for anyone else really.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 13, 2014, 07:23:16 PM
It might be an idea to start getting invested in some of the other characters.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 13, 2014, 09:19:38 PM
Or just get invested in the story itself since none of the characters are safe.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 13, 2014, 09:27:43 PM
Tyrion is.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 13, 2014, 11:53:11 PM
Tyrion is sentenced to death!

And he's probably riddled with STDs from all the prostitutes he's been knocking about with.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 14, 2014, 01:45:53 AM
Come on.. Tyrion is the only character you could see as having the impenetrable plot armour.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 14, 2014, 03:30:11 AM
There's no way Tyrion is getting killed off.  He still has far too much wangsting and brooding left to do.  How else would Martin be able to fill up his next five hundred or so pages?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 14, 2014, 05:11:18 AM
I think Tyrion could die. Martin said he wants it to be realistic, he wants the reader/viewer to have anxiety about whether or not the character will make it through something.

Has anyone read the Winds of Winter sneak peek?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 15, 2014, 12:35:12 AM
The only safe character is Jon Snow.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 15, 2014, 03:37:56 AM
The only safe character is Jon Snow.

Nope. Not as safe as Tyrion.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on June 15, 2014, 04:21:45 AM
Tyrion had one good episode, his story needs more intense scenes
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 15, 2014, 06:30:24 AM
Tyrion had one good episode, his story needs more intense scenes

Wait for tomorrow's episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 16, 2014, 04:02:16 AM
A wonderful end to a wonderful season.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 16, 2014, 04:27:58 AM
So, did he shit gold? Was it glorious?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on June 16, 2014, 04:34:16 AM
Surprise twist where it turns out that the world is just an underdeveloped planet in the aplha quadrant in the Star Trek universe. 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 16, 2014, 04:41:10 AM
So people are mad there was no LSH.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: NewSeeker on June 16, 2014, 04:54:48 AM
SONOFABITCH!

7 MINUTES LEFT!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: NewSeeker on June 16, 2014, 05:01:46 AM
LSH?

What does that mean?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 16, 2014, 05:06:21 AM
Nobody ever promised any Stoneheart this season!  Lena Headey's probably just read the books, or maybe they're already talking to the cast about the next season.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 16, 2014, 05:29:06 AM
Wow, apparently they didn't include Tysha. Holy fucking shit. I don't mind changes at all but that was a huge part of Tyrion's character, it added depth to his relationship with Jaime and gave him the reason to kill his father and Shae. Just wow.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 16, 2014, 07:21:34 AM
Game of Cut Off Penises
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 16, 2014, 09:21:47 AM
Yep, they fucked the Tysha thing. Tyrion and Jaime go off as best friends, Tywin didn't drop the absolutely amazing "where whores go" line. Besides fucking up Tyrion, solid episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 16, 2014, 02:51:17 PM
Wow, apparently they didn't include Tysha. Holy fucking shit. I don't mind changes at all but that was a huge part of Tyrion's character, it added depth to his relationship with Jaime and gave him the reason to kill his father and Shae. Just wow.

He had more than enough motivation to kill them both, what with them basically selling him out at his trial.  All the crap about Tysha was too convoluted, too twisted, and too difficult to relate with to bother including.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 16, 2014, 04:57:43 PM
Wow, apparently they didn't include Tysha. Holy fucking shit. I don't mind changes at all but that was a huge part of Tyrion's character, it added depth to his relationship with Jaime and gave him the reason to kill his father and Shae. Just wow.

He had more than enough motivation to kill them both, what with them basically selling him out at his trial.  All the crap about Tysha was too convoluted, too twisted, and too difficult to relate with to bother including.

Did he, though? He was angry at Tywin and Shae, but in the book he had just been told that one of the major experiences in his life was a lie. In the book, Shae defends herself by saying Cersei more or less forced her to testify, but in the show she pulls a damn knife. Book Tyrion went in there fucking pissed at Tywin, whereas show Tywin said little to anger Tyrion. Afterall, the reason he killed Tywin is because he was a stubborn cunt right until the end, "wherever whores go". It's just weird that Tyrion cares enough about Shae to get mad at her being called a whore, when he had called her that in the past.

Then there's the things Tyrion said to Jaime as a result of his participation in the Tysha stuff. After that, Jaime grows further from Cersei whereas there's nothing there right now in the show that will have the same effect. And of course the missing "wherever whores go" line that haunts Tyrion for the next 2 books.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 16, 2014, 05:00:45 PM
I'm with Vindictus on this one, they should have left it. But maybe they thought it was too complicated a story for the show. There are probably few people who really remember what happened with Tyrion and Tysha.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 16, 2014, 05:15:55 PM
Lazy writing. I don't mind departures from the book at all, and this episode had some great things like Jon & Melisandre, Stannis' arrival, Brienne & Arya, etc. But they could have made Tysha a part of the season in some way, and done it easily. Tyrion had a bunch of scenes talking to people in prison, slip it in there.

Apparently she was included in season 1, so pulling it out of the blue may have been weird. Still better than Tyrion just going and killing people because reasons.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 16, 2014, 05:43:15 PM
Apparently she was included in season 1, so pulling it out of the blue may have been weird.
Yep and that was it. They definitely should have re-introduced that story while he was in prison.

DAMN YOU HBO!! AND DAMN YOU FOR LEAVING OUT JORAH/DANY SEXUAL TENSION! /fangirl
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on June 16, 2014, 05:47:50 PM
Lazy writing. I don't mind departures from the book at all, and this episode had some great things like Jon & Melisandre, Stannis' arrival, Brienne & Arya, etc. But they could have made Tysha a part of the season in some way, and done it easily. Tyrion had a bunch of scenes talking to people in prison, slip it in there.

Apparently she was included in season 1, so pulling it out of the blue may have been weird. Still better than Tyrion just going and killing people because reasons.

??? His father has treated him like an outsider his whole life, was ashamed of him, sentenced him to die knowing his innocence. Those aren't legitimate motives?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 16, 2014, 05:51:28 PM
Lazy writing. I don't mind departures from the book at all, and this episode had some great things like Jon & Melisandre, Stannis' arrival, Brienne & Arya, etc. But they could have made Tysha a part of the season in some way, and done it easily. Tyrion had a bunch of scenes talking to people in prison, slip it in there.

Apparently she was included in season 1, so pulling it out of the blue may have been weird. Still better than Tyrion just going and killing people because reasons.

??? His father has treated him like an outsider his whole life, was ashamed of him, sentenced him to die knowing his innocence. Those aren't legitimate motives?
That's enough of a reason for a volatile person, but Tyrion is really mild mannered and intelligent. He's not one to kill people and I feel like there should be a lot of really good reasons to make him snap.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 16, 2014, 08:11:18 PM
Lazy writing. I don't mind departures from the book at all, and this episode had some great things like Jon & Melisandre, Stannis' arrival, Brienne & Arya, etc. But they could have made Tysha a part of the season in some way, and done it easily. Tyrion had a bunch of scenes talking to people in prison, slip it in there.

Apparently she was included in season 1, so pulling it out of the blue may have been weird. Still better than Tyrion just going and killing people because reasons.

??? His father has treated him like an outsider his whole life, was ashamed of him, sentenced him to die knowing his innocence. Those aren't legitimate motives?

Just about everyone treated him like that. He's a dwarf, he's used to it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 16, 2014, 08:12:13 PM
Part of the reason why the next two books are so weak in comparison to the rest of the series is that the characters spend so much time brooding and dwelling on the past that they have very little time to actually do things and advance the story.  Even if all that angst had been done well in the books - and it wasn't - it would be impossible to translate to screen.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on June 16, 2014, 08:20:39 PM
Lazy writing. I don't mind departures from the book at all, and this episode had some great things like Jon & Melisandre, Stannis' arrival, Brienne & Arya, etc. But they could have made Tysha a part of the season in some way, and done it easily. Tyrion had a bunch of scenes talking to people in prison, slip it in there.

Apparently she was included in season 1, so pulling it out of the blue may have been weird. Still better than Tyrion just going and killing people because reasons.

??? His father has treated him like an outsider his whole life, was ashamed of him, sentenced him to die knowing his innocence. Those aren't legitimate motives?

Just about everyone treated him like that. He's a dwarf, he's used to it.

Yeah, but only one of those people is his father.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on June 16, 2014, 08:23:45 PM
Part of the reason why the next two books are so weak in comparison to the rest of the series is that the characters spend so much time brooding and dwelling on the past that they have very little time to actually do things and advance the story.  Even if all that angst had been done well in the books - and it wasn't - it would be impossible to translate to screen.

Christ there's been enough brooding already.

There must be about 30+ characters in this show, and I reckon only 5 of them actually did anything noteworthy this season.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 19, 2014, 09:05:33 PM
I totally want the next season to have more of this:

(http://oi59.tinypic.com/30m94xs.jpg)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 19, 2014, 09:21:05 PM
I never perceived an increase in brooding in books 4&5. An increase in boring chapters that don't really go anywhere, sure, but not brooding.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2014, 03:07:00 AM
I never perceived an increase in brooding in books 4&5. An increase in boring chapters that don't really go anywhere, sure, but not brooding.

Yeah, that was a new idea to me, too.  I'll agree that Cersei's out-of-nowhere motivation for hating Tyrion was stupid, and maybe Dany spent a little too much time regretting the way things had gone after all the things she had done (but I kind of love her character for that too).  Other than that I really don't see it.

What's weird to me about the way Martin suddenly seemed to be drawing out the story is that it really wasn't necessary for him to do so.  It was supposed to be, what, four books at first?  He was the one who decided to expand it like this.  He has no one to blame for being bored with the story but himself.

Oh, the lack of Tywin saying "Wherever whores go" was a bit disappointing to me too.  That background with Tysha is such an important part of Tyrion's character arc I am a bit surprised they left it entirely out, and that is a killer line.  I was kind of hoping they would end the whole episode on Tyrion killing Tywin and fleeing King's Landing, but ending it on Arya setting sail for Braavos makes sense too.

On another note, I downloaded Roges on my Kindle, obviously mostly for the new George RR Martin "story", and what a disappointment that was.  It reads more like a history book than a real story, and it's not even really about the "rogue" (Daemon Targaryen) that would make its inclusion in this collection make sense, it's more about his brother (Viserys, obviously not Dany's brother) and the Targaeryans of the era as a whole, and it expressly leaves a lot of what was supposed to make Daemon interesting out.  And worst of all, if I read right it's an excerpt of that big history of Westeros Martin has coming out later this year, so buying it solely for new George RR Martin is entirely unnecessary if you intend to get that book.  It was also way too short.  Even the introduction Martin wrote for the book is lazy.  If it weren't for the new Gaiman and Lansdale stories that are also in it I would declare it a complete waste of money.

Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 20, 2014, 05:20:38 AM
Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree about Tysha.  I don't think they could have effectively built up the reveal with dialogue, and springing it on us at the last second as a deus angst machina (I really need to stop reading TV Tropes) would have been even worse.  Bear in mind that even when Tyrion talked about it in the first season, the writers omitted the part where his father then made him rape her as well.  And there's a good reason they cut that detail out - it's completely fucked-up, and nobody in the world could possibly sympathize with or relate to it.  Those kinds of twisted backstories belong in books, if they indeed belong anywhere at all.  It just doesn't translate.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 20, 2014, 09:07:02 AM
I don't think there's any justification at all for leaving it out, they're just too lazy to make it work.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 20, 2014, 03:44:37 PM
I don't see why they should be expected to make it work, when Martin himself has yet to make it work.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 20, 2014, 09:05:03 PM
Ok Saddam, you're talking crazy now. Everything has flaws but I think this particular part of the story was done well.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 21, 2014, 12:15:30 AM
Right.  Well, like I said, we disagree on that point.  Anyway, let's change the subject.  Jojen paste and skeleton warriors.  Discuss.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 21, 2014, 02:09:32 AM
Jojen paste has little evidence in the literature and the show does more to squash what was already a typical ASOIAF fan 'grasping at straws' theory.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2014, 02:11:39 AM
What are you guys talking about? Jojen paste?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 21, 2014, 02:17:52 AM
Jojen paste is a theory regarding the weirwood paste that Bran eats shortly after meeting Bloodraven. The weirwood paste is supposed to awaken his powers, and Bran describes it as looking like blood and veins. Jojen conveniently disappears after they arrive, so it's theorized that the Children killed him or took his body and ground it into a paste.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2014, 04:17:33 AM
Jojen paste is a theory regarding the weirwood paste that Bran eats shortly after meeting Bloodraven. The weirwood paste is supposed to awaken his powers, and Bran describes it as looking like blood and veins. Jojen conveniently disappears after they arrive, so it's theorized that the Children killed him or took his body and ground it into a paste.
Aww, I haven't seen that one, but then again I've only seen the Jon Snow/Targaryen theory which is a big one. Poor Jojen. Where do you guys read these?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 21, 2014, 04:37:28 AM
I think that one's less of a theory and more of a fact. I read about most theories on /r/asoiaf, some can get really wacky. Cleganebowl is another big theory.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2014, 04:52:06 AM
I think that one's less of a theory and more of a fact.
Wait, but didn't you just say that it was a "grasping at straws" theory and there was no evidence?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2014, 04:57:22 AM
Oh and as far as Cleganebowl goes, I always thought he was the gravedigger.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 21, 2014, 05:05:18 AM
No, Jojen paste I think is typical grasping at straws theorycrafting. R+L=J is more or less fact.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2014, 05:13:10 AM
No, Jojen paste I think is typical grasping at straws theorycrafting. R+L=J is more or less fact.
Ooooh, gotcha. Well, it's still technically a theory until GRRMartin says as much, though a very strong theory.

Damnit, I really need to read the books again. This ASOIAF reddit has a lot of mentionings of "I didn't see it on my first read through" and I just generally don't remember a lot of things. Sigh. It's the next thing I hit after the three books I'm reading.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 21, 2014, 07:29:53 AM
No, Jojen paste I think is typical grasping at straws theorycrafting. R+L=J is more or less fact.
Ooooh, gotcha. Well, it's still technically a theory until GRRMartin says as much, though a very strong theory.

Damnit, I really need to read the books again. This ASOIAF reddit has a lot of mentionings of "I didn't see it on my first read through" and I just generally don't remember a lot of things. Sigh. It's the next thing I hit after the three books I'm reading.

I was just watching the Writers Room on Netflix the other day. The creators of GoT were on and they said GRRM asked them who Jon's mother was before he allowed them to make the show. They answered right so they got to do it. At least, that hinted heavily at the answer being Lyanna and not Ashara Dayne or whoever the hell it's meant to be.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 21, 2014, 06:35:44 PM
On another note, I downloaded Roges on my Kindle, obviously mostly for the new George RR Martin "story", and what a disappointment that was.  It reads more like a history book than a real story, and it's not even really about the "rogue" (Daemon Targaryen) that would make its inclusion in this collection make sense, it's more about his brother (Viserys, obviously not Dany's brother) and the Targaeryans of the era as a whole, and it expressly leaves a lot of what was supposed to make Daemon interesting out.  And worst of all, if I read right it's an excerpt of that big history of Westeros Martin has coming out later this year, so buying it solely for new George RR Martin is entirely unnecessary if you intend to get that book.  It was also way too short.  Even the introduction Martin wrote for the book is lazy.  If it weren't for the new Gaiman and Lansdale stories that are also in it I would declare it a complete waste of money.

Was the Joe Abercrombie story any good?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 22, 2014, 05:34:14 AM
Important:

http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/27z9vl/spoilers_all_hi_this_is_stefan_sasse_ask_me/ci5tm62
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on June 22, 2014, 05:56:45 AM
Jon snowman
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 22, 2014, 06:00:08 AM
Ooh reddit
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 22, 2014, 06:26:58 AM
On another note, I downloaded Roges on my Kindle, obviously mostly for the new George RR Martin "story", and what a disappointment that was.  It reads more like a history book than a real story, and it's not even really about the "rogue" (Daemon Targaryen) that would make its inclusion in this collection make sense, it's more about his brother (Viserys, obviously not Dany's brother) and the Targaeryans of the era as a whole, and it expressly leaves a lot of what was supposed to make Daemon interesting out.  And worst of all, if I read right it's an excerpt of that big history of Westeros Martin has coming out later this year, so buying it solely for new George RR Martin is entirely unnecessary if you intend to get that book.  It was also way too short.  Even the introduction Martin wrote for the book is lazy.  If it weren't for the new Gaiman and Lansdale stories that are also in it I would declare it a complete waste of money.

Was the Joe Abercrombie story any good?

I haven't read it.  I'm in the middle of something else now but I'll let you know.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 22, 2014, 03:25:24 PM
Finally watched the last episode. I loved the Hound's exit. He's a great character and the actor did really well. And with Arya just staring at him - I felt feels. Brienne is vicious.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on June 22, 2014, 04:58:01 PM
And with Arya just staring at him

I didn't get why she didn't kill him. Warrior code n all that.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 22, 2014, 05:16:26 PM
Arya is not a warrior. She was denying him the gift of a mercy kill which is true to her character.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on June 22, 2014, 05:29:54 PM
Her character didn't develop while she spent the whole season with the Hound?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 22, 2014, 06:41:07 PM
Her character didn't develop while she spent the whole season with the Hound?
I don't understand the question. She did develop, but it's not like she fell in love with him. I always thought it seemed like he grew to respect her rather than the other way around. I don't think you understand Arya very well. She's incredibly cold and calculated, she's got the makings for an assassin. She knows he's dying but she doesn't want to give him the luxury of an easy death. Everyone else she killed was quick because she's a little girl and if she didn't kill them quick then they would kill her. The Hound was in no position to fight back so she could just leave him knowing he would die.

Or she's giving him a small chance at life, however you want to look at it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 22, 2014, 07:18:29 PM
In the book Arya had already removed the Hound from the list of people she wanted to kill, so I assumed that she genuinely didn't want to kill him. It was more ambiguous in the series though.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 22, 2014, 09:34:53 PM
In the book Arya had already removed the Hound from the list of people she wanted to kill, so I assumed that she genuinely didn't want to kill him. It was more ambiguous in the series though.
And what I wrote is how I choose to interpret it. I think all it does it speed up the assassin plotline a little.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on June 22, 2014, 11:44:01 PM
I felt as though they had this love/hate thing going on and it was pretty obvious they were sorry of bonding.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 23, 2014, 12:05:52 AM
I think respect was forming, but the Hound did things that kept her from liking him altogether. Remember, she still tried to kill him when he gave her the chance.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 23, 2014, 10:15:23 AM
Her character didn't develop while she spent the whole season with the Hound?
I don't understand the question. She did develop, but it's not like she fell in love with him. I always thought it seemed like he grew to respect her rather than the other way around. I don't think you understand Arya very well. She's incredibly cold and calculated, she's got the makings for an assassin. She knows he's dying but she doesn't want to give him the luxury of an easy death. Everyone else she killed was quick because she's a little girl and if she didn't kill them quick then they would kill her. The Hound was in no position to fight back so she could just leave him knowing he would die.

Or she's giving him a small chance at life, however you want to look at it.

She's a pretty shitty assassin if she didn't make sure he was dead.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 23, 2014, 10:17:12 AM
Spoilers.


She's not an assassin yet. I'm just saying it's setting her character up for it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 23, 2014, 10:53:32 AM
Er, Arya spoilers below.

For all we know she'll be mucking around in Braavos forever, much like Dany in Slaver's bay. The place she's at never says anything about faceless men and none of them show the face swapping powers. I always found it kind of weird how she just stumbles into the supposed training ground of the faceless men and learns to become one. Her character is pretty interesting there though, how she employs her blind vengeance and is punished for it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 23, 2014, 12:12:17 PM
The show moves faster than the book so who knows how much time will be spent mucking around.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on June 23, 2014, 08:11:41 PM
Arya is not a warrior. She was denying him the gift of a mercy kill which is true to her character.

Assassins code then. Jaqen seemed to have some kind of respect for his enemies, if that's who she's suppsoed to be emulating. *shrugs* She should have said something, you know to make it clear why she's doing the thing she's doing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 24, 2014, 02:17:03 AM
I don't know.  Arya's spiteful.  She's vindictive.  I thought it fit well with her character that she let the Hound suffer rather than give him mercy.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 25, 2014, 10:35:43 PM
It looks like Lady Stoneheart won't be in the series then.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 26, 2014, 02:09:26 AM
I'll link to an article so that people know what we're talking about:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/263756/speedreads-no-lady-stoneheart-wont-be-appearing-in-game-of-thrones

I suppose it's always a possibility that she's wrong, or that maybe she's lying (there are some people in the entertainment industry who apparently think it's okay to outright lie to fans about what's coming up next, it's a terrible trend and it needs to stop), but assuming that it's true, this is bad.  Admittedly, Stoneheart hasn't had much impact on the story of the books yet, and I have no idea if she'll be particularly important in later books, but returning to the subject of how well stuff translates to screen - yeah, here's one thing that the show definitely could do, and do really well.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 26, 2014, 02:37:16 AM
Yeah it's getting to the stage where I'm probably going to stop watching the show. Not including LSH doesn't make sense for a lot of different reasons.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 26, 2014, 05:36:46 AM
Yeah it's getting to the stage where I'm probably going to stop watching the show.

lolfirstworldproblems
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 26, 2014, 07:10:40 AM
I'm gonna stop torrenting it. Take THAT HBO!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 26, 2014, 02:56:03 PM
I don't think LSH is a big loss, she's barely featured in the books, but I wonder what else is going to be removed. I reckon the little Griff storyline will be left out. I'm pretty doubtful that the rest of the Greyjoys will be introduced either.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 26, 2014, 04:16:28 PM
She doesn't do a whole lot but her existence is pretty important.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 26, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
I don't think LSH is a big loss, she's barely featured in the books, but I wonder what else is going to be removed. I reckon the little Griff storyline will be left out. I'm pretty doubtful that the rest of the Greyjoys will be introduced either.

She's important to Brienne and Jaime's storylines, we're yet to see how much she impacts those. That and it's awesome to have an undead Catelyn wandering around getting revenge on the Frey's.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 27, 2014, 04:40:38 PM
Maybe the producers asked George RR Martin and he said the LSH storyline wasn't going anywhere
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 27, 2014, 10:37:07 PM
Then that's a fuckup on both their parts. Why reintroduce a major character for no reason at all?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Ghost of V on June 27, 2014, 10:46:10 PM
Does this show still suck?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 28, 2014, 02:56:42 AM
Then that's a fuckup on both their parts. Why reintroduce a major character for no reason at all?

It's almost as if Martin has no idea what he's doing and is making shit up as he goes along.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 28, 2014, 04:06:43 AM
Then that's a fuckup on both their parts. Why reintroduce a major character for no reason at all?

It's almost as if Martin has no idea what he's doing and is making shit up as he goes along.

Doesn't that usually happen with a book series that goes on for too long?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 28, 2014, 07:27:47 AM
Not really. Tolkien wasn't like that, and he was writing middle earth books right up until he died. Some of these fantasy authors have a very nuanced view of their world. I honestly don't know what GRRM is doing with his latest books, whether he intentionally meanders or if he just has no idea what he's doing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on June 28, 2014, 12:40:37 PM
Yeah it's getting to the stage where I'm probably going to stop watching the show. Not including LSH doesn't make sense for a lot of different reasons.

I don't know who LSH is but I'm going to use this as my reason to stop watching the show.

Tyrion needs his own spin-off show. That's the only way this can get good.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 28, 2014, 01:48:01 PM
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/749309-i-think-there-are-two-types-of-writers-the-architects

So GRRM has a rough plan, but he'll change things on the fly according to how he thinks the characters would react in a situation.

He also changed his plan pretty drastically after Storm of Swords. The timeline was originally going to skip 5 years before the next book.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 28, 2014, 03:00:22 PM
He also changed his plan pretty drastically after Storm of Swords. The timeline was originally going to skip 5 years before the next book.

I've heard that before, but it's not an excuse for how slow the last two books have been.  He's the one who's creating the story.  It was his decision that the next few years of it were going to be so boring and uneventful.  They didn't have to be.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 29, 2014, 01:25:26 AM
Definitely could have afforded to skip 5 years. I don't hate the last 2 books but I got sick of characters that I just don't give a shit about. Never had that issue in the first 3.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on June 29, 2014, 03:34:21 AM
I was gonna read the books while I waited for the next season but you guys talked me out of it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 29, 2014, 03:42:21 AM
Not really. Tolkien wasn't like that, and he was writing middle earth books right up until he died. Some of these fantasy authors have a very nuanced view of their world. I honestly don't know what GRRM is doing with his latest books, whether he intentionally meanders or if he just has no idea what he's doing.

Lotr is only three books. It follows the standard "intro, body, and conclusion" format and it works perfectly.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 29, 2014, 05:01:45 AM
Not really. Tolkien wasn't like that, and he was writing middle earth books right up until he died. Some of these fantasy authors have a very nuanced view of their world. I honestly don't know what GRRM is doing with his latest books, whether he intentionally meanders or if he just has no idea what he's doing.

Lotr is only three books. It follows the standard "intro, body, and conclusion" format and it works perfectly.

The universe is much, much bigger than that. Despite having a collection of books that dwarf GRRM's works on ASOIAF, he never wasted time with pointless additions.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 29, 2014, 05:06:36 AM
The universe is much, much bigger than that.

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't know that before.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 29, 2014, 06:40:05 AM
Just saying that AFFC and ADWD didn't really need to exist as separate books. So much could have been cut without a huge consequence to the story. Tolkien never had that issue.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 29, 2014, 02:40:30 PM
What about Tom Bombadill?

Personally I liked ADWD.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 29, 2014, 08:01:29 PM
I didn't dislike either books since I'll read anything he puts out. Bombadil is an intentional enigma. A case can be made for him being a nature spirit or an expression of Arda (or something along those lines) but ultimately Tolkien designed him to be unknowable. We know this because he explicitly says so in one of his letters.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 02, 2014, 12:54:38 AM
To be clear, I enjoy all of the books.  My disappointment with AFFC and ADWD largely lies with the fact that they just aren't as good as their predecessors.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on July 02, 2014, 03:03:06 AM
So my friend (who doesn't read)  bought the first book in the hopes that maybe he can get into it.  I'm considering giving it a shot.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on July 02, 2014, 03:54:57 AM
Do it.

If you can't or don't want to pay, and you have a screen that's appropriate for reading, then you can pirate them as ebooks. I'm sure most torrent sites have some torrents with the entire series.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Blanko on July 04, 2014, 07:52:58 PM
Not sure if I should interfere with this literally illegal file sharing
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on July 09, 2014, 10:24:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQv90HLUGto&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: fappenhosen on July 10, 2014, 09:05:52 PM
How do I go back on youtube?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 26, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
http://www.vulture.com/2014/07/sean-bean-legends-game-thrones-chat.html

Did Sean Bean just confirm some fanon here? :o

http://kotaku.com/uh-oh-game-of-thrones-might-be-omitting-a-very-importa-1611210151

Well, it looks like they aren't going to bother including Arianne either.  Because who cares about her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on July 26, 2014, 09:58:06 PM
I would cut out the entire Dorne storyline. It would have been more effective to show the council back at King's Landing trying to figure out what's going on in Dorne. Especially since Varys and his spy network are no longer available.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 28, 2014, 11:43:08 PM
I'm reading The World of Ice and Fire.  It's really good.  The artwork is excellent, the lore lore lore is interesting, and the in-universe perspective is immersive.  If you're a big fan, you might want to check it out.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on January 14, 2015, 03:18:59 AM
I'm reading The World of Ice and Fire.  It's really good.  The artwork is excellent, the lore lore lore is interesting, and the in-universe perspective is immersive.  If you're a big fan, you might want to check it out.

I'm enjoying it too.  I love the art.  I'm planning to read the series again after I'm done.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on January 14, 2015, 04:22:46 AM
I've started rereading the series. It's great seeing all the foreshadowing and having a better grasp of all the characters.

I'm also going to put my GoT cookbook to use a host a premier party. I know it's months away but I'm excited to try some of this food.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on January 30, 2015, 05:41:23 PM
Season 5 trailer, terrible quality but enough to get me excited.

http://watchersonthewall.com/season-5-trailer-hits/
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 08, 2015, 02:16:14 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wViILXQfX7Y

Maybe this is better quality.  Or maybe it's a completely different trailer.  Anyway, it looks good, but I'm still irritated by them cutting Arianne, the other Greyjoys, and Stoneheart.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on February 08, 2015, 02:47:34 AM
That's the same trailer. They officially released it soon after the terrible leaked version.

It kinda sucks that the show will overtake the books.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 12, 2015, 09:39:54 PM
I am now watching the four leaked episodes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on April 12, 2015, 09:54:52 PM
I am now preparing food for guests for a GoT viewing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on April 12, 2015, 11:53:50 PM
I am now preparing food for guests for a GoT viewing.

Ribs?  Or perhaps secretly poisoning your guests?  Either are acceptable, nay, desirable.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on April 13, 2015, 12:10:21 PM
No, just bread, cheese, bacon, and hard-boiled eggs. I didn't want to make a roast or anything so it was simple.

Anyway, the first episode was a little weak. Too much set-up and it seemed to end too quickly.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2015, 03:47:27 PM
I have finished the first four episodes now.  I know things you don't.  I know what deviations from the books happen.  I know which characters die.  I could spoil it all if I wanted to.  I am very powerful.

But srsly, if you want to avoid spoilers, stay far, far away from social media (with the exception of this prestigious website, of course) discussion of GoT.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on April 13, 2015, 06:44:37 PM
I'll tell you all what happens.

Hodor hodor hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor, hodor hodor hodor. Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor.

lololol
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on April 14, 2015, 08:46:30 PM
I am surprised a television series based on the political impact of incest and pedophilia became so popular.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 15, 2015, 05:33:33 AM
Don't care about spoilers, this thread is usually packed with them. I haven't gotten around to watching them yet, but feel free to spill the beans Saddam.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 15, 2015, 01:15:30 PM
Okay, but I'll use the tags:

Jon is elected Lord Commander in a strangely rushed scene.  The fan-favorite scene of Slynt's execution is handled excellently, and yes, the Mannis does give his badass nod of approval. Ser Barristan and Grey Worm bite it at the end of the fourth episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 16, 2015, 11:28:05 PM
What the fuck? Why would they do that?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 18, 2015, 06:00:19 PM
I'm sure they know what they're doing.  Also:

Tommen and Margaery consummate their marriage, Cersei supports the election of the High Sparrow and the reintroduction of the Faith Militant to arrest Loras for being gay, and Littlefinger takes Sansa to Moat Cailin to marry Ramsay, with Brienne and Pod in pursuit.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on April 21, 2015, 08:44:28 AM
Mance is dead too? This is bullshit. How is Ramsey going to goad Jon into going south now?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 21, 2015, 11:52:55 AM
They might have Tormund take his place.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on April 21, 2015, 01:03:15 PM
I basically don't remember anything that happens in the books at this point so I literally cannot tell how far they are straying.

That last episode was slow, but I liked it. Arya was particularly badass. Badass in a more assured way rather than her previous brash and hot-headed manner. And I'm glad they brought in the same actor for Jaqen H'ghar. I honestly don't care for Arya's plot that much in the books, I thought it was a bit boring. But now I'm pretty excited to watch it.

I actually really felt for Cersei too. I think they did a good job of portraying how much of her power came from Tywin, which obviously makes her a more relate-able character. Before it was easier to write her off as just being a power hungry bitch, but that shift to portraying her as a typical over-compensating female manager fighting for leadership among men was good. On top of that, she had the scene where she was really worried about Myrcella. You can see them setting her up for her big downfall.


Anyone here think Euron Greyjoy and Daario Naharis are the same person? I just recently saw that tinfoil and kinda like it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 11, 2015, 10:49:25 AM
Guess what guys, turns out valyria had nothing in it but dudes with grey scale LOL

I basically don't remember anything that happens in the books at this point so I literally cannot tell how far they are straying.

So far that it's getting to the stage where it isn't the same story anymore. It's turning into a bad anime that runs out of manga so just makes shit up. Granted, the acting and characters are still compelling, but the story is (imo) just lazy compared to GRRM (and his Dany is still no where near Westeros). But that's always been the case.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 13, 2015, 05:33:06 PM
I'm not digging this season as much as the previous ones, but that's largely in spite of the changes to the source material, not because of them.  The sad fact is that this is where GRRM pretty much just dropped the ball and began rambling with some very long, padded, and uneventful storylines.

That being said, giving Jorah greyscale was stupid.  The beauty of character deaths on this show lies in how sudden and shocking they are.  If they want to kill Jorah, then they should kill him off the same way that they do with everyone else - an abrupt, violent scene that leaves everyone shocked and horrified.  Giving him a fatal disease that he one day succumbs to months later just dampens the surprise for his eventual death.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 13, 2015, 06:24:43 PM
I'm not digging this season as much as the previous ones, but that's largely in spite of the changes to the source material, not because of them.  The sad fact is that this is where GRRM pretty much just dropped the ball and began rambling with some very long, padded, and uneventful storylines.

That being said, giving Jorah greyscale was stupid.  The beauty of character deaths on this show lies in how sudden and shocking they are.  If they want to kill Jorah, then they should kill him off the same way that they do with everyone else - an abrupt, violent scene that leaves everyone shocked and horrified.  Giving him a fatal disease that he one day succumbs to months later just dampens the surprise for his eventual death.

It is good to subvert your own tropes from time to time.  Also, maybe there is a bigger payoff to him getting grayscale than just his death.  Think outside the box bro.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on May 13, 2015, 09:19:21 PM
I'm not digging this season as much as the previous ones, but that's largely in spite of the changes to the source material, not because of them.  The sad fact is that this is where GRRM pretty much just dropped the ball and began rambling with some very long, padded, and uneventful storylines.

That being said, giving Jorah greyscale was stupid.  The beauty of character deaths on this show lies in how sudden and shocking they are.  If they want to kill Jorah, then they should kill him off the same way that they do with everyone else - an abrupt, violent scene that leaves everyone shocked and horrified.  Giving him a fatal disease that he one day succumbs to months later just dampens the surprise for his eventual death.

Jorah Connington Greyjoy Benjen Mormont of Bear Island.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 13, 2015, 09:39:39 PM
Grayscale doesn't mean he will die for sure. But if he does I will be so upset. :'(
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 13, 2015, 10:57:37 PM
I was distraught enough about Barristan going down.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 15, 2015, 08:47:19 PM
Martin is the biggest troll of our generation. He sets up the favorite characters to die glorious deaths and then they just end up getting slaughtered in alleyways. The end of this series is going to have everyone screaming "WHAT THE FUCK?!" at their TVs. Only non-normal people can appreciate Martin's complicated sense of humor. The man is a genius at trickery.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 18, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
Another mediocre episode in this mediocre season, ending with a very tasteless, unpleasant scene.  Even if you don't consider what happened to be rape (in which case you're a terrible person, because it clearly was), it's still a disappointing stumble in what's supposed to be Sansa's development into a strong and ambitious political player.  She's spent more than enough time being a passive victim by now, and deserves some agency of her own.  Like, maybe she could have pulled a knife on Ramsay and warned him that she wasn't going to be pushed around like the other women in his life.  That would have a great follow-up to the previous scene where she basically told Myranda to fuck off.

The Dorne storyline is stupid, and the Sand Snakes are basically interchangeable wannabe action girls who can barely fight at all.  They're like fucking Power Rangers villains at this point.  And the Loras-on-trial storyline is also stupid.  It made sense in the books, because Cersei was the regent and of course determined to see Margaery go down.  But now that Tommen is the king, his refusal to intervene is just bizarre.  There were, what, maybe five or six sparrows (lightly armed and with no armor) at that hearing?  His men could have easily freed Margaery and Loras while probably not even having to seriously injure anyone.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: beardo on May 18, 2015, 10:14:43 PM
Quit being upset over fictional rape.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 19, 2015, 07:39:47 AM
Thank you. I told my friend that the show is starting to suck and he told me and I didn't know about TV shows.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on May 19, 2015, 08:11:23 PM
I'm not digging this season as much as the previous ones, but that's largely in spite of the changes to the source material, not because of them.  The sad fact is that this is where GRRM pretty much just dropped the ball and began rambling with some very long, padded, and uneventful storylines.

That being said, giving Jorah greyscale was stupid.  The beauty of character deaths on this show lies in how sudden and shocking they are.  If they want to kill Jorah, then they should kill him off the same way that they do with everyone else - an abrupt, violent scene that leaves everyone shocked and horrified.  Giving him a fatal disease that he one day succumbs to months later just dampens the surprise for his eventual death.

There is nothing stopping Jorah from being violently killed in the very next episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on May 19, 2015, 09:47:27 PM
Why should everyone be killed off the same way? That seems like it would get really rote, boring and expected after a while. Having something happen differently every once in a while rather than going with a Dark Souls style "prepare to die!!" gimmick (though in this case it's "you're never gonna know who we shockingly kill next teehee!!") seems like it would be a refreshing change of pace.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2015, 03:29:08 AM
Well tonight's episode was pretty bad ass.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 01, 2015, 08:21:39 AM
Yes, it was. And it's about time. I was upset that there was still 1 giant, but then I wasn't when he started kicking ass.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2015, 09:32:48 PM
And the ending creeped the fuck right out of me.  Seriously, my fuck went running.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 02, 2015, 04:34:28 AM
It just seemed like a regular old zombie sequence.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 02, 2015, 11:34:48 AM
It just seemed like a regular old zombie sequence.

Yeah I loved the giant in Shaun of the Dead.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 02, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
It just seemed like a regular old zombie sequence.

I meant the raising of the wild men dead specifically. I thought it was nice storytelling.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 04, 2015, 07:01:49 PM
Watching "Hardhome" has restored my excitement for this show.

Why should everyone be killed off the same way? That seems like it would get really rote, boring and expected after a while. Having something happen differently every once in a while rather than going with a Dark Souls style "prepare to die!!" gimmick (though in this case it's "you're never gonna know who we shockingly kill next teehee!!") seems like it would be a refreshing change of pace.

Everyone isn't killed off the same way. ???  I'm just complaining that Jorah's eventual death has now been spoiled, essentially, by the show itself.  The setting itself is already so dangerous that we knew he was in danger by virtue of being on the show.  They didn't need to raise the specter of his death by giving him a terminal illness.

In other news, here's something from Martin about rapiness:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/03/george-rr-martin-thrones-violence-women

This is my favorite part:

Quote
Just because you put in dragons doesn’t mean you can put in anything you want.

On the contrary, that is exactly what it means.  He can quite literally create any kind of world he wants - and that is indeed what he has done, incorporating a variety of elements and tropes from history and fantasy alike.  Everything that he decided to include or omit was a choice on his part.  He chose to include dragons, he chose to include murderous wedding guests, and he chose to include rape.  And I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing.  He's perfectly entitled to put such an emphasis on the dark, unpleasant elements of history, but he should take responsibility for his focus, and face up to the positive and negative criticism that comes his way for it.  For him to duck all that now that the criticism has been so negative and say, "Nuh uh, it's not my fault, I'm just being historically accurate here!" is lazy and irresponsible.

I also like the way he seemed to equate less rape with "people walking on their hands."  That's a very fair comparison.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 04, 2015, 07:58:42 PM
Are you seriously being all SJW because of the realism of a medieval world? C'mon.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on June 04, 2015, 08:25:42 PM
Watching "Hardhome" has restored my excitement for this show.

Why should everyone be killed off the same way? That seems like it would get really rote, boring and expected after a while. Having something happen differently every once in a while rather than going with a Dark Souls style "prepare to die!!" gimmick (though in this case it's "you're never gonna know who we shockingly kill next teehee!!") seems like it would be a refreshing change of pace.

Everyone isn't killed off the same way. ???  I'm just complaining that Jorah's eventual death has now been spoiled, essentially, by the show itself.  The setting itself is already so dangerous that we knew he was in danger by virtue of being on the show.  They didn't need to raise the specter of his death by giving him a terminal illness.

In other news, here's something from Martin about rapiness:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/03/george-rr-martin-thrones-violence-women

This is my favorite part:

Quote
Just because you put in dragons doesn’t mean you can put in anything you want.

On the contrary, that is exactly what it means.  He can quite literally create any kind of world he wants - and that is indeed what he has done, incorporating a variety of elements and tropes from history and fantasy alike.  Everything that he decided to include or omit was a choice on his part.  He chose to include dragons, he chose to include murderous wedding guests, and he chose to include rape.  And I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing.  He's perfectly entitled to put such an emphasis on the dark, unpleasant elements of history, but he should take responsibility for his focus, and face up to the positive and negative criticism that comes his way for it.  For him to duck all that now that the criticism has been so negative and say, "Nuh uh, it's not my fault, I'm just being historically accurate here!" is lazy and irresponsible.

I also like the way he seemed to equate less rape with "people walking on their hands."  That's a very fair comparison.

I'm pretty sure he takes responsibility by default since he wrote the f-ing books, but that doesn't mean he has to hold the same opinion as the SJWs.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2015, 10:57:49 PM
In my opinion Game of Thrones doesn't have nearly enough dragon in it.

I also like the way he seemed to equate less rape with "people walking on their hands."  That's a very fair comparison.

I know this is sarcasm, but I have to say it really is a fair comparison. People get raped. A lot of people. And in medieval times, a hell of a lot of people got raped. In a dramatic medieval story about love and conquest, to not include rape is to miss out on a huge plot device. It adds a great deal of emotion to the story, proven thusly by everyone's reaction to it. Just remember Sadman, it is in fact a book.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on June 04, 2015, 11:02:05 PM
On the other hand, I usually disagree with this stuff but it's not that "SJW" for people to complain about how much rape is in something. It's often lazy writing (don't know if it is here, since I've never read nor watched) and rape is a pretty real thing that happens and it sucks to be used as a plot device over and over, with the expectation that the negativity of it is just going to be seen as "wow they raped, what a bad person amirite??" rather than exploring the aftereffects of what it's like being someone who's endured that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2015, 11:04:16 PM
On the other hand, I usually disagree with this stuff but it's not that "SJW" for people to complain about how much rape is in something. It's often lazy writing (don't know if it is here, since I've never read nor watched) and rape is a pretty real thing that happens and it sucks to be used as a plot device over and over, with the expectation that the negativity of it is just going to be seen as "wow they raped, what a bad person amirite??" rather than exploring the aftereffects of what it's like being someone who's endured that kind of thing.

Well I can't comment on the after effect since I haven't read that far in the books and I don't know how George Martin continued the characters.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: JRowe on June 04, 2015, 11:16:53 PM
Are you seriously being all SJW because of the realism of a medieval world? C'mon.

It's not a medieval world, though: medieval times had a distinct lack of dragons. It's a fictional world. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think reducing the amount of rape is much more realistic than freaking dragons.
The fact is, any and every detail of the world is something he chose to include. Realism has nothing to do with it. There is nothing automatically wrong with including rape in a book, but it's a serious issue, and it needs to be treated as such: not just thrown in for cheap drama, with no focus paid to aftereffects or consequences.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2015, 11:18:45 PM
Are you seriously being all SJW because of the realism of a medieval world? C'mon.

It's not a medieval world, though: medieval times had a distinct lack of dragons. It's a fictional world. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think reducing the amount of rape is much more realistic than freaking dragons.
The fact is, any and every detail of the world is something he chose to include. Realism has nothing to do with it. There is nothing automatically wrong with including rape in a book, but it's a serious issue, and it needs to be treated as such: not just thrown in for cheap drama, with no focus paid to aftereffects or consequences.

Well, look at the bright side, he chose not to combine the two ideas.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 04, 2015, 11:58:14 PM
He's perfectly entitled to put such an emphasis on the dark, unpleasant elements of history, but he should take responsibility for his focus, and face up to the positive and negative criticism that comes his way for it.  For him to duck all that now that the criticism has been so negative and say, "Nuh uh, it's not my fault, I'm just being historically accurate here!" is lazy and irresponsible.

I also like the way he seemed to equate less rape with "people walking on their hands."  That's a very fair comparison.

I don't think GRRM is 'ducking' criticism of the sexual violence portrayed in his books.  He's spoken about it before, and his response has been consistent.  I also don't think it's lazy and irresponsible to, as a writer, want to portray a history and culture for what it was.  That seems like the opposite of lazy and irresponsible, and I think it would be naive to assume that GRRM was unaware of the potential pitfalls of such portrayals before writing them.

On the contrary, I agree with GRRM that it's lazy and irresponsible to avoid writing about those unpleasantries:

Quote
I wanted my books to be strongly grounded in history and to show what medieval society was like, and I was also reacting to a lot of fantasy fiction. Most stories depict what I call the ‘Disneyland Middle Ages’—there are princes and princesses and knights in shining armor, but they didn’t want to show what those societies meant and how they functioned[...]I’m writing about war, which what almost all epic fantasy is about. But if you’re going to write about war, and you just want to include all the cool battles and heroes killing a lot of orcs and things like that and you don’t portray [sexual violence], then there’s something fundamentally dishonest about that. Rape, unfortunately, is still a part of war today. It’s not a strong testament to the human race, but I don’t think we should pretend it doesn’t exist.

I want to portray struggle. Drama comes out of conflict. If you portray a utopia, then you probably wrote a pretty boring book.

To me the only issue is the manner (and frequency, perhaps) in which such violence is portrayed.  If GRRM made writing choices that glorified rape or otherwise advanced some notion that rape is an acceptable element of human behavior, then I think that would be problematic.  I personally haven't felt that way while reading the books, although I think the TV writers have made some poor choices.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 05, 2015, 09:41:22 PM
My problem with the rape and also the use of violence in the TV show, is that I feel like it relies on those elements to create a lot of the tension and drama rather than the characters relationships. 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 07, 2015, 10:29:19 PM
Good posts from all.  Also, it looks like tonight's episode briefly went up on HBO Go before getting yanked, and I was warned by a friend that it contains a terrible, terrible scene that ruins established characters, spits in the face of the books, and confirms that D&D are retarded.  I wanted to avoid spoiling it for myself, but I couldn't resist guessing at what it was, and I got it right.  Do you want to know what it is?  You'll hate it, I promise.

Stannis actually sacrifices Shireen.

Also, this isn't a spoiler or anything, just speculation, but it's totally going to be Olly who stabs Jon.  I hope it isn't true, but they're foreshadowing it pretty hard.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2015, 12:18:51 AM
Good posts from all.  Also, it looks like tonight's episode briefly went up on HBO Go before getting yanked, and I was warned by a friend that it contains a terrible, terrible scene that ruins established characters, spits in the face of the books, and confirms that D&D are retarded.  I wanted to avoid spoiling it for myself, but I couldn't resist guessing at what it was, and I got it right.  Do you want to know what it is?  You'll hate it, I promise.

Stannis actually sacrifices Shireen.

Also, this isn't a spoiler or anything, just speculation, but it's totally going to be Olly who stabs Jon.  I hope it isn't true, but they're foreshadowing it pretty hard.

I don't mind that spoiler, but then I have not read the books. To me it makes sense in the context of the story being told.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 08, 2015, 02:22:31 AM
Whhhy? D&D are so retarded. What's the point in building up characters a certain way and then throwing it out the window? I don't understand.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 08, 2015, 02:26:51 AM
And there we have it, just as bizarrely out-of-character and shockingly distasteful in execution as it was in concept.  Fuck D&D.  I'm also getting pretty tired of Ramsay being an untouchable super-awesome badass who wins at literally everything he does because he's just so awesome that you can't even touch him.

The rest of the episode was good, though.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 08, 2015, 04:55:22 AM
I don't hate the decision on the face of it, but I do think it was poorly written.  That aside, I don't think it's out of character for Stannis.  One of his hallmarks is that he's a strong-willed, decisive authoritarian.  He's willing to do whatever he believes is necessary, including death and violence, for the fulfillment of what he perceives to be Good/Right/Just/whatever (killing his daughter obviously isn't good, but saving Westeros is).

I sort of think it's D&D's devotion to this archetype that ruins this particular plot line.  I think this would have been better written if they had focused more on an internal conflict with Stannis over this decision, one where he suddenly, and perhaps for the first time, doesn't know what to do, and doesn't know what he thinks is right.  Then the moment he decides to kill his daughter becomes much more interesting; it would represent an all-in moment for Stannis; a total conversion to the faith.

Instead they just made him seem like a naive dick who murdered his daughter because he's scared.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 08, 2015, 12:17:37 PM
Huh, apparently the Stannis switch was GRRM's idea. They talk about it during the "inside the episode" junk after the credits.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 08, 2015, 02:01:07 PM
Huh, apparently the Stannis switch was GRRM's idea. They talk about it during the "inside the episode" junk after the credits.

I think they were just talking about the fact that Shireen will eventually be burned in the books, not that Stannis himself is going to do it.  I highly doubt that Stannis is suddenly going to return to Castle Black to sacrifice her before continuing on to Winterfell, after all.  A popular theory on reddit is that Melisandre will do it to resurrect Jon.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 08, 2015, 04:07:48 PM
I think it's referring to Stannis giving the go-ahead so don't focus on who will actually be doing the burning.

"Once Stannis makes a decision, he never changes his mind. It's why he's a strong commander. And it's his weakness, but he's defined by his will-the only way is forward. Melisandre gives him a opportunity for the lord of light to set him free. It's a scene that asks what if you're wrong? You're gonna do this terrible thing for a higher calling, what if you're not right? It comes down to ambition, and familial love. Stannis choses ambition. When George first told us this, I looked at Dan and said it was horrible. And good in the story sense. Cause in the beginning they were burning people alive on the beaches of Dragon Stone, and it comes down to this. We've been talking about king's blood, and it comes down to Shireen's sacrifice."
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 08, 2015, 08:49:52 PM
Good posts from all.  Also, it looks like tonight's episode briefly went up on HBO Go before getting yanked, and I was warned by a friend that it contains a terrible, terrible scene that ruins established characters, spits in the face of the books, and confirms that D&D are retarded.  I wanted to avoid spoiling it for myself, but I couldn't resist guessing at what it was, and I got it right.  Do you want to know what it is?  You'll hate it, I promise.

Stannis actually sacrifices Shireen.

Also, this isn't a spoiler or anything, just speculation, but it's totally going to be Olly who stabs Jon.  I hope it isn't true, but they're foreshadowing it pretty hard.

George told them to do that apparently.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on June 09, 2015, 02:20:48 AM
And there we have it, just as bizarrely out-of-character and shockingly distasteful in execution as it was in concept.  Fuck D&D.  I'm also getting pretty tired of Ramsay being an untouchable super-awesome badass who wins at literally everything he does because he's just so awesome that you can't even touch him.

The rest of the episode was good, though.

They don't even explain how Ramsey and his 20 super ninjas sneak into a war camp and simultaneously burn all the food stores of an army of hundreds. When he said he needed 20 good men, it looks like he got 20 god-like red berets equipped with Harry Potter invisibility cloaks and the ability to preform off-camera miracles. 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 12, 2015, 11:48:08 AM
/tv/ spoilers for episode 10.

Jon dead. No surprise.
Jon wargs upon death.
Selyse hanged.
Cersei walk of shame.


SPOILERS IN THE LINK. Leaked images here (http://i.imgur.com/x3iSd8Z.jpg).
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 12, 2015, 02:29:22 PM
And I'm sure Olly will be the one to do it, no doubt shouting something stupid like, "For my parents!"
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on June 12, 2015, 02:44:32 PM
And I'm sure Olly will be the one to do it, no doubt shouting something stupid like, "For my parents!"

Oh yeah, they seem to be heavily foreshadowing that.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 13, 2015, 12:25:18 AM
RIP night king (http://i.imgur.com/ItmOc0Z.jpg).
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 15, 2015, 04:26:55 AM
A pretty solid finale...right up until the last scene.  They blew it.  Couldn't keep that annoying little runt Olly out of it, could you, D&D?  Whose fucking idea was it to ever have that irritating little shit be a character in this?  Did an HBO executive's kid really want a part or something?  Ever since he showed up, he's just been eating up screen time, doing things that were reserved for other, better characters, and in general just being an all-around drag on the show.  And now he gets to deliver the coup de grâce to Jon Snow.  Also, even setting aside Olly's involvement, the whole scene came right the fuck out of nowhere.  In the books, Jon pushed and provoked the Night's Watch repeatedly, testing their loyalty multiple times with a series of questionable decisions, and when he finally goes too far, they lash out at him almost spontaneously.  Here, he does one thing that they don't like...so they wait several days before setting a bizarre trap for him, and coldly, dispassionately execute him once he falls for it.  It doesn't feel earned at all.

D&D are apparently insisting that Stannis and Jon are really dead, too.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 15, 2015, 07:23:39 AM
A pretty solid finale...right up until the last scene.  They blew it.  Couldn't keep that annoying little runt Olly out of it, could you, D&D?  Whose fucking idea was it to ever have that annoying little shit be a character in this?  Did an HBO executive's kid really want a part or something?  Ever since he showed up, he's just been eating up screen time, doing things that were reserved for other, better characters, and in general just being an all-around drag on the show.  And now he gets to deliver the coup de grâce to Jon Snow.  Also, even setting aside Olly's involvement, the whole scene came right the fuck out of nowhere.  In the books, Jon pushed and provoked the Night's Watch repeatedly, testing their loyalty multiple times with a series of questionable decisions, and when he finally goes too far, they lash out at him almost spontaneously.  Here, he does one thing that they don't like...so they wait several days before setting a bizarre trap for him, and coldly, dispassionately execute him once he falls for it.  It doesn't feel earned at all.

D&D are apparently insisting that Stannis and Jon are really dead, too.

Yeah they kinda fucked up the final scene. You don't like it because Jon dies, but you really can't blame the watch in the book because Jon did push it too far with his announcement. It was in public, everyone saw who did it, and it was spontaneous. Was also expecting "for me parents!" from Olly but "for the watch" is only slightly less retarded. He's not even in the watch, what does he care about it? Only reason he's stabbing Jon is because of his parents.

That said, what the hell was that Stannis cut? Is he dead or not? The mountain was great, hopefully cleganebowl actually happens. And fuck Ellaria Sand.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Particle Person on June 15, 2015, 04:34:33 PM
Jon dies

Cool spoiler
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 18, 2015, 09:36:37 PM

So what the fuck happened to Jon's dire-wolf? It can pop out of a cupboard and save fat Sam's sorry ass, but when the shit hits, it's off chasing rabbits.
The High Sparrow lost his fucking marbles, you don't torture Cersie, strip her naked and then let her wander back in to the castle, covered in shit into the arms of the zombie Gregor, she is going to go batshit, especially when she finds out her other kid was snogged to death by the Martell vamp. The bitch with the bell had better sod right off too.
Melisandre's (gorgeous Melisandre) divination was as much use as Jon's wolf, so Stannis gets his features rearranged by the monster dyke and Arya is regretting ever having said acuna matata to two-face now that she is blind, (since when is killing a paedo' the wrong murder?) .
Daenerys seems to have hooked up with Drogo's old crowd just as she realised that the Un-sullied were over priced.
And Sansa and dick-less leap to their deaths (if they are not then GOT physics is on a par with FE's).
All in all a thoroughly enjoyable episode. Now it's back to Vikings and Lagertha (gorgeous Lagertha). 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on June 18, 2015, 09:50:51 PM
Ghost is off hunting pending a larger CGI budget. Drogon required all of the resources for these two episodes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on June 23, 2015, 12:41:23 PM
A pretty solid finale...right up until the last scene.  They blew it.  Couldn't keep that annoying little runt Olly out of it, could you, D&D?  Whose fucking idea was it to ever have that irritating little shit be a character in this?  Did an HBO executive's kid really want a part or something?  Ever since he showed up, he's just been eating up screen time, doing things that were reserved for other, better characters, and in general just being an all-around drag on the show.  And now he gets to deliver the coup de grâce to Jon Snow.  Also, even setting aside Olly's involvement, the whole scene came right the fuck out of nowhere.  In the books, Jon pushed and provoked the Night's Watch repeatedly, testing their loyalty multiple times with a series of questionable decisions, and when he finally goes too far, they lash out at him almost spontaneously.  Here, he does one thing that they don't like...so they wait several days before setting a bizarre trap for him, and coldly, dispassionately execute him once he falls for it.  It doesn't feel earned at all.

D&D are apparently insisting that Stannis and Jon are really dead, too.

I was super excited when they talked about Benjen in the recap.  Imagine my disappointment when they only mentioned him because the only way they could possibly think of getting Snow outside was to say his uncle was alive.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 01, 2015, 09:15:28 PM
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/30/game-thrones-eight-seasons

What's all this?  More seasons?  Also:

Quote
"Dead is dead is dead," he said. "He be dead. Um, yes. Everything I've seen, heard and read, Jon Snow is indeed dead."

But as the article notes, Harington has indeed been spotted in Belfast as if it's any other year and he's getting back to work.  So what does this mean?  Blatant lies?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on August 01, 2015, 09:31:07 PM
Why does it mean lies? Just because he's dead doesn't mean he'll stay that way. They're just confirming that he did, indeed, die.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Vindictus on August 02, 2015, 05:59:25 AM
Once again, if Jon is dead then so is the series. Martin isn't that shit of a writer.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 05, 2015, 09:52:18 PM
They don't even explain how Ramsey and his 20 super ninjas sneak into a war camp and simultaneously burn all the food stores of an army of hundreds. When he said he needed 20 good men, it looks like he got 20 god-like red berets equipped with Harry Potter invisibility cloaks and the ability to preform off-camera miracles.

(http://i.imgur.com/E54122n.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/MdRrxUW.jpg)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on October 07, 2015, 07:44:07 AM
Obligatory "people still watch this?".
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 25, 2016, 11:07:04 PM
Wow, the season premiere wasn't great.  They're really doubling down on the huge changes they've made to the Dorne storyline, as well as the troubling gender politics of having all its female characters be ruthless villainesses compared to the sane, sensible men (in the most egalitarian of all the kingdoms, no less :-\), and the Sand Snakes are just as lame as they were last season.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2016, 03:48:16 AM
as well as the troubling gender politics

It is Game of Thrones.  It trades on rape as one of the cornerstones of it's dramatic tension.  If this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, I would be very surprised.

Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on April 27, 2016, 04:08:31 AM
All of those "gender politics" definitely aren't completely contrived by delusional SJWs. And I can't think of any irrational, villainous male characters in Game of Thrones. Man, we should make an issue out of nothing because we're so angsty.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 28, 2016, 03:49:50 AM
It might be a stretch, but it feels bizarre that it seems to have turned into a men vs. women kind of thing.  But then again, everything about Dorne in this show is bizarre.  Killing Trystane, for example - first, how the fuck did two of the Sand Snakes manage to teleport to Winterfell to kill him, and second, why bother?  What does killing him actually accomplish for them?  Wasn't the whole point of this stupid subplot that they wanted to retaliate against the Lannisters for Oberyn's death?*  Because now it seems like it's just a regular old coup, one executed (no pun intended) in a very crude, blunt manner.  It doesn't help that Doran and Hotah are both very well-liked characters in the books, and Alexander Siddig proved that he had the potential to be a fantastic Doran in his brief screen time last season - making it all the worse when the two of them were so lamely killed off.  Also, why do the opening credits keep referring to the Water Gardens as Dorne?  I know, I know, this is the geekiest complaint ever, but it bugs me because it's not consistent.  Everywhere else is referred to by the name of the city or castle, not the entire region.  Are they worried about confusing us?  At the very least, they could just call it Sunspear, which isn't entirely accurate in the books, but it's close enough for the purposes of the show.

*Not that Oberyn would have approved of this plot.  As he very pointedly said once, they don't murder little girls in Dorne.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on April 28, 2016, 05:17:18 AM
i was puzzled when the sand snakes got all murdery.  there's clearly a subplot going on with doran in the books that has yet to be completed.  this is one of the reasons i'm not worried about the show spoiling the books.  i think by the end the show will only mirror the books in the broadest strokes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on April 28, 2016, 05:43:20 AM
Is it a men vs women thing or is it a sand snakes vs everyone else thing?  Also it seems to me that even in the novels the sand snakes viewed Doran as being ineffectual to the point of being impotent; I feel like their actions in the premiere make sense (enough so anyway that I'm willing to go along with it).  Arianne's not even in the show, right?  Obviously the storyline was going to be very different from what it was in the books.  It's just too bad Dr Bashir is gone.

I enjoyed the scene with Brienne saving and then pledging fealty to Sansa.  I think that's the storyline I'm most interested in right now.  Arya's pathetic battle with the waif was also pretty good.  And that ending was downright chilling.  Overall I thought it was a pretty good episode.

Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on April 28, 2016, 01:01:20 PM
I feel the same way as before about it.

I'll watch it because it is a decent show. But it's not Game of Thrones to me anymore. These guys are awful writers and it seems so thinly stretched that the production quality doesn't even seem like standard HBO.

Like when Jorah and Daario went to look for Dany, it looked like they were in Scotland or Ireland. But the Dothraki walk her (I assume) about a day or two away and they're in what looks like Arizona? Where the fuck are we?!

And did that Sand Snake really think she was going to use a whip in a close quarters fight? Get the fuck out.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2016, 04:43:35 PM
Now this episode was more like it.  The Ramsay twist was sudden and brutal, but logical in retrospect - although now I'm worried that we're in for more off-screen God Mode nonsense from him and Ser Twenty Goodmen, based on what he said about Jon.  We finally got to see the Greyjoys again, and I'm glad that they actually made a reference to Balon technically winning the War of Five Kings despite doing very little himself.  Jon's subplot is progressing nicely too, and I like that they did the cheesy "His eyes open! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EyeAwaken)" closing shot.  Speaking of Jon, it occurs to me that because they needed Kit Harington to play his corpse, it would have been very easy for them to just point to that as the explanation for why he had been seen on set, why he hadn't cut his hair, etc., and decline to comment on whether or not he'd be involved beyond just playing the body.  Contrary to what a couple of you were saying earlier in the thread, the cast/crew weren't just (honestly) pointing out that Jon was deceased, they were also saying that Harington's contract was over and he was never coming back.  They flatly lied.

Anyway, solid episode.  Too bad they didn't kill off Olly, though.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 03, 2016, 01:05:42 PM
Yeah, pretty solid episode. The end scene was drawn out a bit too long, I mean.. we all knew it was coming.

I think I'm the only person who absolutely hates Kit Harrington as Jon Snow. I thought I hated Jon Snow, but since I'm going through the books again I realized that I just dislike Kit Harrington and not the character.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on May 09, 2016, 02:43:50 PM
This was a good episode.  They finally killed off Olly.  And the flashback scene was pretty cool, too, despite the inherent silliness of fighting so nimbly with dual longswords.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on May 19, 2016, 03:37:26 AM
last episode was good
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2016, 04:02:33 AM
it was
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2016, 12:22:01 PM
I'm pretty pleased with this season so far.

Also, I really ship Tormund and Brienne. They would make the greatest warrior children ever.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on May 19, 2016, 07:15:11 PM
Also, I really ship Tormund and Brienne. They would make the greatest warrior children ever.

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13241113_546480798865567_3820822513555549712_n.jpg?oh=f01f56eda0a86c4a5a62026e8f1acbb4&oe=57D37161)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on May 19, 2016, 07:39:58 PM
This episode was good, but I'm really getting tired of Dany's repetitive adventures in Essos.  She's at least doing things and achieving her objectives, which is more than I can say for how her storyline is going in the books, but it's long past time for her to stop conquering foreign places we don't care about and just go to Westeros already.  Of course, that won't happen this season, because it's far too big of a change in the status quo to be anything but the plot of a new season.  If we're lucky, this season will end with her finally sailing to Westeros, which will drive the hype for the next season through the roof.

Nice to bring Osha back just so they could unceremoniously kill her off. ::)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2016, 07:50:01 PM
Nice to bring Osha back just so they could unceremoniously kill her off. ::)
What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on May 23, 2016, 03:37:06 AM
Nice to bring Osha back just so they could unceremoniously kill her off. ::)
What's wrong with that?

Maybe if it had been a "good" death, or one that felt nice and earned, I wouldn't have minded, but here it just felt like Item #276 on Ramsay's List of Dastardly Deeds.  Speaking of deaths being earned, the ending of this episode was heartbreaking.  I cried out in horror when poor Summer bravely fell in battle, and then...that happened and OH GOD WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO US SHOW.  I'm in tears now.

Ahem.  The rest of the episode was solid too.  My one problem is the Greyjoy storyline, which is being rushed through so fast that I wonder if they'd be better off omitting it entirely.  And Euron is a real disappointment.  That flabby schmuck was the legendary, badass pirate leader?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2016, 03:34:56 PM
I'm not gonna lie, I cried. I guess it's partly because it wasn't in the books yet but that death affected me more than most.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on May 30, 2016, 04:08:29 AM
moar moar moar

Dany's storyline continues to repeat itself.  Another rah-rah speech from her.  Another dramatic reveal of her dragon(s).  Yawn.  Sam and Gilly visiting Horn Hill was all right, but I'm not sure if it's really the best use of the show's time.  The Coldhands thing happened, but GRRM has apparently said before that Benjen isn't Coldhands in the books, so remember to keep the two series separate in your head.  I'm most interested by Arya's storyline at this point, and I hope the show really follows through with this and keeps Jaqen and the Faceless Men as antagonists.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 31, 2016, 12:25:18 PM
This was the first time she was controlling Drogon while in flight tho. And since Drogon is the alpha dragon, we can assume she'll have some control over the other two now as well. She just needs two other riders and then she gon fuck shit up.

I don't know why people hate on Dany and her dragons so much. Why is it a bad thing to have someone that consistently makes big moves, has the strongest claim to the throne, and isn't constantly surrounded by woes and heartache? We need more Stark hate. Those moping losers can't even take care of direwolves.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2016, 02:14:56 AM
This season is showing a lot more dragon than the others. Their CGI budget must have gotten the attention it deserves.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 01, 2016, 12:15:39 PM
This season is showing a lot more dragon than the others. Their CGI budget must have gotten the attention it deserves.
Maybe that's why they went ahead and killed off Summer. Now they don't have to worry about as many direwolves.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thork on June 02, 2016, 09:17:35 AM
I have a problem. This program is to blame.

I like a girl, she's really nice. But she is obsessed with this Game of Thrones shit. How do I maintain her interest and spark conversation without having to watch this crap? Do they do like summaries I can read to get up to speed so I can pretend I like it, or are there any go to phrases I can borrow like "Did you see the one where the dragon did that thing to the other thing? Man, some episode huh?" That kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 02, 2016, 12:35:10 PM
Hey Thork, maybe you could actually try watching the show and see if you enjoy it. In any case, stop asking us how you can trick people into thinking you're a normal human being.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thork on June 02, 2016, 01:59:41 PM
I haven't got enough time to watch all that. What are they now, season 7 or something, 12 episodes in a season, hour per episode ... that's 3 and a half days of doing nothing including sleeping of watching something I know I won't really enjoy.

In any case, stop asking us how you can trick people into thinking you're a normal human being.
She doesn't need to think I'm normal for very long. Just long enough for me to impregnate her.

Anyway, I can see I'm not going to get much help in here. You may go back to your goblins and elves. :'(
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 03, 2016, 12:36:27 PM
Hmm, likes a girl but not enough to look into her interests.

No wonder you're single.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on June 03, 2016, 01:21:35 PM
I have a problem. This program is to blame.

I like a girl, she's really nice. But she is obsessed with this Game of Thrones shit. How do I maintain her interest and spark conversation without having to watch this crap? Do they do like summaries I can read to get up to speed so I can pretend I like it, or are there any go to phrases I can borrow like "Did you see the one where the dragon did that thing to the other thing? Man, some episode huh?" That kind of stuff.

Okay, simply learn these few names:

Cersei (sir-sea)
John Snow
Jorah Mormont

And then slot any name into any of these sentences:
"I think that <name> is going to die soon."
"I particularly liked seeing <name> naked."
"<name> will defiantly be riding a dragon by the end of the show."

If you want to bring up specifics, ask about one of the following events:
The Red Wedding -- bad/sad
Hodor's (hoe-door) death -- topical
Joffrey Baratheon's assassination -- good

With these few phrases and topics you can totes trick the clothes off any woman and hump a baby into her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 03, 2016, 02:07:23 PM
Or look deep in her eyes as you say "You know noothing, <insert chick's name>". She'll be putty in your hands, Thork, putty!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 03, 2016, 02:52:05 PM
Thork, they are fucking with you. You can’t wing this with a few names, this is an immersive obsession, she will have all sorts of theories about who is related to whom and how it’s going to end. You will mutter something about dragons and she will ask you which family do you think the guy the wood nymphs staked to the crying tree to make the white walkers, hails from, or if you think the Stark Dire wolves should have all been called Kenny and your muteness coupled with the panic in your eyes will mark you as a pretender to Westeros law.

Now I’m guessing this woman has a sense of humour, but this will not come over as anything other than desperation, she will start to notice things, the faint stains on your jacket the cheapness of your shoes and the masturbation calluses and you will last as long as Gared did.   
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on June 03, 2016, 03:58:06 PM
Thork, they are fucking with you. You can’t wing this with a few names, this is an immersive obsession, she will have all sorts of theories about who is related to whom and how it’s going to end. You will mutter something about dragons and she will ask you which family do you think the guy the wood nymphs staked to the crying tree to make the white walkers, hails from, or if you think the Stark Dire wolves should have all been called Kenny and your muteness coupled with the panic in your eyes will mark you as a pretender to Westeros law.

Now I’m guessing this woman has a sense of humour, but this will not come over as anything other than desperation, she will start to notice things, the faint stains on your jacket the cheapness of your shoes and the masturbation calluses and you will last as long as Gared did.

Or, she'll find it cute and endearing that he tried to learn about something that she's interested in. Fuck off Jura, have you even seen Game of Thrones?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 03, 2016, 04:48:51 PM
Or, she'll find it cute and endearing that he tried to learn about something that she's interested in. Fuck off Jura, have you even seen Game of Thrones?
If he were really trying to learn about it then yes, that would be the case.

Thork should read the asoiaf reddit.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Thork on June 04, 2016, 07:42:17 PM
she will ask you which family do you think the guy the wood nymphs staked to the crying tree to make the white walkers, hails from, or if you think the Stark Dire wolves should have all been called Kenny and your muteness coupled with the panic in your eyes will mark you as a pretender to Westeros law.
Do you people hear yourselves? This is utter gibberish. It would be bad enough watching this junk to understand its plot lines, without the incredibly tedious task of having to talk about them afterwards.

Is it possible to disconnect people from this awful show? IE - stop them watching ... ie save them? Has that ever happened? Do you know anyone who ... just stopped watching? I could save her and get her into something else, like Taylor Swift or the Eurovsion Song contest.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 04, 2016, 08:28:46 PM
A number of feminists quit watching last year over one rape too many.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2016, 08:43:48 PM
A number of feminists quit watching last year over one rape too many.

I still don't understand the controversy behind this. Ramsay is exactly the kind of person that would have no problem at all sticking his dick in something that didn't consent. In my opinion, it would have been more unrealistic for him to have not raped her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 06, 2016, 03:58:19 AM
A number of feminists quit watching last year over one rape too many.

I still don't understand the controversy behind this. Ramsay is exactly the kind of person that would have no problem at all sticking his dick in something that didn't consent. In my opinion, it would have been more unrealistic for him to have not raped her.

It had nothing to do with it seeming out of character or unrealistic, it's that it was a crude, exploitative scene about a very sensitive subject that was only there for shock value and didn't advance the story at all.  Come to think of it, that could probably describe almost all of the show's attempts to match Martin by coming up with shocking twists of its own.  You can tell which ones the show invented by how little they add to the story.  Sansa was already in deep trouble just by being stuck with the Boltons; she didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  And Stannis burning Shireen wasn't critical to his defeat (despite the show's last-minute attempt to convince us otherwise); the battle was doomed when his army was stealthily trashed by Ramsay and his dream team of Solid Snake, Max Payne, the Master Chief, Marcus Fenix, Doomguy, Sam Fisher, Agent 47, Corvo Attano, Geralt of Rivia, Aragorn, Batman, the Punisher, John Wick, the Man with No Name, Max Rockatansky, Boba Fett, Harry Callahan (that's right, two Eastwood characters), Chuck Norris, The Raid's Rama, and John Matrix.

Anyway, woo, the Hound is back!  I rolled my eyes at the Arya bit, though.  It wasn't just incredibly clichéd (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoEscapeButDown) and predictable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoOneCouldSurviveThat), it makes the Faceless Men look laughably incompetent after how much they've been hyped up as such brilliant assassins.  Seriously, I expect better from GoT than '80s action movie cheese.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 06, 2016, 04:04:55 AM
Sansa was already in deep trouble just by being stuck with the Boltons; she didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation. 

She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 06, 2016, 12:12:34 PM
She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.
Eh, not really. Especially when book Sansa is in the Vale and learning to be a Lady Littlefinger. This whole divergence from the books pissed me off more than anything the show has done.. well except maybe for the Sand Snakes.

I guess it's justifiable in that every one of Ramsay's scenes has been for shock value, but it is possible to imply things without showing them to the extent that they do. But aside from that, the whole storyline wasn't even necessary.

I rolled my eyes at the Arya bit, though.  It wasn't just incredibly clichéd (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoEscapeButDown) and predictable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoOneCouldSurviveThat), it makes the Faceless Men look laughably incompetent after how much they've been hyped up as such brilliant assassins.  Seriously, I expect better from GoT than '80s action movie cheese.
Yeah, but we're supposed to know that Arya is also a pretty badass almost Faceless Man. If they could kill her as easily as anyone else then all that training would have been absolutely worthless.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 06, 2016, 12:19:30 PM
She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.

If it seemed inevitable, it's because it was written that way.  The writers were responsible for the events that led up to that moment as well as the moment itself.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 06, 2016, 12:58:24 PM
Saddam, are you saying writers should never write things that result in undesirable outcomes for story characters?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 06, 2016, 01:56:24 PM
OH, I want to add - the Waif probably wasn't trying to kill Arya quickly. I don't think she would follow Jaqen's instructions to kill her with mercy. This would have given Arya the time to escape as she did.

And it's likely this was Waif's big test because "no one" wouldn't have a grudge against Arya just because she was born a Lady. Maybe now Jaqen will kill her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on June 06, 2016, 03:14:18 PM
Yeah, but we're supposed to know that Arya is also a pretty badass almost Faceless Man. If they could kill her as easily as anyone else then all that training would have been absolutely worthless.

I think all the training is already absolutely worthless. She seemed to learn nothing from them. Maybe a little bit of stick-fighting, but surely not nearly as good as the Waif. Everything she learned could have been attributed to what Syrio or the Hound taught her. She didn't learn how to change faces or anything supernatural, at best she picked up a bit more combat skills? Worthless, I say!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 06, 2016, 04:47:17 PM
Nah, I think she learned some sweet skills. That nice little roll over the bridge being one of them. Others would include better fighting skills, stealth, and observation.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 06, 2016, 08:13:03 PM
She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.

If it seemed inevitable, it's because it was written that way.  The writers were responsible for the events that led up to that moment as well as the moment itself.

I literally don't understand your position. Do you have the same problem with the dozens of depictions of rape in the books, too, or are you making some distinction I'm not seeing?  ???

Also I think GRRM himself deserves credit for making Ramsay a despicable monster, not the show's writers.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 06, 2016, 10:33:14 PM
You're acting like there were only two options for the writers:

a. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then let the rape happen

b. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then at the last minute not let the rape happen even though it makes no sense, confusing the audience

Nobody is arguing in favor of the second option.  It was the writers' decision that Ramsay and Sansa would end up in a bedchamber with him ready to rape her, and if the show was going to avoid depicting a rape, that's a scene they probably would have changed.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on June 07, 2016, 12:54:48 AM
You're acting like there were only two options for the writers:

a. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then let the rape happen

b. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then at the last minute not let the rape happen even though it makes no sense, confusing the audience

Nobody is arguing in favor of the second option.  It was the writers' decision that Ramsay and Sansa would end up in a bedchamber with him ready to rape her, and if the show was going to avoid depicting a rape, that's a scene they probably would have changed.

Saddam, are you saying writers should never write things that result in undesirable outcomes for story characters?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 07, 2016, 01:19:19 AM
Yes, that is literally what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 07, 2016, 02:24:35 AM
You're acting like there were only two options for the writers:

a. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then let the rape happen

b. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then at the last minute not let the rape happen even though it makes no sense, confusing the audience

Nobody is arguing in favor of the second option.  It was the writers' decision that Ramsay and Sansa would end up in a bedchamber with him ready to rape her, and if the show was going to avoid depicting a rape, that's a scene they probably would have changed.

I don't think this addresses my question at all, and I'm going to explain why.  You can just as easily argue that GRRM could have avoided all the depictions of Dothraki raping women if he wanted to by not having Dany marry Khal Drogo.  He could have very easily written a nice little story about life in the Middle Ages (I know it's not technically, of course, but Martin is on record as saying that this is what he was specifically trying to evoke) and ignored the fact that rape was a common occurrence in such brutal times, but he chose not to (indeed, not whitewashing history was important to him), and it gave depth to the story. 

So we get to Ramsay and Sansa.  The writers didn't have to marry Sansa off to Ramsay, of course... but it definitely helped to move the story along.  I get the idea that you think Ramsay raping Sansa was gratuitous, but once they made the decision about the marriage, they made it an inevitability.  It would have been toothless and cowardly to pretend that it wasn't happening.  And furthermore, his actions toward Sansa are having definite implications now; just two episodes ago even, when Sansa refused Littlefinger's help for putting her in that position.

So the rape served the story.

And it was therefore not only inevitable, but not in the least gratuitous.

Again, if you are drawing a distinction between GRRM brutally depicting rape in the books and Benioff and Weiss doing it on the show, I'd love to understand where that distinction lies.  I'm not seeing it.

She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.
Eh, not really. Especially when book Sansa is in the Vale and learning to be a Lady Littlefinger. This whole divergence from the books pissed me off more than anything the show has done.. well except maybe for the Sand Snakes.

Seriously?  I applaud the change more than most that they've made.  Sansa's storyline in the Vale was a real snoozer.  But it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much that they showed a rape (or "one rape too many" as George put it) on the show, but rather that they changed what you apparently considered to be a riveting and compelling storyline.  Which is fair enough, but aim your shots where they belong.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 07, 2016, 03:46:48 AM
i think both are true.  i think it's true that there's real value to being honest about the cruelty that really existed in that time period.  i also think it's true that choice to depict that violence, and the manner in which is is depicted, justifiable or not, can have a plethora of negative effects on some viewers, especially when it comes to sexual violence. 

i don't think there's anything wrong with writing/displaying cruelty, but i also don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing it.  if anything i think there always ought to be a voice that asks us if our displays of cruelty, even confined to their respective contexts, are morally justifiable, even if we can never reach a consensus opinion.  maybe especially because we can never reach a consensus opinion.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 07, 2016, 12:18:59 PM
Seriously?  I applaud the change more than most that they've made.  Sansa's storyline in the Vale was a real snoozer.  But it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much that they showed a rape (or "one rape too many" as George put it) on the show, but rather that they changed what you apparently considered to be a riveting and compelling storyline.  Which is fair enough, but aim your shots where they belong.
Yeah, I guess rape is way more exciting.

And.. I definitely did aim my shots? That's why I said I disliked the whole divergence which would make the rape a moot point.

Are you going to defend how necessary Jaime/Cersei rape was next? GRRM depicts rape, but not to the extent or randomness that the show does. It ruins characters in the show. Jaime wouldn't rape Cersei.. just as Sansa never should have been in a position to be raped. Now she's just "I'm hard cause I'm tired of being a victim" as opposed to book Sansa who is a clever manipulative woman.. not broken. Sansa is supposed to be charming and warm, now she's a generic cold hardass. yawn
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 08, 2016, 12:04:30 AM
Yeah, but we're supposed to know that Arya is also a pretty badass almost Faceless Man. If they could kill her as easily as anyone else then all that training would have been absolutely worthless.

I think all the training is already absolutely worthless. She seemed to learn nothing from them. Maybe a little bit of stick-fighting, but surely not nearly as good as the Waif. Everything she learned could have been attributed to what Syrio or the Hound taught her. She didn't learn how to change faces or anything supernatural, at best she picked up a bit more combat skills? Worthless, I say!

Arya did learn how to wash dead bodies though. There'll be plenty of dead bodies to wash back in Westeros, so perhaps she could start her own business.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 13, 2016, 08:01:53 PM
Didn't really like this latest episode.  Tweaking around the Riverrun storyline the way they did didn't sit right with me.  Seeing the Brotherhood of Banners again was cool, but seeing how Beric is still there, it doesn't seem likely that they're going to be introducing Lady Stoneheart at this stage.  And the Arya subplot was terrible, just terrible.  No, you don't get to do an off-screen moment of badassery when she has yet to demonstrate said badassery in the first place!  Seriously, the Waif has spent the whole season kicking Arya's ass, and now at the last minute they think they can cut away and we'll just imagine that this time it went differently?  Bah.  Also, we have a preview for the next episode, which will presumably be set entirely in Winterfell, similar to how other seasons have set their penultimate episodes entirely at the scene of big battles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOzsR8Pk3TE

I seriously hope they kill off Ramsay.  I've had enough of him, and I suspect so has everyone else.  I suppose we'll have to see him personally kill Wun-Wun first, though, because he's just that awesome amirite.  All jokes aside, Wun-Wun probably will die, and Littlefinger will probably ride in at the last minute to save the day with reinforcements from the Vale.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on June 13, 2016, 08:27:05 PM
And the Arya subplot was terrible, just terrible.  No, you don't get to do an off-screen moment of badassery when she has yet to demonstrate said badassery in the first place!  Seriously, the Waif has spent the whole season kicking Arya's ass, and now at the last minute they think they can cut away and we'll just imagine that this time it went differently?  Bah.

The badassery was off-screen because it was in the dark. Since she was blind for a while, Arya has experience fighting without vision. The Waif has always been sighted, so being in the dark gave Arya the advantage. Which is extra satisfying because the Waif is the one who kept beating up a fucking blind girl and made Arya learn to fight without vision in the first place.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 13, 2016, 08:53:32 PM
The badassery was off-screen because it was in the dark.

It was off-screen for dramatic effect.  Just because the characters can't see doesn't mean that we, the viewers, shouldn't be able to see.

Quote
Since she was blind for a while, Arya has experience fighting without vision. The Waif has always been sighted, so being in the dark gave Arya the advantage. Which is extra satisfying because the Waif is the one who kept beating up a fucking blind girl and made Arya learn to fight without vision in the first place.

I get that, but it's not like it would have been such an easy fight for her that we didn't need to see how it went down.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on June 13, 2016, 09:27:39 PM
The badassery was off-screen because it was in the dark.

It was off-screen for dramatic effect.  Just because the characters can't see doesn't mean that we, the viewers, shouldn't be able to see.

I know it was for dramatic effect. I thought that was made clear when you first brought this up, and I'm not disagreeing with that. It seemed that you were saying that that dramatic effect wasn't deserved. And I'm saying it is, because of the whole advantage of the dark thing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 13, 2016, 11:55:09 PM
i agree with mollete.  personally, i thought that was the perfect way to execute that scene. for one thing, it's a kind of visual representation of what just happened to the waif and what arya is now capable of.  it's not that they omitted some cool action sequence or fight scene that arya won.  it represents how the waif experienced that scene: the light went out, and she was dead just as quickly.  and, that's all the more reason to leave the details to your imagination.  i don't want every little detail of everything that happens to be shoved down my throat.  the way that scene plays out in my head after the candle falls is just so much cooler than anything they could've showed me on screen.

saddam i seriously don't get why you watch this show.  all you do is complain about it and talk about how awful and terrible it is.  i mean, if they'd showed arya killing the waif, then you'd absolutely be in here complaining about what a terrible scene it was and how they didn't do it right and etc...
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 14, 2016, 02:42:05 AM
I agree with mollete too.  Arya was used to not being able to see when fighting the Waif.  She leveled the playing field by snuffing the candle.  It's really all we needed to know.  I don't think it was a cheat at all.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on June 14, 2016, 03:25:41 AM
To be fair, I didn't get it at first. I was sitting there trying to figure out if the cut was just a dumb cop-out or if there was something I wasn't getting. I remembered that Arya had been blind when I was in the shower later, because that's where all of life's great revelations occur.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Pongo on June 14, 2016, 01:30:03 PM
saddam i seriously don't get why you watch this show.  all you do is complain about it and talk about how awful and terrible it is.  i mean, if they'd showed arya killing the waif, then you'd absolutely be in here complaining about what a terrible scene it was and how they didn't do it right and etc...

You should hear him deride the capeshit that he cannot live without.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 14, 2016, 04:21:37 PM
I'm getting pretty conflicted about the show.

The writers are relying too much on reveals and epic moments and pretty much trashing any good character arcs or substantial plot.
This season has had some great moments, but overall it feels pretty hollow.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 20, 2016, 03:48:44 AM
saddam i seriously don't get why you watch this show.  all you do is complain about it and talk about how awful and terrible it is.  i mean, if they'd showed arya killing the waif, then you'd absolutely be in here complaining about what a terrible scene it was and how they didn't do it right and etc...

Me, nitpick and complain endlessly about something that I claim to enjoy?  Well, I'll be, I am acting completely out of character!

I have no complaints about this episode, though, despite my predictions turning out to be right.  Seeing poor Wun-Wun die was far more distressing to me than seeing Rickon go.  I loved the sheer insanity of the battle, from the black comedy to the claustrophobic air of panic and chaos, and thank fucking God, Ramsay didn't ruin everything with a sudden case of plot armor.  I really liked that his final confrontation with Jon was a one-sided beatdown, rather than a prolonged "boss battle" of sorts (like the fight with Karl back in the fourth season), and his ultimate fate was pure poetic justice.  And then Sansa is all like:

(http://i.imgur.com/OBH0aT2.gif)

The Meereen subplot was good too.  Dat budget.  But I will be very annoyed if the next episode doesn't include everyone finally going to Westeros.  I seriously won't be able to stand another season of tedium in Meereen.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 20, 2016, 12:14:13 PM
I'm all about that Meereen plot. Dany is so awesome.
I will never understand why people prefer emo Jon Snow to alpha af Dany. Every time she's on screen I just wanna yell "yasss kween!"

PS: Soooo fucking glad Tormund didn't die. I don't think my heart could have taken it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 20, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
best episode yet.  i was initially perturbed when it became clear that jon was going to lose and the vale would have to bail them out, but it was totally worth it to get to see the battle of cannae. 

PS: Soooo fucking glad Tormund didn't die. I don't think my heart could have taken it.

also this.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 20, 2016, 04:13:56 PM
I'm all about that Meereen plot. Dany is so awesome.
I will never understand why people prefer emo Jon Snow to alpha af Dany. Every time she's on screen I just wanna yell "yasss kween!"

All the more reason why she needs to stop hanging out on the other side of the world and just go to Westeros already.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2016, 09:21:47 PM
She has her fleet, her army, and her three grown dragons. If she is not sailing for Westeros by the end of next episode there is something wrong.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 21, 2016, 12:09:05 AM
Tyrion has turned into a total wimp. Dany was giving him shit over Meereen being attacked after she'd buggered off on the back of a dragon, leaving the city in anarchy and Tyrion to pick up the pieces. He should have told her to fuck right off. Especially since her plan to sort things out was just to set fire to everything with her dragons, same as always.

Also why does anybody follow Jon Snow? He didn't even bother issuing any orders in the battle, he just raced off in the direction of the enemy. He's a complete idiot.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2016, 02:04:59 AM
Rickon's death was basically Darwinian culling.  Did it never occur to him that by running in a straight line he was making himself an easy target?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2016, 12:42:14 PM
Tyrion has turned into a total wimp. Dany was giving him shit over Meereen being attacked after she'd buggered off on the back of a dragon, leaving the city in anarchy and Tyrion to pick up the pieces. He should have told her to fuck right off. Especially since her plan to sort things out was just to set fire to everything with her dragons, same as always.

Also why does anybody follow Jon Snow? He didn't even bother issuing any orders in the battle, he just raced off in the direction of the enemy. He's a complete idiot.
So.. you wanted Tyrion to tell Dany to fuck off? The one person he believes to be a decent ruler and has placed all his hope in? Yeah, aight. He's there to advise, which he did and since she is actually a reasonable person, she listened.

Yep, Jon Snow is fucking retarded and I hate him. I don't even like Sansa at all anymore tbh. I'm still so angry they changed her character from conniving, charismatic, woman to a bitter and cold hardass. Everything she's done has been so generic and predictable.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 21, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
Tyrion has turned into a total wimp. Dany was giving him shit over Meereen being attacked after she'd buggered off on the back of a dragon, leaving the city in anarchy and Tyrion to pick up the pieces. He should have told her to fuck right off. Especially since her plan to sort things out was just to set fire to everything with her dragons, same as always.

Also why does anybody follow Jon Snow? He didn't even bother issuing any orders in the battle, he just raced off in the direction of the enemy. He's a complete idiot.
So.. you wanted Tyrion to tell Dany to fuck off? The one person he believes to be a decent ruler and has placed all his hope in? Yeah, aight. He's there to advise, which he did and since she is actually a reasonable person, she listened.

Yep, Jon Snow is fucking retarded and I hate him. I don't even like Sansa at all anymore tbh. I'm still so angry they changed her character from conniving, charismatic, woman to a bitter and cold hardass. Everything she's done has been so generic and predictable.

Yeah, I really don't like TV Dany. She's surrounded by sycophants, she keeps going on about her dragons all the time, most of her dialogue is either "do you know who I am?" moments or threatening to destroy anybody who doesn't kiss her arse, and her long term plan is to invade Westeros with dragons and an army of village burning slave taking rapists. She's a monster. If Tyrion had any integrity he would shoot her while she's on the toilet.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2016, 02:28:18 PM
Book Dany intended to invade Westeros with her army of  village burning slave taking rapists from the moment she asserted her independence from Viseris. And the dragons from the moment they hatched. Honestly I'm not seeing the distinction between Book Dany and Show Dany's plans that you seem to be drawing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 21, 2016, 03:52:20 PM
Book Dany intended to invade Westeros with her army of  village burning slave taking rapists from the moment she asserted her independence from Viseris. And the dragons from the moment they hatched. Honestly I'm not seeing the distinction between Book Dany and Show Dany's plans that you seem to be drawing.

I don't like book Dany that much either, really. At least she seems more human and fallible though. Show Dany is more of a Mary Sue character who seems to succeed at everything. The books are also far more subjective, you only read about Dany from her own perspective, so there's always the possibility that she might not be the great leader that she thinks she is, and her perception of events are biased. The TV show loses that aspect of the narrative.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
Succeeds at everything? Did you forget she had to run from her homeland, her family was murdered, she had a twisted cruel brother, moved from place to place, was forced into marriage, lost her child, lost her husband, her loyal friends were murdered, and had to deal with the Sons of the Harpy constantly trying to undermine everything she's done in Meereen?

The only thing she's "succeeded" at is hatching dragons and has only NOW finally gotten her army and ships.
She's a fucking Targaryen. The mother of dragons. She's a total badass that keeps fighting for what she knows is right: freeing slaves and taking Westeros.
She's made a lot of mistakes, so definitely not a Mary Sue. But she can ride dragons which is a huge advantage, I spose people hate her for that.  ::)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 21, 2016, 05:13:26 PM
Succeeds at everything? Did you forget she had to run from her homeland, her family was murdered, she had a twisted cruel brother, moved from place to place, was forced into marriage, lost her child, lost her husband, her loyal friends were murdered, and had to deal with the Sons of the Harpy constantly trying to undermine everything she's done in Meereen?

The only thing she's "succeeded" at is hatching dragons and has only NOW finally gotten her army and ships.
She's a fucking Targaryen. The mother of dragons. She's a total badass that keeps fighting for what she knows is right: freeing slaves and taking Westeros.
She's made a lot of mistakes, so definitely not a Mary Sue. But she can ride dragons which is a huge advantage, I spose people hate her for that.  ::)

She somehow learned how to do blood magic to hatch the dragons, she somehow learned how to be immune to fire, she somehow learned how to control the dragons which previously seemed out of control. Everybody is insanely loyal to her, in a series where all of the other characters seem to stab each other in the back. Her only strategy seems to be identify an authority figure and then set them on fire, and then all of their supporters will automatically follow her without question. She doesn't even have any friends, just people to kiss her arse, and if some of them die, she just gets more.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2016, 05:37:15 PM
She somehow learned how to do blood magic to hatch the dragons, she somehow learned how to be immune to fire, she somehow learned how to control the dragons which previously seemed out of control. Everybody is insanely loyal to her, in a series where all of the other characters seem to stab each other in the back. Her only strategy seems to be identify an authority figure and then set them on fire, and then all of their supporters will automatically follow her without question. She doesn't even have any friends, just people to kiss her arse, and if some of them die, she just gets more.
Sounds like you missed a lot.

She didn't learn blood magic, she only burnt a witch and then walked into fire with her eggs. She didn't learn how to be immune to fire, that's a trait some Targaryens have. We know from Tyrion that dragons are exceptionally intelligent, so communicating with them might not be as difficult as you'd think. They recognize their "mother" since they imprint when hatched as was pretty obvious from the earlier seasons. She also taught them commands early on, "dracarys" being one of them.

She inspires loyalty because she is a good person. She kills violent and cruel people, usually slavers or to you a random "authority figure", to free their slaves and in return the slaves adore her. It's really not that complicated. In the case of the Dothraki, they respect strength and bravado, so Dany is right up their alley. She has the strongest claim to the throne, is riding the first dragon in over 100 years, and is a badass. Again, really not too hard to see why she inspires allegiance.

Her handmaidens, Jorah, Ser Barristan, her bloodriders, and Missandei could all be called friends. But it doesn't matter. Having friends isn't a requisite for a good character in this show since almost no one has friends.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 21, 2016, 05:43:27 PM
Book Dany is definitely a lot more nuanced than show Dany.  I'm not a fan of the Meereen subplot in the books, because it's slow, boring, never goes anywhere, and Martin had a very annoying tendency to immediately end the chapter whenever something interesting was about to happen and begin a new one after the interesting event was over, but at least she was getting some character development out of it as she discovered that ruling is far more complicated than conquering and that killing isn't the solution to every problem.  I don't blame the show for wanting to spice that up a bit, but they had almost the exact opposite problem that Martin had - instead of skipping over the action to get to the politics, they kept skipping over the politics to get to the action.  Or else just delegating the politics to Tyrion.  And without any decent context to the action, it's hard to get invested in it.  I don't really feel that Dany has grown as a ruler since she conquered Meereen.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 21, 2016, 07:41:13 PM
I don't really feel that Dany has grown as a ruler since she conquered Meereen.
This is definitely true.

Taking Tyrion on as an advisor seems to be the only good ruling decision she's made. Aside from that, she's very much a small picture kind of person and hasn't been doing a good job ruling for the long haul. This would be another failing of hers, which goes against a successful Mary Sue.

She has the ruthlessness of a Targaryen and has a good heart, but needs wise advisors around her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 27, 2016, 02:56:18 AM
WHAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

The finale was awesome and completely batshit at the same time.  They confirmed R+L=J!  They confirmed Frey pies, albeit in a different context to the books!  They gave us another wildfire explosion, for which I'm eagerly awaiting the gifs turning it into a greentext explosion of implications.  And Dany is finally heading to Westeros, assuming that the next season doesn't start with her being forced to dock in Qarth or something stupid like that.  Now we just need to wait another year.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 27, 2016, 04:00:21 AM
that was definitely my favorite episode of the series so far
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 27, 2016, 12:22:37 PM
I might have squeaked a few times while watching it.

So good. But why the fuck did Cersei go all Micheal Jackson? That was the dumbest outfit I've ever seen in the show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2016, 12:50:31 PM
I thought the finale was the best episode of the season. Cersei's revenge was very satisfying.

If I was Sansa, I would be mad as fuck that a Bastard gets to rule House Stark. Maybe there is some backstory I don't know,but they could have established a triplet of Queen's that would have nice.

Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 27, 2016, 01:43:32 PM
i can't wait for jaime to kill cersei.  that shit is going to be satisfying af.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 27, 2016, 01:47:29 PM
If I was Sansa, I would be mad as fuck that a Bastard gets to rule House Stark.
Why? She has more maneuverability now. There's a lot of restriction that comes with leadership. Also, she loves Jon. She was just saying how she sees him as a Stark and wanted him to have the master bedroom.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2016, 03:10:46 PM
If I was Sansa, I would be mad as fuck that a Bastard gets to rule House Stark.
Why? She has more maneuverability now. There's a lot of restriction that comes with leadership. Also, she loves Jon. She was just saying how she sees him as a Stark and wanted him to have the master bedroom.

Maneuverability to do what?  Her whole goal after fleeing King's Landing was to take back Winterfell, and once done, she just moves on?  I don't know, it seems like John is the one who needs maneuverability to deal with the coming battle with the Night King.   
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on June 27, 2016, 08:52:38 PM
Maneuverability to do what?  Her whole goal after fleeing King's Landing was to take back Winterfell, and once done, she just moves on?  I don't know, it seems like John is the one who needs maneuverability to deal with the coming battle with the Night King.   
Nah, he doesn't need maneuverability for that. All he needs to do is unite people for the fight.

Sansa is going to be a good manipulator, just watch. She'll handle things behind the scenes and she'll be able to leave Winterfell to do this. I bet she's the one to stop Little Finger in his never ending quest for power. A quest that might take them both to King's Landing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on June 27, 2016, 10:21:50 PM
Forgive me for being dense, but why was Arya able to change faces? I thought she lost her chance at being able to do that when she renounced her no-oneness.

That moment was hella satisfying, though. Plus imagine how stoked she's going to be when she hears that Jon and Sansa are back in Winterfell. ;D
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on June 27, 2016, 10:59:09 PM
Arya's storyline has felt all kinds of wrong to me this season, as I'm sure everyone here has already picked up on.  It feels too neat and clean, in a very un-GoT sort of way.  Maybe I'm mixing up the lore of the books and the show, but I recall it being made very clear that the Faceless Men are not there to teach assassination skills to people who are "just passing through."  They regard what they do and how they do it as a solemn religious duty, and the abuse of it as sacrilege.  I don't see them letting Arya go, I really don't.  Well, let me put it this way - I highly doubt it'll be as amicable a parting in the books.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on June 27, 2016, 11:50:30 PM
Arya's storyline has felt all kinds of wrong to me this season, as I'm sure everyone here has already picked up on.  It feels too neat and clean, in a very un-GoT sort of way.  Maybe I'm mixing up the lore of the books and the show, but I recall it being made very clear that the Faceless Men are not there to teach assassination skills to people who are "just passing through."  They regard what they do and how they do it as a solemn religious duty, and the abuse of it as sacrilege.  I don't see them letting Arya go, I really don't.  Well, let me put it this way - I highly doubt it'll be as amicable a parting in the books.

unless the faceless men never intended to make arya a faceless man in the first place.  i don't buy that arya stark just happened to cross paths with jaqen in westeros.  i think the faceless men went looking for and found her.

the actor who plays jaqen basically said as much in an interview, and it also makes a lot of sense in terms of what we know about the faceless men.  here's an example: jaqen sends arya to the docks for her first assignment, and when arya asks what she's looking for, jaqen replies that he wouldn't send her if he knew what she would see.  when arya reports back, jaqen clearly knows all about the lender, and when arya points out that he obviously did know what she would see, he basically says that it was a play on words; he knew what was waiting, but lol didn't kno if ud see it or not.  in other words, there are lots of hints that the faceless men, either through observation and deduction, some magic, or both, are keenly aware of at least some future events.  in this books this is even more clear with all the stuff about their obsession with collecting information.

in other words, i think the whole point of the faceless men trials was not to get arya to become no one; it was the exact opposite, to equip her to be arya stark of winterfell.  she's vital to the endgame.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on June 28, 2016, 12:10:48 AM
I don't see them letting Arya go, I really don't.  Well, let me put it this way - I highly doubt it'll be as amicable a parting in the books.

Well, it's not like it was entirely amicable. They did try to kill her, after all. I thought that her being able to best the Waif is what earned her her life and her place among the Faceless Men (I forget exactly what the guy said but it was something like "You're here, and she's up there. Congratulations, you are now No One."), but then she was like "lol no fuq you." And I assumed her being like "lol no fuq you" and rejecting the Faceless Men meant rejecting all the powers/skills that come with it, but I guess not.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2016, 01:04:13 AM
I think what she was rejecting was leaving her identity behind in favor of serving as a faceless one. She had people to kill and for good reasons. She had no desire to run around assassinating actresses for petty vendettas.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on June 28, 2016, 01:55:00 AM
Aww, you know what I just realized? Dany won't be the first female leader of Westeros anymore. Cersei took that away from her.

Also I'm surprised that Cersei was so quickly chosen to be Queen without any debate.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on June 28, 2016, 02:52:51 AM
They seemed to have skipped over a lot of details in that episode.  I don't care, that was the best finale and this is the best season yet.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: The Terror on June 28, 2016, 10:02:36 AM
There seemed to be a pretty strong feminist message in the finale, with Cersei taking the throne, the Daenerys, Olenna Tyrell, Sandsnakes and Yara Greyjoy alliance emerging, and characters like Theon and Tyrion going a bit wimpy and subservient. I guess Benioff and Weiss have been stung by the criticism of all the rapey stuff in the past couple of seasons.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2016, 11:30:09 AM
Aww, you know what I just realized? Dany won't be the first female leader of Westeros anymore. Cersei took that away from her.

Also I'm surprised that Cersei was so quickly chosen to be Queen without any debate.

I think they let her have it because she just blew up the Queen, a bunch of the ranking nobles and the hierarchy of the church along with countless peasants. They were probably shitting their pants. + #themountain

I had no problem with it whatsoever. Although it begs the question, who would be the rightful heir, if we assumed British succession protocols?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: trekky0623 on June 28, 2016, 12:16:19 PM
I had no problem with it whatsoever. Although it begs the question, who would be the rightful heir, if we assumed British succession protocols?

The rightful heir at this time should really be Daenerys. Robert's claim to the throne was the marriage of his grandparents, Ormund Baratheon and Rhaelle Targaryen. The whole Baratheon line is dead, so if we backtrack to this marriage and then follow the Targaryen line down, the only person left and the closest heir to Tommen is Daenerys, Tommen's second cousin once removed.

If this were CK2, though, I'd definitely put money on Jaime before Cersei.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on June 29, 2016, 03:51:57 PM
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/13501773_1349759528385496_4243441324761864773_n.jpg?oh=02a017dba2aeb51f4346a212e15576a3&oe=57FA9812)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on July 03, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
If I was Sansa, I would be mad as fuck that a Bastard gets to rule House Stark.
Why? She has more maneuverability now. There's a lot of restriction that comes with leadership. Also, she loves Jon. She was just saying how she sees him as a Stark and wanted him to have the master bedroom.

She never said he would be the only one in it. :^)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: mollete on July 04, 2016, 02:08:17 AM
Also, she loves Jon. She was just saying how she sees him as a Stark and wanted him to have the master bedroom.

She never said he would be the only one in it. :^)

I guess now that it's (basically) confirmed that they're cousins instead of half-siblings, shipping them is slightly less bad...

(http://i.imgur.com/cCmhG7a.gif)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on July 04, 2016, 12:47:52 PM
But now when Jon marries Dany it's going to be weird.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on October 12, 2016, 10:40:59 PM
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-10-11/david-oyelowo-theres-no-excuse-for-game-of-thrones-to-marginalise-actors-of-colour

The racism.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: George on November 08, 2016, 01:49:45 AM
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-entire-plot-of-the-next-season-of-game-of-thrones-s-1788659452

:-\
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 09, 2017, 04:18:05 AM
>tfw nobody is talking about this season

I started to write a thing complaining about Arya's skills again, and then the ending happened and holy shit.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Boots on August 09, 2017, 05:34:14 AM
Arya is awesome!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on August 09, 2017, 12:29:56 PM
Dany attacking Westeros with her dragons is something I've been waiting years to see, and seeing it actually happen was extremely satisfying. Well done.

Also Arya isn't a little girl anymore and she has been taught how to fight by some of the best in the world and this is a fantasy story, what a weird thing to nitpick.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 09, 2017, 01:35:34 PM
Dany attacking Westeros with her dragons is something I've been waiting years to see, and seeing it actually happen was extremely satisfying. Well done.
It really was. I enjoyed seeing her work with Drogon too. I like when we can see their relationship - it makes "Mother of Dragons" seem more real rather than another title in a long list. The way Drogon trusted her when trying to pull out the arrow and how he defended her back against Jaime.

I love how everyone instantly teleports across Westeros to get where they need to be. Just cut out all the boring shit.

I'm way more excited to watch the series now that big things are happening.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 09, 2017, 04:37:04 PM
Also Arya isn't a little girl anymore and she has been taught how to fight by some of the best in the world

I suppose I'll have to let this go. I just wish that last season they had shown Arya at least holding her own against the Waif in their sparring sessions, rather than it being a one-sided beatdown every time until the climax. I understand what the intention was, but I feel it was very poorly portrayed by the show.

Quote
and this is a fantasy story, what a weird thing to nitpick.

"not interested in discussing how realistic things are in an alternate universe post-apoc game w/ talking mutants and ghouls"

Also, while I like the idea of Bran being more fatalistic and detached, they went a bit overboard turning him that autistic.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 09, 2017, 05:24:53 PM
the arya thing is actually super simple.  brienne is lvl 50.  arya was lvl 50, but then she went to bravos and got that early-release dlc with the bumped level cap, solo'd a few dungeons, and now she's lvl 55 with rare gear.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 09, 2017, 09:47:13 PM
the arya thing is actually super simple.  brienne is lvl 50.  arya was lvl 50, but then she went to bravos and got that early-release dlc with the bumped level cap, solo'd a few dungeons, and now she's lvl 55 with rare gear.

Nah, the problem is that Brienne is a paladin and Arya is a rogue. All things being equal, paladins and warriors will always lose to rogues in single combat.

Also, while I like the idea of Bran being more fatalistic and detached, they went a bit overboard turning him that autistic.

Bran is the equivalent of an innocent child being shown the depth of the internet. He is trapped in the spirit internet and he has lost all concerns for real relationships. He probably has a time-waifu somewhere.

Dany attacking Westeros with her dragons is something I've been waiting years to see, and seeing it actually happen was extremely satisfying. Well done.

Yes, it was about time they splurged on the CGI budget and actually showed what people want to see. Who wants to bet Cersei gets eaten by a dragon?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on August 10, 2017, 06:40:59 PM
I can't wait for those Scorpions to go to work on Dany's dragons. Everyone is expecting her to just sweep the Westeros armies, but this is Game of Thrones. Tragedy will befall her uppity, delicious, Targaryen butt soon.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 10, 2017, 06:54:32 PM
I can't wait for those Scorpions to go to work on Dany's dragons. Everyone is expecting her to just sweep the Westeros armies, but this is Game of Thrones. Tragedy will befall her uppity, delicious, Targaryen butt soon.

I want Littlefinger to win just because of all the nonstop bawwing it will create.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on August 10, 2017, 08:53:15 PM
I refuse to believe that Littlefinger is anything less than a brilliant chessmaster quietly manipulating everyone involved into doing exactly what he wants.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 11, 2017, 01:41:32 PM
The real game of thrones has always been between Littlefinger and Varys. Everyone else is just a piece on their board.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 11, 2017, 05:49:09 PM
Who wants to bet Cersei gets eaten by a dragon?
Nah, Jaime is totally going to kill her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 12, 2017, 01:22:04 AM
Who wants to bet Cersei gets eaten by a dragon?
Nah, Jaime is totally going to kill her.

That'd be pretty boring compared to eaten-by-dragon.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 12, 2017, 02:39:01 PM
The real game of thrones has always been between Littlefinger and Varys. Everyone else is just a piece on their board.

#comradevarys

(https://i.redd.it/i9q73igy40cz.jpg)

Nah, Jaime is totally going to kill her.

totally this.  only jaime can kill the mad queen.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on August 13, 2017, 01:37:22 AM
I can't wait for those Scorpions to go to work on Dany's dragons. Everyone is expecting her to just sweep the Westeros armies, but this is Game of Thrones. Tragedy will befall her uppity, delicious, Targaryen butt soon.

I want Littlefinger to win just because of all the nonstop bawwing it will create.

The white walkers are going to win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7VuGknEfQY
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 14, 2017, 03:31:51 AM
fuck that episode was dope as fuck af

The white walkers are going to win.

nope
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on August 14, 2017, 09:13:33 PM
fuck that episode was dope as fuck af

The white walkers are going to win.

nope

This is Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2017, 01:45:25 AM
fuck that episode was dope as fuck af

The white walkers are going to win.

nope

This is Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings.

You have to admit that Game of Thrones has always had a general "good guy wins" vibe to it. There's a lot of bad things happening to good people, and sometimes the villain gets away with it, but ultimately the "good" tends to win out despite the odds.

Just take a look at Dany. A completely inexperienced 14 year old who gets out of situation after situation sitting on what is (usually) the moral high ground. The stars line up for her to get out of any and all situations, including the burning of a small hut that was filled with the most powerful warlords in the region who just sort of stood around and got burned up inside a hut with nothing but a wooden door holding them in.

I can see it now:

One, or all of Dany's dragons are going to die. One will likely die fighting the nightking and be turned into some kind of undead ice dragon. It will then fight the other two, likely killing all three in the process.

Dany and Jon are going to get married. Probably after they find out they're related. Dany is already suspicious of Jon because her dragon obviously liked him, something that wouldn't occur were he a normal human.

Jon is fireproof, at some point he'll probably get stuck in a fire with Dany and all of Emilia Clarke's clothes will come right off (oh no!)

The Lord of Light is some kind of dragon god.

And my favorite: Cersei gets eaten by a dragon.

Edit: also something really bugs me about the whole half-dragon thing of the Targaryen ever explained? How is it that they're half-dragon? I'm betting the Lord of Light gave them this ability somehow, otherwise we have to assume the biological route, which is, uhh, well it's better than the incest I guess.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 15, 2017, 03:48:53 AM
Edit: also something really bugs me about the whole half-dragon thing of the Targaryen ever explained? How is it that they're half-dragon? I'm betting the Lord of Light gave them this ability somehow, otherwise we have to assume the biological route, which is, uhh, well it's better than the incest I guess.

lore lore lore

They're not literally half-dragon. The ruling families of Valyria had a sort of intuitive magic that allowed them to communicate with and control dragons, which the Targaryens have managed to preserve in their bloodline through hundreds of years of inbreeding. The same magic is what gave Dany her invulnerability to fire. Also, R'hllor, the Lord of Light, doesn't have any real connection to Valyria, the Targaryens, or dragons beyond the shared use of fire.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 15, 2017, 01:31:16 PM
GRRM also stated the ending is bitter sweet. So the White Walkers will lose, but shit will go down.

Jon will probably kill Dany or something. If he is Azor Ahai, then he would have to kill someone he loves. Dany also according to her prophecy, needs to bed someone for love and be betrayed again. So it kinda adds up that he'll kill her - or Drogon maybe.

Jon Snow is not fire proof. Not all Targaryens are.
A dragon getting killed and turned by the Night King is right on the money. I really hope they don't all die though.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 15, 2017, 09:09:48 PM
This is Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings.

i dunno what that means.  it's also not an o henry story.

Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2017, 12:35:12 AM
Edit: also something really bugs me about the whole half-dragon thing of the Targaryen ever explained? How is it that they're half-dragon? I'm betting the Lord of Light gave them this ability somehow, otherwise we have to assume the biological route, which is, uhh, well it's better than the incest I guess.

lore lore lore

They're not literally half-dragon. The ruling families of Valyria had a sort of intuitive magic that allowed them to communicate with and control dragons, which the Targaryens have managed to preserve in their bloodline through hundreds of years of inbreeding. The same magic is what gave Dany her invulnerability to fire. Also, R'hllor, the Lord of Light, doesn't have any real connection to Valyria, the Targaryens, or dragons beyond the shared use of fire.

This is book lore and has very little impact on show lore.

Also, for being born "intuitively magic" they sure do have a lot in common with dragons. Being able to communicate with dragons and also being fireproof sounds awfully "half dragon" to me.

Jon Snow is not fire proof.

You don't know this for sure, unless he got burned or something and I don't remember it.

Also, the "Jaime kills Cersei" path might not happen because Cersei is prego. I mean it's possible he'll kill her anyway, she's nuts, afterall.

Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on August 16, 2017, 04:59:46 AM
fuck that episode was dope as fuck af

The white walkers are going to win.

nope

This is Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings.

You have to admit that Game of Thrones has always had a general "good guy wins" vibe to it. There's a lot of bad things happening to good people, and sometimes the villain gets away with it, but ultimately the "good" tends to win out despite the odds.


They set it up to make it look like the good guys are going to win, and then do a red wedding. I think it's going to end with some of the major characters becoming sentient white walkers/undead (like Benjen), and then they control the armies of the undead as Westeros is forced to rebuild.

Also, one question I have is: are the show's creators working with Georgo to make sure the show plot lines up with what will be in the final book, or are there going to be two separate storylines?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2017, 12:47:07 PM
The Red Wedding happened because Rob stopped being the "good guy", he made several immoral or just plain stupid mistakes in a row and effectively got himself killed. It doesn't go against the "good guy vibe" of the show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 16, 2017, 01:58:53 PM
Jon Snow is not fire proof.

You don't know this for sure, unless he got burned or something and I don't remember it.

Also, the "Jaime kills Cersei" path might not happen because Cersei is prego. I mean it's possible he'll kill her anyway, she's nuts, afterall.
Jon burnt his hand when he was fighting the wight at Castle Black. GRRM himself said not all Targaryens are immune to fire. Which sure, might not be true in the show, but Jon has already been burnt so.

Also, I really really really doubt she's pregnant. I think it's entirely possible she could see she was losing Jaime and made it up. Plus, she only has 3 children based on that gypsy woman's prophecy for her which they did portray in the show so I doubt they'll just throw it out.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 16, 2017, 02:00:56 PM
The Red Wedding happened because Rob stopped being the "good guy", he made several immoral or just plain stupid mistakes in a row and effectively got himself killed. It doesn't go against the "good guy vibe" of the show.
Yes. It really really does. His immoral choice was marrying someone he wasn't supposed to? C'mon.

Many good people have been killed in the show. This isn't a child's cartoon, it's not strict on those rules.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 16, 2017, 07:41:13 PM
The next episode just leaked. It was good overall, and without spoiling anything, it confirms one of the more infamous leaks from last year. The biggest problem is Arya. Her stupid grudge against Sansa makes no sense, and neither does her continued creepy, threatening behavior.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on August 17, 2017, 02:17:08 AM
Anyone know where I can stream this "Game of Thrones" I have been hearing so much about?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Boots on August 17, 2017, 04:36:08 AM
Anyone know where I can stream this "Game of Thrones" I have been hearing so much about?

I would like to know as well. Youtube and google play have seasons 1-6 and season 7 will be available in Sept. But I want it now!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 17, 2017, 04:57:18 AM
This is book lore and has very little impact on show lore.

Well, yeah, of course it's book lore. You've seen the show; you know just as much show lore as we do. But yes, they could change how this works, just like how they changed the Faceless Men to be totally cool with Arya abusing their training and what they see as an important religious duty for her own agenda. I'm not sure why they'd bother in this case, though.

That being said, upon reviewing the (book) lore, I've discovered that I'm giving the dragonlords too much credit. There are a few historical cases of people with no Valyrian lineage who have managed to tame wild dragons. And the dragonlords generally raised and trained their dragons from a very young age - and even then only getting mixed results. It's most likely just mundane animal training, not any kind of magical bond.

The Red Wedding happened because Rob stopped being the "good guy", he made several immoral or just plain stupid mistakes in a row and effectively got himself killed. It doesn't go against the "good guy vibe" of the show.

That is ridiculous. Robb's death, just like Ned's, was shocking and effective precisely because he was so noble. Their fatal errors lay in their judgment, not their character.

Also, one question I have is: are the show's creators working with Georgo to make sure the show plot lines up with what will be in the final book, or are there going to be two separate storylines?

There are already two separate storylines. The creators have said that they know roughly how the books will end and want to match them up by the conclusion, but I doubt that will happen.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 17, 2017, 02:14:41 PM
The next episode just leaked. It was good overall, and without spoiling anything, it confirms one of the more infamous leaks from last year. The biggest problem is Arya. Her stupid grudge against Sansa makes no sense, and neither does her continued creepy, threatening behavior.
Arya is being a stupid smug bitch this season. I'm glad Littlefinger is manipulating her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 18, 2017, 04:02:34 AM
The Red Wedding happened because Rob stopped being the "good guy", he made several immoral or just plain stupid mistakes in a row and effectively got himself killed. It doesn't go against the "good guy vibe" of the show.
Yes. It really really does. His immoral choice was marrying someone he wasn't supposed to? C'mon.

Many good people have been killed in the show. This isn't a child's cartoon, it's not strict on those rules.

The show always killed people after they made some kind of stupid immoral choice. e.g. it killed Ned when he decided to try and circumvent the law with money which got him killed. The only people who do bad things in the show and get away with it are people are pretty much bad 24/7. The good guys that go down a dark path get whacked within a few episodes.

The next episode just leaked. It was good overall, and without spoiling anything, it confirms one of the more infamous leaks from last year. The biggest problem is Arya. Her stupid grudge against Sansa makes no sense, and neither does her continued creepy, threatening behavior.
Arya is being a stupid smug bitch this season. I'm glad Littlefinger is manipulating her.

Arya was always that way, and pretty much always had a massive dislike of Sansa, it seems that every has forgotten what Arya was actually like because she spent the past few seasons joining the Assassins and fighting the Templar.

That is ridiculous. Robb's death, just like Ned's, was shocking and effective precisely because he was so noble. Their fatal errors lay in their judgment, not their character.

Robb was killed precisely because he stopped being so noble. He married some hot nobody just because she had great tits, completely ignoring his pledge to the Freys, then before that he beheaded the lord of the Karstarks for some menial bullshit that his mother advised against entirely (reminder that this is literally the same thing Joffrey did). Robb was going down a path of "do whatever the fuck I want" and discovered that it actually doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Sean on August 18, 2017, 04:20:26 AM
Why does her grudge against sansa make no sense,  from her perspective? 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 18, 2017, 01:04:48 PM
Robb was killed precisely because he stopped being so noble. He married some hot nobody just because she had great tits, completely ignoring his pledge to the Freys, then before that he beheaded the lord of the Karstarks for some menial bullshit that his mother advised against entirely (reminder that this is literally the same thing Joffrey did). Robb was going down a path of "do whatever the fuck I want" and discovered that it actually doesn't work that way.
Because the Karstarks betrayed them and the noble thing to do is to behead traitors.
That wasn't a "do whatever the fuck I want" move. That was justice for treason. Just like Jon had the mutineers hanged and beheaded Janos Slynt. Which is the same thing Ned did.

Honestly, Rushy. Your idea of morals in this world is so fucking off. Who do you think the most moral person on the show is? Missandei? Do you think she'll win?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 18, 2017, 02:47:42 PM
Because the Karstarks betrayed them and the noble thing to do is to behead traitors.
That wasn't a "do whatever the fuck I want" move. That was justice for treason. Just like Jon had the mutineers hanged and beheaded Janos Slynt. Which is the same thing Ned did.

Joffrey beheaded Ned Stark for treason, but I don't think that was very noble, either. Robb made a one dimensional, immoral decision to behead a man for idiotic reasons. When he beheaded Lord Karstark, he caused the deaths of many more men.

Honestly, Rushy. Your idea of morals in this world is so fucking off. Who do you think the most moral person on the show is? Missandei? Do you think she'll win?

Yes, I need more Missandei fanfiction sloppily inserted into the show.

Anyway, I still think Littlefinger is going to win.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 19, 2017, 03:52:57 AM
<Rushy> Saddam: robb wasn't actually very noble
<Saddam> He was a tragic hero in the Shakespearian tradition
<Rushy> he ignored his pledge to a lord and married some hot nobody just because she was hot
<Saddam> He married her because he loved her, you scrub
<Rushy> he also beheaded lord karstark for dumb reasons, basically mimicking what joffrey did
<Saddam> It's worse in the books
<Saddam> He marries a lady because he knocked her up
<Rushy> I think the mimicry of what joffrey did was pretty important in and of itself
<Saddam> He beheaded Karstark for murdering innocent children
<Saddam> If any crime deserves instant execution, it's that
<Rushy> it's still a dumb reason to execute the leader of your largest faction
<Saddam> And the option of keeping him alive was presented in the interests of political gain, not mercy
<Rushy> by executing him for his crimes, he caused the deaths of many more people
<Saddam> This illustrates Robb's tragic flaw
<Saddam> His lack of necessary political cunning
<Saddam> Just like his father
<Saddam> I'm not saying that everything he did was 100% right and what needed to be donw
<Saddam> done*
<Rushy> his father's mistake was just plain hilarious
<Rushy> telling cersei to her face "I know your kids are incest babies you should leave lol"
<Rushy> what a memester
<Saddam> They both follow the path of Brutus from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
<Saddam> A noble man who can't set aside his sense of honor to do the smart thing
<Rushy> also everyone seems to have magically forgotten that Arya hates Sansa, but I guess without the books that isn't as obvious
<Saddam> Their hatred of each other was based in stupid, childish things
<Rushy> not without her reasons though, I mean Sansa really is a frigid bitch, the show seems to pad it a bit
<Saddam> Unless you're talking about the leaked episode - have you seen it yet?
<Rushy> no
<Saddam> Ah, then I shall say no more lest you swing the banhammer
<Rushy> indeed
<Saddam> Gendry swings the best hammer
<Saddam> Years of rowing have transformed him into a master of blunt weaponry
<Rushy> surprised that the show doesn't have more people using blunt weapons
<Rushy> everyone seems to use swords, which makes little sense, as swords are more expensive to produce and aren't useful against people wearing plate armor, which seems to be unnaturally common
<Rushy> nearly everyone has either plate or chainmail, and it's hilariously runescape levels of common across the continent
<Saddam> Armies typically distribute equipment to their soldiers
<Rushy> it's still too common in their world, this is one thing I liked more in Witcher, where armored opponents were genuinely more rare
<Rushy> metal refining, metal working, etc. in the time that GoT appears to exist in is atrociously expensive, the majority of an army would be leatherbound, with chainmail troops being your "elite" and then a few plated knights
<Rushy> instead, you have a meme where the entire lannister army has plate armor, which doesn't make sense, even considering that they're supposed to be very wealthy
<Rushy> very well crafted plate armor, mind you, not some generic mass produced iron plates that just strap to the chest
<Rushy> however they forgot to equip them with dragonbreath shields
<Rushy> what a noob mistake
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 19, 2017, 09:36:40 PM
OMG Rushy shut the fuck up.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 19, 2017, 09:38:30 PM
Also, in the books - there's a line that Arya would love to see Sansa again.
So no, people didn't forget their relationship. But the show is forgetting that they both grew up out of their stupid sibling rivalries.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 20, 2017, 08:30:48 PM
OMG Rushy shut the fuck up.

rude tbh

Do you not want more Missandei/Greyworm fanfiction?

"shit, we don't have anyone buttass naked at all in any of these episodes, what will we do? Ayy here's an idea, tell Nathalie Emmanuel her clothes are coming right off"
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 20, 2017, 09:42:36 PM
i think robb died to move the plot forward.  it wasn't a judgement about the morality of his decisions.  i don't think this series makes moral judgements in that way.  all of the characters are morally grey.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on August 21, 2017, 12:37:02 AM
i think robb died to move the plot forward.  it wasn't a judgement about the morality of his decisions.  i don't think this series makes moral judgements in that way.  all of the characters are morally grey.

Some morals are more grey than others.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 21, 2017, 03:20:42 AM
<Saddam> It's worse in the books
<Saddam> [Robb] marries a lady because he knocked her up

My mistake, he just banged her and felt that he ought to marry her afterward. She wasn't even pregnant. The books also take great pains to frame his marriage as being an incredibly stupid decision, as opposed to the show making him more sympathetic by giving him a genuine romance with an actual character. Also, Rushy is obviously trolling, stop feeding him.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 21, 2017, 03:58:51 AM
That episode sucked. These writers clearly don't know what they're doing without GRRM.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 21, 2017, 03:48:50 PM
I liked it just for the spectacle, but there's no doubt that it's a narrative mess. Like, Gendry runs back to the Wall, sends a raven to Dany, and Dany shows up with her dragons, all in the space of...a night? Maybe a day and a night? And it really bugged me that the episode kept changing its mind about how many redshirts were part of the expedition. We'd clearly see in an establishing shot that there were only two or three, who then get killed, but later on a few more appear out of thin air so that they can get killed too.

But the real issue is, again, Arya and Sansa. Arya is angry about nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's plot-mandated angst. I get that Littlefinger is apparently trying to pit them against each other, but Arya's baffling stupidity is doing virtually all of the work here. Have they forgotten that they literally have access to a near-omniscient godchild who could easily clear this whole issue up for them?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 22, 2017, 08:46:36 PM
i hated the last episode.  i hate faux-suspense.  it was like 70 minutes of oh they're almost dead oh now they're REALLY almost dead omg now they're SO CLOSE to being dead holy shit look how close to death they all are i wonder if they can get any closer to death OH WOW SO CLOSE TO DEATH NOW I WONDER IF THEY'LL MAKE IT

[insert deus ex machina here]

OMG THEY MADE IT WHEW CLOSE ONE
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on August 24, 2017, 08:13:29 PM
Ah well, maybe this is going to be Lotr 2.0 after all. What a silly episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2017, 02:01:54 PM
cleganebowl confirmed
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 28, 2017, 03:40:20 PM
I was so convinced that the show was committed to Arya and Sansa's stupid enmity that the "twist" took me by surprise. I don't think the resolution quite justifies every dopey scene the two of them had together (Was it all a long con? Did they only realize what was going on at the last second?), but the end result was satisfying enough.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2017, 09:25:13 PM
i felt similarly.  i was satisfied that sansa and arya were both as smart and united as they ought to be, but i was was annoyed that the entirety of the winterfell plot was a season-long red herring. 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 29, 2017, 05:37:30 PM
i felt similarly.  i was satisfied that sansa and arya were both as smart and united as they ought to be, but i was was annoyed that the entirety of the winterfell plot was a season-long red herring.
Same. There was really no need for it. She could have charged him with murder and treason before going through all that bullshit.

I do enjoy things finally progressing, but over all it was pretty underwhelming. I'm sure next season will be interesting with the White Walkers now finally through the Wall.
But I miss the books. D&D are shit writers. The dialogue sucks. The characters are now super shallow and my favorites - Varys, Tyrion, and Littlefinger (RIP) are but a shadow of their former selves.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Roundy on August 29, 2017, 08:17:09 PM
I feel like I need to watch all those scenes with Arya, Sansa, and Littlefinger over again just to see if this resolution even makes sense. It was a fun scene though. I definitely think the show has lost something with Benioff and Weiss not having the books as a guide, even though I really did think last season was the best in the show's run.

The Wall coming down was pretty epic.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 29, 2017, 08:37:18 PM
There are too many characters and too many plot threads to resolve them all properly in the limited time left, even with the major simplifications from the books. Shortening the seasons hasn't paid off if its main benefit was to give each episode more of a budget. The show doesn't need more money, it needs more time to tell the story.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on August 31, 2017, 01:41:21 PM
I feel like I need to watch all those scenes with Arya, Sansa, and Littlefinger over again just to see if this resolution even makes sense.
It doesn't. Apparently a scene was taken out where Sansa goes to Bran asking for help and Bran tells her everything about Littlefinger.

So all that tension and the death threat between the two sisters was for real. Fucking awful.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on September 02, 2017, 02:47:12 AM
I was right about the undead dragon and Jon/Dany. Too bad my "Littlefinger wins" prediction is sunk.


Also, for such a long-running Character, the run-up to Littlefinger's death is pretty fast. Hardly any dramatic tension. Just a sort of "you're dead now lol" given from the show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on September 02, 2017, 03:35:25 AM
I was right about the undead dragon and Jon/Dany.

Those two details were leaked over a year ago.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Snupes on September 02, 2017, 04:15:34 PM
For such a huge production, HBO seems to let GoT leak pretty easily.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on September 04, 2017, 12:50:01 AM
I was right about the undead dragon and Jon/Dany.

Those two details were leaked over a year ago.

How is that relevant? I don't keep up with leaks.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on September 04, 2017, 06:41:55 PM
Okay, but I think everyone kinda knew about Jon and Dany. They're basically Ice and Fire. Plus, they're two big players, both attractive, and around the same age. You didn't have to know about any leaks to see that one coming.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2017, 02:59:29 PM
Also, I'm watching Westworld now. It's pretty good so far.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2018, 01:34:04 PM
I just watched Season 7 and enjoyed it. I never thought the show was great, so it's quality remained about the same for me.  Some fun characters, some good action and some bewbs (less this season :()


I can see it now:

One, or all of Dany's dragons are going to die. One will likely die fighting the nightking and be turned into some kind of undead ice dragon. It will then fight the other two, likely killing all three in the process.

Dany and Jon are going to get married. Probably after they find out they're related. Dany is already suspicious of Jon because her dragon obviously liked him, something that wouldn't occur were he a normal human.

Jon is fireproof, at some point he'll probably get stuck in a fire with Dany and all of Emilia Clarke's clothes will come right off (oh no!)

The Lord of Light is some kind of dragon god.

And my favorite: Cersei gets eaten by a dragon.

Edit: also something really bugs me about the whole half-dragon thing of the Targaryen ever explained? How is it that they're half-dragon? I'm betting the Lord of Light gave them this ability somehow, otherwise we have to assume the biological route, which is, uhh, well it's better than the incest I guess.

Rushy is the Three-Eyed Raven.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on April 12, 2019, 08:10:44 AM
Get ready lads and lasses.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on April 12, 2019, 10:07:38 AM
My body is ready for the deluge of subpar episodes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on April 23, 2019, 03:24:00 AM
yesterday's episode was my favorite of the series so far.  loved every bit of it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on April 23, 2019, 12:16:45 PM
Eh. S1E9 was better.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on April 29, 2019, 04:21:37 AM
snape kills dumbledore
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on April 29, 2019, 06:00:19 AM
My word.  That last episode was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on April 29, 2019, 08:02:02 PM
I liked it a lot. The darkness made it a little difficult to follow some sequences, but overall tone was great. I wasn’t expecting that specific ending and it felt very satisfying. I was a little sad the Dothraki were sacrificed for dramatic effect but it’s tough to say they were much more than a device for a while. 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on April 29, 2019, 08:41:37 PM
There were some parts that were very cool. The dothraki riding out with fire swords and then watching them slowly go dark, wow!

My problem is with the Night King in general.  One of my favorite things about this show is the extremely well defined villains. The Night King seems almost insultingly thin compared to for example Tywin Lannister.

What does Tywin want? You could fill a book with that.

What does the Night King want? To kill all humans... For reasons I guess?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on April 29, 2019, 09:02:17 PM
i also didn't care much for this episode.  it was visually cool, and i'm glad i finally got to see a dragon fight, but i'm kinda tired of watching epic battles between two totally incompetent forces.  one side winning because the other side was too stupid to win is not a satisfying story.

the supposed lord commander of the night's watch: "hey i've got an idea let's just throw our mounted units headlong into a static formation.  that will definitely make good use of the strengths/weaknesses of mounted units.  oh shit nm they all died very predictably."

the night king: "naw fam don't worry about it because i'm gonna walk around literally the only place in westeros you can find dragon glass weapons, my sole vulnerability.  i mean i guess i could just hang back and auto-win, but it's important to me to personally slay bran for reasons that you can't understand because i've never, ever spoken so much as a single word during this show."
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on April 29, 2019, 10:49:59 PM
I'm still interested in the show but it's going downhill fast.

The show's plot has clearly gotten an enormous case of dumb after moving on from the books. The story feels rushed and no longer coherent. Actors are doing things that are convenient for the story to move on. Practically everyone died at Winterfell except the "hero" characters. Where did Jorah even come from? How did he magically teleport to Dany, how did he survive an endless onslaught of zombies? How did Brienne get repeatedly drug down under a pile of zombies and yet survive over and over and over again? WHY is Sam still alive other than pure plot armor fuckery? I'm surprised they killed the little girl Mormont considering she, up to this point, has had the personality of a 40 year old career politician. It did not feel like an amazing feat to have the Night King die, it was not a glorious battle, it was a stupid game where every nameless person at Winterfell dies but gg because harry potter caught the fucking snitch so you lose now.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2019, 12:36:40 AM

the supposed lord commander of the night's watch: "hey i've got an idea let's just throw our mounted units headlong into a static formation.  that will definitely make good use of the strengths/weaknesses of mounted units.  oh shit nm they all died very predictably."

I don’t remember an order to charge, did I miss it? I took it as the flaming weapons getting them so worked up that they took off. I might be wrong.

Quote
the night king: "naw fam don't worry about it because i'm gonna walk around literally the only place in westeros you can find dragon glass weapons, my sole vulnerability.  i mean i guess i could just hang back and auto-win, but it's important to me to personally slay bran for reasons that you can't understand because i've never, ever spoken so much as a single word during this show."

They provided a reason. Whether or not it is plausible to you is something else. It seems plausible to me that the utmost embodiment of death would seek to destroy its antithesis. In an elemental way, not from an x’s and o’s on the battlefield way.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2019, 01:11:09 AM
I'm still interested in the show but it's going downhill fast.

The show's plot has clearly gotten an enormous case of dumb after moving on from the books. The story feels rushed and no longer coherent. Actors are doing things that are convenient for the story to move on. Practically everyone died at Winterfell except the "hero" characters. Where did Jorah even come from? How did he magically teleport to Dany, how did he survive an endless onslaught of zombies? How did Brienne get repeatedly drug down under a pile of zombies and yet survive over and over and over again? WHY is Sam still alive other than pure plot armor fuckery? I'm surprised they killed the little girl Mormont considering she, up to this point, has had the personality of a 40 year old career politician. It did not feel like an amazing feat to have the Night King die, it was not a glorious battle, it was a stupid game where every nameless person at Winterfell dies but gg because harry potter caught the fucking snitch so you lose now.

This is why I hate fandom. You are letting perfect be the enemy of good. There are a couple dozen characters and it would be unwieldy to show every movement or action each of them takes through the episode. Indulge these people who work their ass off for your enjoyment a little and imagine for yourself what Jorah and Brienne did off screen. If you want a complete history, you would have a boring 12 hour episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on April 30, 2019, 02:19:48 AM
I don’t remember an order to charge, did I miss it? I took it as the flaming weapons getting them so worked up that they took off. I might be wrong.

i mean jaime and a bunch of other mains were in that unit.  i'm pretty sure it was intentional.

They provided a reason. Whether or not it is plausible to you is something else. It seems plausible to me that the utmost embodiment of death would seek to destroy its antithesis. In an elemental way, not from an x’s and o’s on the battlefield way.

sure, bran gave some exposition in the previous episode about how the night king wants him dead, but without any insight into the character, i don't have any context for why he is willing to risk everything just to personally kill bran instead of simply letting him get killed by the wights.  it would be like if peter quill never, ever spoke.  you'd be super puzzled about why he ruins everything right when victory is at hand.

also to rushy's point, i was super annoyed at how often the last part of one scene would be a main literally surrounded by wights like five deep, then later they're magically in another part of winterfell and totally fine.  it's not that rushy and i want to see every single thing that happens to every character.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2019, 05:04:12 AM
I'm not a GoT fan (saw maybe 4 episodes total.  Half being the last two) but that battle, while epic and exciting, was full of BS on both sides.

Riders rushing forward like dumbasses.
Siege weapons stopping their firing.
Riders running into where the seige weapons were hitting.
No one bothering to out up scouts or torches on the ground to show when the enemy was near.
Sir Brienne not dying when the literal wave of dead engulfed her and her company
The night king being immune to fire for reasons.
No one bothering to try and kill the dead blocked by the trenches.  They were just standing there.... Conserve arrows maybe?
A small group of archers holding off a bunch of dead in a courtyard for anymore than 10 seconds.
The dead having less ferocity the less troops winterfell had.  Like the intro was a swarm of frenzied dead.  By the time they got through the walls, they were not swarming nearly as much in the courtyard, giving people ample time to fight them off.
Except Arya being chased by a bunch.  That shit should have been everywhere.  Not one "hero" holding off a hord by swinging their weapon to kil one at a time.
Oh and Stone is stronger than bone.  Fuck that "skeletons bust through stone coffins" BS. i'd accept them pushing the lid off slowly but breaking through the side?  No.
Sam not being dead. 


Many of these points were raised already but felt like just listing them.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2019, 10:31:38 AM

i mean jaime and a bunch of other mains were in that unit.  i'm pretty sure it was intentional.

Fair enough. I guess I am willing to trade the drama of the moment for the logic of it.

Quote
sure, bran gave some exposition in the previous episode about how the night king wants him dead, but without any insight into the character, i don't have any context for why he is willing to risk everything just to personally kill bran instead of simply letting him get killed by the wights.  it would be like if peter quill never, ever spoke.  you'd be super puzzled about why he ruins everything right when victory is at hand.

That sort of depth has never been in the Night King. Any reason why it matters now?

Quote
also to rushy's point, i was super annoyed at how often the last part of one scene would be a main literally surrounded by wights like five deep, then later they're magically in another part of winterfell and totally fine.  it's not that rushy and i want to see every single thing that happens to every character.

But why are you fixated on that? And I actually noticed that they accumulated damage via make up on most of the characters through the episode too. Were you as annoyed in the Battle of the Bastards when there was suddenly a mountain of bodies? I’m just not really getting what the problem is other than you might want something different, which says nothing about the show and something about your own expectations. This is what I was saying to Rushy’s comment: just because a couple of moments didn’t work for you doesn’t mean they didn’t do a good job. It’s worth considering how strongly your own expectations of what you want from the show’s completion and how they might make you more or less critical of its presentation or content.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on April 30, 2019, 02:02:19 PM
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/4/30/18522955/game-of-thrones-season-8-battle-winterfell-military

Two military experts analyze the battle at Winterfell. 
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on April 30, 2019, 03:06:25 PM
Fair enough. I guess I am willing to trade the drama of the moment for the logic of it.

they aren't mutually exclusive though.  it could've been logical and dramatic.  that's basically my whole point.

That sort of depth has never been in the Night King. Any reason why it matters now?

yes.  now literally the only reason the living prevail is pure luck: the night king happened to have a hidden character flaw.  that's it.  that's why they win.  i think it's an incredibly uninspired deus ex machina.

the fact that his character has never been developed is precisely the thing that matters.  it would be like if oberyn never spoke.  his decision to suddenly expose himself to a defeated enemy and then lose because of it would be extremely poor storytelling without ever contextualizing why he's willing to do that.  it's not interesting writing.


But why are you fixated on that? And I actually noticed that they accumulated damage via make up on most of the characters through the episode too. Were you as annoyed in the Battle of the Bastards when there was suddenly a mountain of bodies? I’m just not really getting what the problem is other than you might want something different, which says nothing about the show and something about your own expectations.

lol i feel like you're not really reading what i'm writing.  what expectations?  i'm just asking for believable outcomes and behaviors.  and we're talking about a show with dragons and zombies, so i feel like my bar for believability here is pretty low.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on April 30, 2019, 03:43:33 PM
I think we can relax with the spoiler text now, at least until the next episode. And I agree that it's dissonant and unsatisfying to cut to a character doing fine when we last saw them screaming as zombies dragged them away, or being buried under a pile of five zombies. We don't need to see every single step any given character takes, but when they're placed in imminent danger like that, the scene should be resolved before checking out on that character and letting them show up somewhere else apparently okay. It would be like in a modern setting seeing one character getting held at gunpoint, and then the next time we see them they're fine. No resolution, no explanation, just them no longer being held at gunpoint. It's sloppy editing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2019, 05:55:08 PM
Fair enough. I guess I am willing to trade the drama of the moment for the logic of it.

they aren't mutually exclusive though.  it could've been logical and dramatic.  that's basically my whole point.

Based on what they had established up to that point, I think the route they chose was effective.  It didn't require nearly as much explanation as introducing an entirely new piece of information.  We at least have a confrontation between the night king and the three-eyed raven in the past. 

Quote
That sort of depth has never been in the Night King. Any reason why it matters now?

yes.  now literally the only reason the living prevail is pure luck: the night king happened to have a hidden character flaw.  that's it.  that's why they win.  i think it's an incredibly uninspired deus ex machina.

the fact that his character has never been developed is precisely the thing that matters.  it would be like if oberyn never spoke.  his decision to suddenly expose himself to a defeated enemy and then lose because of it would be extremely poor storytelling without ever contextualizing why he's willing to do that.  it's not interesting writing.

Fair enough.  I think I am just startled because I have never seen much complaint about the NK until now.  maybe I just missed it.

Quote
But why are you fixated on that? And I actually noticed that they accumulated damage via make up on most of the characters through the episode too. Were you as annoyed in the Battle of the Bastards when there was suddenly a mountain of bodies? I’m just not really getting what the problem is other than you might want something different, which says nothing about the show and something about your own expectations.

lol i feel like you're not really reading what i'm writing.  what expectations?  i'm just asking for believable outcomes and behaviors.

What you qualify as believable outomes and behaviors are part of what you expect from the show.

Quote
  and we're talking about a show with dragons and zombies, so i feel like my bar for believability here is pretty low.

So an undead king who can raise the dead with a wave of his hand is believable, but him not being concerned with a threat from the living is not believable?  Is it something like that?

I think we can relax with the spoiler text now, at least until the next episode. And I agree that it's dissonant and unsatisfying to cut to a character doing fine when we last saw them screaming as zombies dragged them away, or being buried under a pile of five zombies. We don't need to see every single step any given character takes, but when they're placed in imminent danger like that, the scene should be resolved before checking out on that character and letting them show up somewhere else apparently okay. It would be like in a modern setting seeing one character getting held at gunpoint, and then the next time we see them they're fine. No resolution, no explanation, just them no longer being held at gunpoint. It's sloppy editing.

I am not sure it's sloppy editing because we don't really know what footage they had to cut from, but I get what you are saying.  For me all I see is a juggler with 20 balls in the air, and a couple of them fell out of the air but he kept about 17 of them going.  It was very impressive to me, and there was far more good than bad.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 03, 2019, 02:49:28 AM
To share my thoughts on this season more generally, it's not good, and this last episode was particularly weak. The show at this point is little more than spectacle. It's no longer about the sharp writing, interesting characters, and powerful themes, but about splurging on their excessive budgets and showing off what they think looks cool and impressive. There's no reason why an episode centered around a battle can't be every bit as smartly and tightly written as an episode centered around political intrigue, and I'm not going to cut a show that I know is capable of so much more any slack for this kind of moronic writing. What the fuck was up with the Dothraki charging ahead of everyone and completely wiping themselves out like that? It's a rhetorical question, as I know perfectly well the answer is nothing more than the people behind this episode really wanting to have a scene where the lights all ominously flicker out and impress upon both the heroes and the audience how fucked the situation is, but that dramatic moment comes at the expense of common fucking sense. That's not how battles are fought. You don't "use up" the divisions of your army one at a time like that, because then they aren't there at a later point when you really need them. The people behind the show know this, because battles in the past were shown far more realistically than that. And like gary said, it was definitely intentional. Jorah led the charge, and there's no sign of any dismay from any of the mains until the lights start flickering.

The article crutonius linked explains most of my other issues with the stupid writing better than I could, but you don't need to be a military expert to be exasperated by the nonsense we saw. Why did they march out in front of the castle, negating its defensive advantages? Why did they dig a trench behind them? Why did Jon and Dany spend more time on dragonback bumbling about lost in the fog than actually attacking the enemy? Why did Bran decide to zone out for the bulk of the battle? Also, and this is more of a narrative issue, I found Arya stealth-killing the Night King to be kind of anticlimactic. There's no real connection between the two characters, beyond one being good and the other bad. He wasn't her villain, put simply. It's like if, say, Sam ended up killing Cersei. It wouldn't make any sense from a dramatic standpoint. On a more positive note, though, Arya's stealth section in the library was genuinely great, and the subplot with her and the Hound was arguably the highlight of the episode.

Also, I'm glad the Mormont girl is dead. She was a joke (haha look it's a young girl talking like she's an experienced, no-nonsense military commander) that was fairly amusing at first, so the writers felt they had to repeat the same joke fifteen more times.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 04, 2019, 02:59:51 PM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/572246239832440833/574229653909274635/image0.png)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 04, 2019, 04:16:51 PM
[image that ironically sums up exactly what was wrong with episode 3]

This is why I hate fandom.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 04, 2019, 07:13:09 PM

[image that ironically sums up exactly what was wrong with episode 3]

Oh I'm still going to watch the rest of it. And I'm still enjoying it. But it's a little like watching the matrix sequels.

I put part of the blame on Martin. The way he set things up are much better for telling a story than it is for finishing that story.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 05, 2019, 04:38:47 AM
https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/game-of-thrones-season-8-what-is-plot-armor

This is a dumb article. Well, not entirely. I more or less agree with this general sentiment:

Quote
But the rise of "plot armor" in describing Game of Thrones, along with the equally irritating and sexist use of "Mary Sue," feels like it's part of a larger, more insidious trend in pop culture writing of ceding the linguistic ground to a specific strand of pedantic, know-it-all fandom. Many of the storytelling tics cataloged on a site like TV Tropes are fun to identify and joke about among friends -- the shorthand can also be useful in calling out harmful stereotypes and lazy narrative shortcuts -- but merely being able to identify a resemblance to other classic stories does not necessarily mean the story is doing something "wrong." Over eight seasons, you'd think Game of Thrones would've earned some critical wiggle room, and it's frustrating to see the show get dinged for the type of "sins" you'd find in one of those terminally unfunny and performatively savvy YouTube videos like "Everything Wrong with Star Wars: The Last Jedi" or "10 Dumbest Harry Potter Plot Holes."

There's more to the criticism of "plot armor" than just the main characters happening to survive, and it's disingenuous to summarize it as that. The problem, as I've heard echoed all over the Internet, is that the episode kept dropping the mains into situations where they seemed to be about to die and inexplicably cutting back to them later doing fine. It's not like this complaint has been a constant refrain throughout the show. Remember "The Watchers on the Wall," the big battle from the fourth season? Sam survived that battle, and I don't recall there being a backlash about him having plot armor, because the episode gave a satisfactory account of how he managed to pull through it. He ran, he hid, he and Gilly watched each other's backs, he used his environment effectively, and so on. In this episode, he was in the thick of things, constantly surrounded by aggressive enemies, more competent soldiers being overpowered and killed in mere seconds on either side of him, and the show doesn't bother giving an explanation as to how he survived beyond the fact that he apparently just did. That's lazy. I get that in the limited time they had they couldn't give every character a compelling subplot about how they survived the battle, but if they weren't able to do Sam justice, then they shouldn't have included him. They could have put him in the crypt and let him talk to Tyrion and Sansa.

I put part of the blame on Martin. The way he set things up are much better for telling a story than it is for finishing that story.

It's not helped by his last two books padding out the storyline and introducing new subplots instead of advancing the story significantly. I can't imagine him being able to provide a satisfactory conclusion in just two more books, and at this point I doubt he's even particularly interested in finishing the series.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2019, 04:29:55 PM
There were probably better solutions for Sam, but there might also be reasons why he had to be in the battle that haven’t been revealed yet. My memory is foggy, but didn’t a bunch of people die to save Sam too?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2019, 06:44:51 PM
[image that ironically sums up exactly what Internet fanboys think was wrong with episode 3]

This is why I hate fandom.

Fixed
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2019, 12:18:13 AM
Sam survived that battle, and I don't recall there being a backlash about him having plot armor, because the episode gave a satisfactory account of how he managed to pull through it

I've always had a problem with Sam, though I'm not sure if I've had this discussion with anyone here or not. He's a character that was tossed into many, many situations which should have killed him, and don't, because the miracle of Sam. He's a character who manages to trek for miles and miles and miles in a frozen wasteland and still remain the fattest character on the show. He survived a whitewalker attack the first time, because I guess it looked at him and felt too much pity to kill him. He survived a whitewalker attack the second time by charging up to him and stabbing him, despite whitewalkers normally showing much more combat finesse than just allowing someone to run up to them to stab them. (Even Arya, a trained super-assassin who can magically look like other people couldn't sneak up on a whitewalker). He survived the Long Night by literally sitting in one spot and crying nearly half the episode.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 06, 2019, 12:46:16 AM
Sam still being so fat is arguably the least believable part of the show.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2019, 03:01:59 AM
Spoiler for episode played on May 5th

ayy lmao imagine you're flying on your dragon thousands of feet in the air and you miss ENORMOUS BLACK SHIPS WITH GIANT CROSSBOWS ATTACHED TO THEM WITH A DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT TO YOU
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 06, 2019, 04:35:40 AM
Yeah, for the first half of the episode I was thinking this was a pretty big improvement on the last one, and then that moment happened so abruptly and nonsensically that they might as well have played a comedic record scratch and a laugh track over it. This show is a fucking parody of itself by now, and it's becoming increasingly clear that D&D have very little creative talent of their own, having simply lucked into showrunning a series with three terrific novels providing their story for the first few seasons. Take that safety blanket away, and this is just a glossy prestige show written by idiots.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 06, 2019, 05:10:00 AM
Issues...


So as has been mentioned there's the total inability of Danaerys to appreciate that there's anti dragon weaponry.  Fly at night.  Fly out of range.  Send a scouting party ahead of time.  This is just basic stuff here.

The biggest problem is that.  Okay so it's time to kill Cersei.  Now would have been a great time for Aria to bring up, "oh yeah, I forgot to mentioned.  I'm an unstoppable assassin.  I was actually on my way to murder her before I got distracted."  These people have serious communication problems.

Also, I figured out what Bran was doing spaced out during the entire battle last episode.  He's basically a teenage that can peer through space and time.  So he's definitely spending the vast majority of his time watching famous people fuck.  It's about the only reason why someone with clairvoyance can be so tactically useless.



Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 06, 2019, 07:12:21 AM
At this point I'm just looking forward to the Mountain/Hound fight. I don't think they can fuck up a good old fashioned sword fight.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 06, 2019, 12:35:19 PM
At this point I'm just looking forward to the Mountain/Hound fight. I don't think they can fuck up a good old fashioned sword fight.
CLEGANEBOWL
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on May 06, 2019, 01:35:38 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/GwGKS3h.png)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 06, 2019, 02:46:06 PM
Issues...


So as has been mentioned there's the total inability of Danaerys to appreciate that there's anti dragon weaponry.  Fly at night.  Fly out of range.  Send a scouting party ahead of time.  This is just basic stuff here.

The biggest problem is that.  Okay so it's time to kill Cersei.  Now would have been a great time for Aria to bring up, "oh yeah, I forgot to mentioned.  I'm an unstoppable assassin.  I was actually on my way to murder her before I got distracted."  These people have serious communication problems.

Also, I figured out what Bran was doing spaced out during the entire battle last episode.  He's basically a teenage that can peer through space and time.  So he's definitely spending the vast majority of his time watching famous people fuck.  It's about the only reason why someone with clairvoyance can be so tactically useless.



You can't even spell the names of the characters right. Begone, fake fan. >o<
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 06, 2019, 02:49:08 PM
Issues...


So as has been mentioned there's the total inability of Danaerys to appreciate that there's anti dragon weaponry.  Fly at night.  Fly out of range.  Send a scouting party ahead of time.  This is just basic stuff here.

The biggest problem is that.  Okay so it's time to kill Cersei.  Now would have been a great time for Aria to bring up, "oh yeah, I forgot to mentioned.  I'm an unstoppable assassin.  I was actually on my way to murder her before I got distracted."  These people have serious communication problems.

Also, I figured out what Bran was doing spaced out during the entire battle last episode.  He's basically a teenage that can peer through space and time.  So he's definitely spending the vast majority of his time watching famous people fuck.  It's about the only reason why someone with clairvoyance can be so tactically useless.



You can't even spell the names of the characters right. Begone, fake fan. >o<

The wreters have botchered the storry so badly that they do not even dserve criticism speled correctly!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 06, 2019, 02:50:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/GwGKS3h.png)

Are these dragons considered mature? Asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 06, 2019, 02:53:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/GwGKS3h.png)

Are these dragons considered mature? Asking for a friend.

I believe so, judging by the size of the dragon skulls in King's Landing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 06, 2019, 02:53:43 PM
Oh yeah. And that was the biggest dragon evah.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 06, 2019, 03:02:07 PM
Now that you bring it up I don't know. Maybe size isn't a perfect indicator.

It doesn't really matter though since the writers seem to think that the good guys have invulnerable superweapons would make for a boring finale.

I would think that having a guaranteed victory for Dany would open up other story telling opportunities more in line with the character of Dany and the series in general. It could have focused on the dilemma of having to burn tens of thousands of innocent people to win and if she's even the good guy after that.

Nope. We're getting R rated Lord of the Rings.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2019, 04:01:24 PM
We're getting R rated Lord of the Rings.

Not even that, because not one time has Emilia Clarke's clothes been burned off this season.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2019, 05:55:05 PM
<garygreen> Rushy: on the notion of abandoning ghost
<Rushy> garygreen: "fuck off, ghost" -Jon
<garygreen> i love that ghost has spent his whole life south of the wall in summer, and now it's like too hot or something?
<garygreen> well i guess not his whole life since he was with jon north of the wall, too
<garygreen> but you get the idea
<Rushy> I like how Dany and Drogon are clearly in range of the 1000 crossbows Cersei has mounted on a fucking wall
<garygreen> yeah that shit was nonsense
<Rushy> the same crossbows that Euron had mounted on his ships, could shoot thousands of feet into the air and still do damage, and could shoot straight through other warships
<Rushy> but that dragon that's only about half or 3/4 a mile out? Nah, leave it be
<Rushy> like what was the point of that anyway
<Rushy> shouldn't they know by now that Cersei isn't going to surrender
<Rushy> did they all really just show up there for Missandei who was captured via magic
<Rushy> how is only half her armies dead when we saw everyone get obliterated during episode 3?
<Rushy> Is dany summoning more troops via a portal that hasn't been mentioned on screen?
<garygreen> i srsly don't get how missandei was captured in the first place
<Rushy> m a g i c
<garygreen> or how euron would even know who she was
<garygreen> or cersei for that matter
<garygreen> like how have they even heard of her
<Rushy> they saw her at that get-together right
<Rushy> where they're like "cersei my dude, there's zombies and shit"
<garygreen> oh yeah i forgot about that
<Rushy> "can you like, not be such a bitch" and she's like "no"
<garygreen> lol
<Rushy> I like how the fact that Dany is Jon's aunt bothers him a lot but Dany doesn't give a shit
<Rushy> I'd be so pissed if I were Jon, all the time
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 06, 2019, 08:13:08 PM
They stated the point of the parlay.  Propaganda. This way when they roast all the peasants they can say it was Cersei's fault for not surrendering.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2019, 10:00:05 PM
They stated the point of the parlay.  Propaganda. This way when they roast all the peasants they can say it was Cersei's fault for not surrendering.

Why, exactly, do the opinions of the commoners suddenly matter? Cersei blew up a rather large portion of the city with wildfire, along with a faction that was rather popular among commoners. She is already hated to death by them, as proven by her relatively recent walk of shame. If destroying the largest church in the country doesn't make the peasantry revolt against a blatantly insane monarch, why would Dany burning some other large portion of it be any different? Shouldn't King's Landing at this point be in a constant state of civil war if uprisings were a major threat?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 06, 2019, 10:49:58 PM
They stated the point of the parlay.  Propaganda. This way when they roast all the peasants they can say it was Cersei's fault for not surrendering.

Why, exactly, do the opinions of the commoners suddenly matter? Cersei blew up a rather large portion of the city with wildfire, along with a faction that was rather popular among commoners. She is already hated to death by them, as proven by her relatively recent walk of shame. If destroying the largest church in the country doesn't make the peasantry revolt against a blatantly insane monarch, why would Dany burning some other large portion of it be any different? Shouldn't King's Landing at this point be in a constant state of civil war if uprisings were a major threat?

I would wager it has something to do with what Dany has been trying to achieve the entire series. That little bit about ending tyranny and breaking the wheel?  Its been mentioned... once or twice.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2019, 11:06:28 PM
I would wager it has something to do with what Dany has been trying to achieve the entire series. That little bit about ending tyranny and breaking the wheel?  Its been mentioned... once or twice.

Sure seems to be burning a lot of people alive and roasting entire armies to be breaking the ol' wheel. Even her advisors actively acknowledge that she is clearly becoming Cersei 2: Electric Dragaloo
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2019, 12:37:28 AM
It’s almost as if everyone in Game if Thrones is morally bankrupt except for maybe Jon.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: junker on May 07, 2019, 01:56:23 AM
nice immersion: (https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18534248/game-of-thrones-got-season-8-hbo-final-last-of-the-starks-starbucks-producer-apology)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63745750/got_pip_starbucks.5.png)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 07, 2019, 02:08:31 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D55046EXoAAueAW.jpg)


<Franklin> The show with excessive fan service and shit writing would never use product placement or fake controversy. That's below their artistic ethos.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2019, 02:47:55 AM
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/572246239832440833/575149887532826644/image0.jpg?width=885&height=446)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2019, 02:48:56 AM
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/572246239832440833/575149865341026304/image0.jpg?width=653&height=670)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 07, 2019, 05:39:34 AM
I can overlook the dubious physics behind Euron's stealth-sniping, because that's far from the most important detail of telling a story like this. If it had been presented as the climax of a suitably dramatic moment, it could have worked. What really killed it for me was the cheap grasp at shock value by making it so sudden and anticlimactic. It's a lot like Arya leaping in out of nowhere to stab the Night King. D&D are handicapping themselves by cutting out proper buildup for key story events in favor of just trying to surprise the audience instead.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2019, 11:14:17 AM
Now the logic and plausibility doesn’t matter. Got it.

Depending on what purpose you think Rhaegal’s death serves it was a perfect time for it. I personally think they are setting up Dany’s heel turn and killing one of her children in a sudden, meaningless, anticlimactic fashion is just the trick to push her further towards the dark side.

Complaining about shock value in Game of Thrones seems odd though since they have used as their stock in trade quite heavily in the past.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 07, 2019, 11:34:14 AM
Its almost as though the show writers are trying to get everyone to think she will become like her father the mad king. Huh, novel. As if, they haven't mentioned the mad king every single episode ever and him burning everyone. And thrown it in Dany's face literally anytime anyone has the moment to mention it. And the fact that people always end up like their parents.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 07, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
Hmm, I think Dany is going to go nuts and try to burn Jon up with dragonfire, and it'll turn out Jon is immune to fire. I can't recall a moment in the show where he gets burned.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 07, 2019, 03:48:52 PM
He burned his hand when he killed a wight way back in the first season.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 07, 2019, 03:53:49 PM
Definitely, agree she will go Stark raving mad and try to burn certain people.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lord Dave on May 07, 2019, 06:27:25 PM
He burned his hand when he killed a wight way back in the first season.

Fire burning or frost burn?

Also, wouldn't that mean he isn't her nephew or is that not genetic/common in her family?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 07, 2019, 07:53:24 PM
He burned his hand when he killed a wight way back in the first season.

Fire burning or frost burn?

Also, wouldn't that mean he isn't her nephew or is that not genetic/common in her family?

Saddam is right, it's a scene where Jon grabs a lantern and throws it at a wight. His hand is shown with bandages afterwards and the books apparently had many passages regarding how badly he burnt his hand grabbing a lantern like that.

That doesn't mean that it can't be retconned that Jon gained magical properties after being resurrected.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 09, 2019, 12:47:01 AM
Now the logic and plausibility doesn’t matter. Got it.

...no. I specifically said the physics of the scene, as in the science of launching a bolt the right distance into the sky and with enough power to bring down a dragon. There is something to be said for keeping the focus of criticism where it belongs, with character, story, and theme, and not "ceding the linguistic ground," as the article I linked put it, to the pedants and clickbaiters of YouTube yelling, "Why didn't they just fly on the eagles to Mordor? Plot hole, ding! Why didn't MI6 just bomb the villain's lair into rubble? Plot hole, ding! Why is Black Widow even in the Avengers? Plot hole, ding!" None of that means that the nonsensical storytelling of this stupid season "doesn't matter." I just take far less issue with the idea of a ballista that can shoot down a dragon than with the general execution of the scene.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 10, 2019, 12:27:21 PM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/572246239832440833/576217902043103281/IOY9cxK.jpg)
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 10, 2019, 03:08:22 PM
Ah, yes, just like Mass Effect 3, the fans trying to come up with ways to fix the narrative will begin appearing. Joking at first, then the narrative fixes will get more and more serious.

Can't wait to see which of the three buttons Jon picks.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 13, 2019, 03:52:12 AM
Daenerys Targaryen - War Criminal.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2019, 08:40:52 AM
Daenerys Targaryen - War Criminal.

I'm sure it'll be worth it.
And that the books will do it differently.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 13, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
Daenerys Targaryen - War Criminal.

I'm sure it'll be worth it.
And that the books will do it differently.

If by differently you mean never be published, then yes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 13, 2019, 11:49:38 AM
Game of Mental Illness Is Hereditary After All
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 13, 2019, 12:29:58 PM
Fuck Varys.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 13, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
Daenerys Targaryen - War Criminal.

I'm sure it'll be worth it.
And that the books will do it differently.

Maybe it's just my low expectations but I liked this episode. Still some things that didn't really make sense. Some things seemed forced. Some people might have a problem with Daenerys turning full evil buy I've always hated that character. In any crisis she always makes the worst possible decision and she gets rewarded for it. She's the Trump of Westeros.

There's a lot to like in this episode I think. It also sets up the finale pretty well.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 13, 2019, 03:19:46 PM
Cleganebowl. 'nuff said.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 13, 2019, 05:25:17 PM
Hey guys, Cleganebowl. I could be actually adding to the discussion right now, but I'm just going to repeat "Cleganebowl" instead.

Cleganebowl Cleganebowl Cleganebowl lmao Cleganebowl get it guys because they're both Cleganes I'm so funny and original just saying this over and over Cleganebowl Cleganebowl Cleganebowl
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on May 13, 2019, 05:52:19 PM
this episode was like if right at the foot of mount doom, frodo decides he's super pissed off, puts the ring on and starts murdering everyone until gandalf has to put him down.  lol wtf even is the point.  i couldn't give less of a shit about who sits on the iron throne anymore.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 13, 2019, 06:02:13 PM
this episode was like if right at the foot of mount doom, frodo decides he's super pissed off, puts the ring on and starts murdering everyone until gandalf has to put him down.  lol wtf even is the point.  i couldn't give less of a shit about who sits on the iron throne anymore.

Admit it! Part of you would kind of want to see that.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 13, 2019, 07:47:18 PM
If you really think about it this whole show has been shit from the beginning. They cleverly disguised out in the open what they were going to do with each character. (i.e. "everyone keeps telling me how my father went mad and burnt everyone). But with some good writing in the beginning and relying on the books for most of its material, us watchers clung to the hope that the characters wouldn't do what we saw the writers doing. And then we get pissed off for having wasted half of our lives watching the show turn out exactly how it was "telescoped" all the way from the beginning.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 14, 2019, 04:32:15 PM
Hey guys, Cleganebowl. I could be actually adding to the discussion right now, but I'm just going to repeat "Cleganebowl" instead.

Cleganebowl Cleganebowl Cleganebowl lmao Cleganebowl get it guys because they're both Cleganes I'm so funny and original just saying this over and over Cleganebowl Cleganebowl Cleganebowl
Why would I add to the discussion when I could annoy you instead? ???
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 14, 2019, 05:51:42 PM
The discussion is very important. Very important. Until after Sunday. Then it couldn’t matter less.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 14, 2019, 06:00:39 PM
The discussion is very important. Very important. Until after Sunday. Then it couldn’t matter less.
After Sunday this thread will become my personal shitpost repository, in that case.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 14, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
Maybe it should be a suppository instead.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 14, 2019, 09:46:04 PM
No one is the suppository of all wisdom.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 14, 2019, 11:05:26 PM
Dany is just going nuts because Jon stopped banging her.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 15, 2019, 02:51:55 AM
Wouldn't you go nuts? I mean jeez...look at the man.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2019, 02:53:21 AM
GUYS! Only serious Game of Bones: Winter is Cumming discussion here, please!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 17, 2019, 10:52:51 PM
https://www.change.org/p/hbo-remake-game-of-thrones-season-8-with-competent-writers

Yes. Let the hate flow.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on May 18, 2019, 02:17:34 AM
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/

This is a terrific article that provides a new, scientific perspective on the problems with this last season. A lot of it probably applies to the previous season too.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on May 18, 2019, 05:21:33 AM
I'll see you all in three months when you realize all these complaints with season eight have been prevalent for the last several seasons. The show jumped the shark a long time ago, and at least season eight is embracing the fan service.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 18, 2019, 11:12:29 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't despise season 8?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 18, 2019, 02:20:31 PM
Yes, it is universally acclaimed.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: rooster on May 18, 2019, 07:24:11 PM
Just popping by to say I also think this season is horribly rushed and just trying to meet plot-points. Characters have become dumbed down and oversimplified. I knew this a few seasons ago and had stopped caring so much, but at this point I just want to see how it ends.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Fortuna on May 20, 2019, 02:58:12 AM
Meh
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: garygreen on May 20, 2019, 04:34:58 AM
so arya is now magellan all of a sudden wtf
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 20, 2019, 12:27:49 PM
so arya is now magellan all of a sudden wtf

She mentioned this idea last season I think. After the war was done, she had no place in the world, so she goes off to find a new one. Considering how much travelling she did in the series, its really not that strange.  It would be weirder to me if she just settled down and instantly put her life of revenge aside.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 20, 2019, 02:14:49 PM
Eh, wasn't that much worse than the rest of the series.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 20, 2019, 02:48:14 PM
so arya is now magellan all of a sudden wtf

She mentioned this idea last season I think. After the war was done, she had no place in the world, so she goes off to find a new one. Considering how much travelling she did in the series, its really not that strange.  It would be weirder to me if she just settled down and instantly put her life of revenge aside.

Two more realistic endings for her, starting a company murdering people or smoking pot and playing video games. She is a teenager.

I didn't hate this episode. It was just OK, a little predictable maybe.


So.

Sansa is queen of the north. The only capable monarch in Westeros.

They made Bran the king of the 6 kingdoms? WTF? He knows stories I guess. It qualifies him to be a mediocre librarian. When he ends the show by blowing off a council meeting to warg a dragon I just don't think his heart is in it.

Jon Snow they sent off to the Night's Watch again? Huh? There's no wall. There's no Night King and Wildlings just sort of hang anywhere now. What are they even there for? To fight ManBearPig?

The kingdoms are now being run by the Peter Principle Small Council. None of these people have the qualifications to run a kingdom. Brienne is tall and kills people. She knows nothing about a balanced budget. Braun's only qualification is that he didn't murder Tyrion 2 episodes ago. Sam isn't a maester. He robbed the place and then just dropped out. Ser Davos is barely literate.

The Unsullied go back to Essos.

Oh and there's like 100,000 Dothraki just hanging out without a strong leader in Westeros. They people who only know how to rape and pillage. No one in the show is going to address this point?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 20, 2019, 03:04:28 PM
so arya is now magellan all of a sudden wtf

She mentioned this idea last season I think. After the war was done, she had no place in the world, so she goes off to find a new one. Considering how much travelling she did in the series, its really not that strange.  It would be weirder to me if she just settled down and instantly put her life of revenge aside.

Two more realistic endings for her, starting a company murdering people or smoking pot and playing video games. She is a teenager.

I didn't hate this episode. It was just OK, a little predictable maybe.


So.

Sansa is queen of the north. The only capable monarch in Westeros.

They made Bran the king of the 6 kingdoms? WTF? He knows stories I guess. It qualifies him to be a mediocre librarian. When he ends the show by blowing off a council meeting to warg a dragon I just don't think his heart is in it.

Jon Snow they sent off to the Night's Watch again? Huh? There's no wall. There's no Night King and Wildlings just sort of hang anywhere now. What are they even there for? To fight ManBearPig?

The kingdoms are now being run by the Peter Principle Small Council. None of these people have the qualifications to run a kingdom. Brienne is tall and kills people. She knows nothing about a balanced budget. Braun's only qualification is that he didn't murder Tyrion 2 episodes ago. Sam isn't a maester. He robbed the place and then just dropped out. Ser Davos is barely literate.

The Unsullied go back to Essos.

Oh and there's like 100,000 Dothraki just hanging out without a strong leader in Westeros. They people who only know how to rape and pillage. No one in the show is going to address this point?

Goddamn learn how to spell the character's names pls
Bronn ain't no Nazi scientist.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 20, 2019, 03:22:51 PM
so arya is now magellan all of a sudden wtf

She mentioned this idea last season I think. After the war was done, she had no place in the world, so she goes off to find a new one. Considering how much travelling she did in the series, its really not that strange.  It would be weirder to me if she just settled down and instantly put her life of revenge aside.

Two more realistic endings for her, starting a company murdering people or smoking pot and playing video games. She is a teenager.

I didn't hate this episode. It was just OK, a little predictable maybe.


So.

Sansa is queen of the north. The only capable monarch in Westeros.

They made Bran the king of the 6 kingdoms? WTF? He knows stories I guess. It qualifies him to be a mediocre librarian. When he ends the show by blowing off a council meeting to warg a dragon I just don't think his heart is in it.

Jon Snow they sent off to the Night's Watch again? Huh? There's no wall. There's no Night King and Wildlings just sort of hang anywhere now. What are they even there for? To fight ManBearPig?

The kingdoms are now being run by the Peter Principle Small Council. None of these people have the qualifications to run a kingdom. Brienne is tall and kills people. She knows nothing about a balanced budget. Braun's only qualification is that he didn't murder Tyrion 2 episodes ago. Sam isn't a maester. He robbed the place and then just dropped out. Ser Davos is barely literate.

The Unsullied go back to Essos.

Oh and there's like 100,000 Dothraki just hanging out without a strong leader in Westeros. They people who only know how to rape and pillage. No one in the show is going to address this point?

Goddamn learn how to spell the character's names pls


NEVER!

Reading is for sexual deviants.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 20, 2019, 03:24:14 PM
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/

This is a terrific article that provides a new, scientific perspective on the problems with this last season. A lot of it probably applies to the previous season too.

Good read BTW.

It rings true.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Cain on May 22, 2019, 02:29:00 PM
so arya is now magellan all of a sudden wtf

She mentioned this idea last season I think. After the war was done, she had no place in the world, so she goes off to find a new one. Considering how much travelling she did in the series, its really not that strange.  It would be weirder to me if she just settled down and instantly put her life of revenge aside.

Two more realistic endings for her, starting a company murdering people or smoking pot and playing video games. She is a teenager.

I didn't hate this episode. It was just OK, a little predictable maybe.


So.

Sansa is queen of the north. The only capable monarch in Westeros.

They made Bran the king of the 6 kingdoms? WTF? He knows stories I guess. It qualifies him to be a mediocre librarian. When he ends the show by blowing off a council meeting to warg a dragon I just don't think his heart is in it.

Jon Snow they sent off to the Night's Watch again? Huh? There's no wall. There's no Night King and Wildlings just sort of hang anywhere now. What are they even there for? To fight ManBearPig?

The kingdoms are now being run by the Peter Principle Small Council. None of these people have the qualifications to run a kingdom. Brienne is tall and kills people. She knows nothing about a balanced budget. Braun's only qualification is that he didn't murder Tyrion 2 episodes ago. Sam isn't a maester. He robbed the place and then just dropped out. Ser Davos is barely literate.

The Unsullied go back to Essos.

Oh and there's like 100,000 Dothraki just hanging out without a strong leader in Westeros. They people who only know how to rape and pillage. No one in the show is going to address this point?

Goddamn learn how to spell the character's names pls


NEVER!

Reading is for sexual deviants.
You read my post. Interesting turn of events, innit?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Baby Thork on May 22, 2019, 03:22:16 PM
BBC dedicated an entire article today to how the wimminz don't get as many speaking lines as the men.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48335099

Which is probably one of the reasons this series has been such a success.  :-\
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2019, 04:28:48 PM
BBC dedicated an entire article today to how the wimminz don't get as many speaking lines as the men.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48335099

Which is probably one of the reasons this series has been such a success.  :-\

Troll hard, thork.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 22, 2019, 05:39:13 PM
The real problem with season 8 is it contained no Emilia Clarke sex scenes, in fact, how good a season was correlates entirely to how many times naked Dany appears in it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 22, 2019, 10:55:12 PM
The real problem with season 8 is it contained no Emilia Clarke sex scenes, in fact, how good a season was correlates entirely to how many times naked Dany appears in it.

She was only naked a few times I thought. GOTs confirmed as a shit series.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on May 23, 2019, 01:02:06 AM
Drogan and Ghost should have gotten together like the Dragon and Donkey in Shrek.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 23, 2019, 03:30:50 PM
That would be weird, especially if Bran had warged into Drogon at that exact moment. I mean, unless that's his thing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 23, 2019, 05:06:44 PM
There's no evidence that Bran can warg a dragon, and if he could have, why didn't he do it during the battle at Winterfell? All he did was take control of a bunch of crows instead. Very lame.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 23, 2019, 05:14:16 PM
Then why the last line of his in the finale? "I will find the dragon..." or somesuch nonsense.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 23, 2019, 05:19:19 PM
Then why the last line of his in the finale? "I will find the dragon..." or somesuch nonsense.

...with crows?
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 23, 2019, 05:21:53 PM
Then there is this conspiracy theory.

https://theweek.com/articles/842449/bran-truther

That Bran pulled all the strings in the first place.

All I can say at this point is that this show was great - until the end. I thought the first few episodes of season 8 were pretty good. But the last two - especially the finale - were absolute dialogue and acting shitholes.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: crutonius on May 23, 2019, 05:25:54 PM
The show has been pretty much off the rails since that plan to travel north of the wall to abduct a white walker. That was their Matrix Reloaded. Everything after that was basically like watching Matrix Revolutions.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 23, 2019, 05:55:12 PM
Then there is this conspiracy theory.

https://theweek.com/articles/842449/bran-truther

That Bran pulled all the strings in the first place.

All I can say at this point is that this show was great - until the end. I thought the first few episodes of season 8 were pretty good. But the last two - especially the finale - were absolute dialogue and acting shitholes.

Plot twist: The Night King was actually trying to save humanity from evil magic that stemmed from the old gods all along and that the "Three-Eyed Raven" is really just a demon which possesses mortals. Bran mentioned that he's "no longer Bran" at some point. The Night King wanted to stop the demon from escaping the north and only marched south when it finally escaped the confines of the wall.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 23, 2019, 06:58:13 PM
Ooh, damn good theory there. I actually like that idea. Come on fanfic.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on May 23, 2019, 08:18:51 PM
<Rushy> but it's not secular, the north won thanks to the help from a fire and war god from a desert land
<Rushy> only a matter of time before it's a burning bush doing the talking instead of just a fireplace
<Rushy> jon died and days later got resurrected by the fire and war god
<Rushy> jesus targaryen, one might say
<Rushy> he had to save humanity from a woman who listened to the serpent
<Rushy> the dragon couldn't kill jon because satan can't kill jesus
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rama Set on May 23, 2019, 08:59:34 PM
Someone has discovered Joseph Campbell.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on July 28, 2019, 03:31:38 AM
I finally did it. I finally watched the last few episodes of GoT, having previously ragequit halfway through the fourth episode after its "lol surprise dragon stealth-sniping" twist. The fans have gotten awfully toxic about this over the past few months, which is not something I condone or want to be affiliated with in any way, but there's no denying that this season was shit. "The Bells" in particular dethroned "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken" as the worst episode of the show overall, and Dany's nonsensical descent into insanity is pretty much the main reason why. It had to be the insanity, didn't it? They couldn't have let her keep her agency, let her deliberately choose to start slaughtering innocents as part of her moral absolutism and firm belief in her own destiny; instead, the bells are apparently the trigger for her hereditary insanity, because bitches be crazy. Fuck all those seasons of character development, right?

I feel bad for the cast, who gave it their all down to the last stupid line, and I feel bad for us, the consumers. This is the only conclusion to the story we'll have. Martin is not going to finish the book series, and he's been very clear that he has no intention of letting anyone else touch his materials after he's gone. It's very likely that we'll never even get to see The Winds of Winter, because the current status of the story in the books is a convoluted mess that keeps getting more and more complicated despite the fact that things should be winding down now.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: Rushy on July 29, 2019, 11:39:54 PM
"lol surprise dragon stealth-sniping"

Rhaegal got 360 no scoped. Shittiest moment in the whole show. How did Dany miss an entire fleet of warships? The worst part of the worst season. Makes me mad just thinking about it again.

bitches be crazy

This is in fact the ultimate point of GoT.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones
Post by: honk on August 09, 2019, 09:07:54 PM
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/game-thrones-creators-close-200m-netflix-deal-1230119

The people at Netflix have got to be fucking high if they seriously think their shows will be a priority for D&D in the coming years. These idiots have shown that they were willing to ruin GoT in their rush to get to that sweet, sweet Star Wars fame and fortune. How could any show with an undoubtedly far lower profile hope to fare any better?

A couple more points about GoT - Euron was easily the single worst character over the course of the show. He had almost nothing in common with the Euron from the books, he looked ridiculous, every line of dialogue out of his mouth was hammy and poorly-written, virtually all of his victories were due to lazy, convenient writing and plot armor, and possibly worst of all, his entire ambition was to marry his way into power through Cersei. It's not like there was even any indication he planned to eventually kill her or anything. He was content to be number two. Who does that? Who deliberately aims for second place? It's like they were trying to make him less threatening by giving him such a relatively modest ambition.

Also, Cleganebowl was stupid. It was way too heavily foreshadowed in the previous season (the Hound doing a double take when he saw Gregor and then staring at him in silent horror would have been far more effective as a setup), and they had no real reason to fight. Gregor was a mindless zombie at that point, and the Hound had long made his peace with his desire for revenge. His characterization had moved beyond that, and he was now into caring for others and trying to contribute positively for society. It might have worked if he had still been with Arya at the time, and his fighting Gregor was to buy her time to escape. But no, the show had to go out of its way to not let that be the case by having him dismiss her previously. As the scene stands, it's just naked fanservice, something that they had to cram into the show because fans (of the books specifically, not necessarily the show) were loudly demanding it, at the expense of both character and story.