To me Game of Thrones will never be the same (S4E8 discussion)

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
CrazyCajun777 said:
Chris Tian said:
I agree with you, that the show has quite a few interesting characters. The problem for me is, that except John Snow, none of those doe anything particularly interesting or have any longterm goals, besides survival, that seem to be achievable at all.
Well, I would keep in mind that we are at the end of book three of what is estimated to be a 7-8 book series (if we compare the show in relation to the book's timeline). This is less than half way through. It is like the end of act 2 in a 5 act play. It is more than possible that these characters have yet to gain their footing as it were. At then end of book three of Harry Potter the actual plot hadn't really taken off yet either.
Well, in Haryy Potter every book had its own very clear storyline, so thats a bad example.

I see it exactly the opposite way :D
We are already at the end of book 3, thats almost half way through, we should be done with the setup and premise phase by now.
 

Browncoat86

New member
Mar 27, 2008
58
0
0
I've read the books, and I knew it was coming even then, simply because there was no way in hell Martin was going to have Tyrion survive another Trial by Combat, he couldn't be that lucky twice.


IllumInaTIma said:
You don't have to tell me what happened in the episode. Here comes my problem. Okay, Oberyn was caught off guard, fair enough. First of all, Oberyn is a martial artist. One of the first things they teach you in almost any existing martial art is how to regroup during your fall to minimize the damage. It's called "Ukemi" in some martial arts and this is why fighters are able to toss each other around without breaking skulls and bones. The warrior of Oberyn's level must have this kind of thing memorized to the level of reflex, ESPECIALLY considering very theatrical and agile fighting style of Oberyn. So, Oberyn was supposed to be able to regroup and simply roll away from the danger. But okay, let's assume he fell down and got stunned for a moment. So Mountain grabs and lifts Oberyn and tries to punch him in the face. You know what any sane person would do? Put a palm between his face and incoming fist. As simple as that. The Mountain didn't hold Oberyn's hands, so there was NOTHING preventing him from blocking that hit. So it's double bullshit. And my suspension of disbelief can stretch only so far when it comes to even extraordinary human beings. Unless The Mountain was injected with Captain America serum it was nigh impossible for him to do all that shit after getting stabbed, cut, poisoned and tired all the while wearing a medieval HEAVY ARMOR. You know, the kind of armor that was so heavy, that it would pin fallen knight to the ground.
IllumInaTIma said:
TheIronRuler said:
IllumInaTIma said:
Yeah, I'm just gonna copy what I posten in another thread

I'm so freaking furious with that fight... I mean, I'm not against Oberyn dying, I'm against how he died. It just felt so completely forced. Are you seriously telling me that a warrior of Oberyn's skills and reflexes wouldn't just, you know, ROLL AWAY after getting swiped to the ground? Or that he wouldn't be able to simply block a direct hit to the face? Or are we just gonna dismiss that The Mountain was able to do all that after getting pierced, cut, and poisoned while wearing a HEAVY ARMOR! And not just that, that fucking caricature of a character even had a whitty remark to say as a final nail polish on the middle finger to the whole audience. It just felt forced. I don't think I was ever so disappointed with that show before. It just feels that everyone does deliberately stupid things just so that bad guys would win. Oh sure, give up to the army that has A FLAYED MAN as their flag, no way it's gonna backfire.

And also, when Mortal Kombat feels less violent that this, you know you're trying too hard.
.
It's simple really, but I don't know if they show it in the show as much as in the books.
During the fight he repeats his accusations more and more, concentrating on enraging the mountain and forcing him to confess to his face (and in public), plus extorting the name of the man who gave the order to do the deed (Tywin). His surprise confession caught Oberyn off-guard, Because of that Oberyn was distracted enough for the mountain to catch him unprepared. The end result was his splattered brains. Not such a big deal - the mountain is HUGE. He had taken many, many wounds during the war and had survived hundreds of battles and skirmishes. He earned his namesake - He's a motherfucking MOUNTAIN of a man. Of course he can still beat the ever-living crap out of Oberyn even after taking a severe beating and many wounds.
You don't have to tell me what happened in the episode. Here comes my problem. Okay, Oberyn was caught off guard, fair enough. First of all, Oberyn is a martial artist. One of the first things they teach you in almost any existing martial art is how to regroup during your fall to minimize the damage. It's called "Ukemi" in some martial arts and this is why fighters are able to toss each other around without breaking skulls and bones. The warrior of Oberyn's level must have this kind of thing memorized to the level of reflex, ESPECIALLY considering very theatrical and agile fighting style of Oberyn. So, Oberyn was supposed to be able to regroup and simply roll away from the danger. But okay, let's assume he fell down and got stunned for a moment. So Mountain grabs and lifts Oberyn and tries to punch him in the face. You know what any sane person would do? Put a palm between his face and incoming fist. As simple as that. The Mountain didn't hold Oberyn's hands, so there was NOTHING preventing him from blocking that hit. So it's double bullshit. And my suspension of disbelief can stretch only so far when it comes to even extraordinary human beings. Unless The Mountain was injected with Captain America serum it was nigh impossible for him to do all that shit after getting stabbed, cut, poisoned and tired all the while wearing a medieval HEAVY ARMOR. You know, the kind of armor that was so heavy, that it would pin fallen knight to the ground.
Here's the thing, it's a fantasy series, so it's well within the realm of possibility to have an abnormally large angry man who, when not broken and bleeding, possesses enough physical strength to decapitate a horse with a single swing of his sword, to still be strong enough to knock someone off their feet and crush their skull. Also, as has been stated elswhere, you are wrong about how heavy armour works.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
Why do people discuss how its unrealistic for the Mountain to take Oberyn down and bash his skull in?

Thats definatly one of the more "realistic" parts of that fight. In a real fight Oberyn would have been hacked to pieces when he attempted his first ridicoulus backflip.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Chris Tian said:
I actually agree with you that his "subversion of tropes" has by now become somewhat predictable. How anyone can be shocked that the fight didn't turn out particularly well for The Viper is beyond me. I had the same thought after the Red Wedding when everybody was talking about how mind blowing that was.
It has?

In "trials by combat" or essential 1v1 battles where the life/success of a protagonist was at stake, we've had...

Jorah defeating one of Drogo's bloodriders to save Dany.
Fat Belwas/Daario defeating the champion outside Meereen.
Jon defeating Orell to escape the Wildings.
Jon defeating that idiotic cliche at Craster's.
Bronn defeating Vargas to save Tyrion in the first trial by combat.
Arya "defeating" Rorge (HAHAHAHAHAHAH fuck you show) and Polliver

Seriously I could go on and on. Then Oberyn loses a duel, and it's a bunch of moaning and hand wringing about the predictable show, the wicked Mr. Martin and his nihilistic world view, and some blither about how there are no characters left to root for/most of the characters are dead. It's incredible, really.

The reason anyone sets out to subvert "tropes" in the first place is because tropes are predictable. The word "trope" used in this context means a well worn or overused device. In terms of subverting the 'heroic fantasy' trope in this case, it means sometimes the "hero" dies, instead of automatically living...which once again, would be tension free and predictable. SOMETIMES the "hero" dies. The books are littered with protagonists who have survived numerous life and death situations in what could be considered standard "heroic" fashion. And of course, a few who are not. Anyone painting it as being nothing more than subversion at every opportunity are grinding axes, plain and simple.

Honestly it's all well and good not to like something, and ASoIaF is not without numerous flaws, but the amount of baseless shit-talking in this thread is getting amusing.

LifeCharacter said:
In addition to these few things, there's also the fact that he's pretty much universally loved in Dorne and seems like a great and loving father to his children. You don't get to be that way by being a bastard who does everything for the sake of vengeance. Certainly he went to King's Landing to seek out vengeance, but vengeance is just a negative and more personal spin on justice.
Oberyn, at least the book, is presented as a morally grey character. He is justifiably outraged about what happened to his sister, and seems to have progressive views on a number of issues. He's also blithely witty and rather charming. At the same time, he's cocky to a fault, has a notorious and evidently well earned reputation as a shady fighter who uses poison, and is described by his own family as a reckless hothead who thinks without acting.

The OP is correct, however, that next to Gregor Clegane, Oberyn is a hero. Of course, next to Gregor Clegane Joffrey was a hero.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Well good that you are here now, otherwise I would never have known that I actually was very surprised about the outcome of that battle.

I never claimed he subverts tropes whenever he can, I just said when he does it its almost as predictable as the tropes themself, so the whole "its so shocking beause its the opposite one would expect" effect goes out of the window.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Fox12 said:
It's quite simple. Martin takes what normal people do, then does the opposite. If there's a heroic situation or character, he's going to subvert it. Basically you just have to understand his mindset. To be fair, I spend a lot of time writing, so I may just be aware the tools of the trade.

[spoiler/] For the most part it's common sense. Let's look at two of the most "shocking" moments in the series.

When Eddard was taken captive, there was little chance of him surviving. His province was in open rebellion, he was surrounded by enemies, and he had already revealed that he knew everything to Cersei. Martin uses narrative misdirection by saying that he can be sent up north to the wall if his son stands down. Unfortunately this is incredibly stupid. First of all, it's out of Cerseis character to spare someone who may be a threat, or knows about her incest. She's paranoid and ruthless, so her offering to spare Eddard makes zero sense in that context. It was a betrayal of character for her to do that. Clearly Martin was just trying to find a way to misdirect his audience so he could pull the rug out from under them. Second, for Eddard to go to the wall, he would have to be sent past HIS OWN LANDS, which are currently in open rebellion. That's not even an option. Reading the books, I said that if he didn't kill of Eddard, then I would quit reading them then and there. It wasn't just an option at that point, it was the only option. Martin could have just said he would remain in house arrest in Kings Landing, but he clearly wanted to give some hope to the audience before killing Eddard, even if it didn't make any sense. The only reason people were surprised by his death was because he was the closest thing to a main character. Given logic, though, there was no other way for this to turn out. Martin really asks that you don't think about it too much.

The second is the Red Wedding. Rob Stark knowingly cheated the Freys, who are infamously proud. At this point his capital is burned, his family is dead or missing, he's facing possible invasion from the North, the South, and the West, all by armies larger than his own, his lieutenants are losing battles left and right, he's lost his most important bargaining chip, Jaime, his vassals, such as the karstarks, are deserting him, and he's separated from the Northern parts of his own land. Militarily, the war is already over. Once he meets the Frays, the outcome was clear. Frey uses blatantly suspicious terms like "the streets will run red with wine." Red Wine. Get it? Cause blood. Clever Martin (rolls eyes). The characters then make a plan to invade the Iron Islands, which is another glaring case of narrative misdirection. Now that Martin has his setup, it's time to pull the rug. The army is separated from their leader, which is suspicious enough, and then they are given alcohol. There is also mention that the band was too loud, a clear sign that they were trying to mask the sound of battle. Everyone then dies. The problem is that, if you look at the characters, and the situation, there's no real alternative. Why would the Frays support the losing side in a war when that side has already wronged them? Even without the Red Wedding, you would have to really stretch things to have a realistic happy ending for the characters at this point. What I don't understand is that Martin keeps doing the same thing over and over, and yet people keep getting surprised. Eddard dies in book one. Winterfell burns in book two. The Red Wedding occurs in book three, as well as the death of the viper. Martin sets up an event, deploys narrative misdirection, and then pulls the rug. Over and over.

If I sound irritated, then it's because of the reasoning given for these events. All of Martins fans talk about how Eddard, Rob, The Viper, and many other characters died because they were "too honorable." As if being a good person, in and of itself, got these people killed. I haven't seen reasoning this atrocious since Atlus Shrugged. They didn't die because they were good, they died because they were INCREDIBLY stupid. Eddard told his sworn enemy everything he knew while his allies were away, then gave them time to plot, and placed his trust in clearly selfish individuals. Rob betrayed a sworn oath to his most importent ally, punished his most loyal allies, and then put himself and his army in the most compromised position possible. The Viper exposed himself to his enemy after having all but won. As I read it, I mentally said "keep your distance, moron, he's about to grab you ankle." *Screaming starts.* Honor and intelligence aren't mutually exclusive. You can be both. I find Martins world view disturbing, nihilistic, and most impotently, intellectually bankrupt. [/spoiler]

I do love that this fight was basically The Princess Bride, though. "I am The Viper. You killed my sister. Now prepare to die!
Wait now...all you've done here is demonstrated hindsight and highlighted areas where the author employed foreshadowing, which I grant you is a commonly used narrative device, as well as subversion of commonly occurring fantasy tropes, which the author himself has been quite forthcoming about employing. You indicated his writing was "extremely predictable". Can you demonstrate how other events past these significant deaths were predictable? Can you explain how the story will resolve, or what fate lies ahead for other major story threads? Given there is much concern about the author's health, it might be good to have you on hand to explain what's going to happen. I'd like to see the process of prediction in action. Maybe you could outline some of the major plot developments we can expect to see in Winds of Winter? That'd be grand.

Additionally, would you care to address "most of the characters have died"? I'm still not entirely sure how you arrived at that. It's possible I don't understand what you mean by "most".
It's not really hindsight if I saw it coming before it happened.

In any case, my point was that people act surprised when these things happen, but if you look at it logically there was no other way for it turn out. Martin has certain patterns that he reuses over and over in particular situations. Character acts heroic, or gives a heroic speech, and then something horrible happens to "subvert" it. This supports his nihilistic theme. Repeat, until you're swimming in a pool of money. Unfortunately, when you set out to subvert predictable cliche tropes, you become predictable yourself, because everyone knows you're doing it. The problem is that he doesn't really subvert these in any kind of intelligent way. He just kills off a major character after a heroic moment. This makes predicting short term events, as in the same book, very simple. As for the larger plot, even Martin himself has no idea what's going on anymore, so we'll see. A story like Berserk, on the other hand, puts great thought into its subversion. Griffith is presented as the archetypal hero character, and yet, in reality, he's actually a deconstruction of the archetypal hero, or the knight in shining armor persona. He uses his image to advance his personal goals. This suggests that the concept of "the hero" is actually outdated, and perhaps even dangerous, because world leaders will happily use a manufactured image in order to create a cult of personality to manipulate the masses and gain personal power. Game of Thrones subverts the archetypal knight image by having The Hound kill some people or something. The problem is that this actually rather shallow, and doesn't say much of real value thematically.

Concerning the death count in Game of Thrones, I apologize for not having my charts and graphs on hand to show the actual percentage of deaths per capita, but, believe it or not, Game of Thrones is known for having a rather large body count. My main issue with the series is its themes, though, more than anything else.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
Fox12 said:
Martin has certain patterns that he reuses over and over in particular situations. Character acts heroic, or gives a heroic speech, and then something horrible happens to "subvert" it. This supports his nihilistic theme. Repeat, until you're swimming in a pool of money. Unfortunately, when you set out to subvert predictable cliche tropes, you become predictable yourself, because everyone knows you're doing it. The problem is that he doesn't really subvert these in any kind of intelligent way. He just kills off a major character after a heroic moment. This makes predicting short term events, as in the same book, very simple. As for the larger plot, even Martin himself has no idea what's going on anymore, so we'll see.
I couldn't agree more, especially the last sentence. If he would just do what he does and write an interesting mainplot, I would be really happy.
 

CrazyCajun777

New member
Apr 2, 2013
152
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
First off, yes he likes whores, like pretty much everyone else who doesn't have the kind of Northern Honor that gets your entire family killed, but it's not really whores that are the cultural thing, it's sexual openness and freedom. Sure, he likely gets lots of whores, but he's also openly bisexual, permissive of his lover's sexuality, and is outright proud of these things. If you want a hero, you don't really want someone who puts his wife in a chastity belt and is disgusted by homosexuality.

As for the Lannister soldiers, you're just wrong. He came into the room because of the song and started the conversation relatively calm. Then his paramour comes in and then the soldiers not only call her a whore, but also turn racist when they talk about how she's wasted on a Dornishman and how he should just go have sex with a goat. Then he says everyone hates the Lannisters, which results in the two standing with one of them wearing his sword and the other glancing between his sword on the table and Oberyn. Finally he "baits" him by telling him he's slow on the draw, and then stabs him in the wrist for reaching towards his sword. So, in reality, Oberyn might have killed/crippled a racist who insulted his lover, his people, and himself and was more than willing to fight him. And he lets both of them go when he could have easily killed them and faced absolutely zero consequences.

Did the Lannisters rape and kill his sister? No, but they did order the sack of King's Landing and presented the dead children to Robert Baratheon as a way of showing their loyalty. Also, Gregor, the person they knowingly let loose on them, suffered no consequences, so it's not like Oberyn's grievance with the Lannisters is unreasonable. He probably doesn't believe that Tywin literally ordered the Mountain to rape and murder his sister (though the children likely would be impossible to save considering Robert), but he does know that Tywin did absolutely nothing to prevent what anyone could have predicted.

And lastly, defending Tyrion in his trial, where Oberyn seemed quite clearly bored out of his mind and unwilling to believe every last bit of testimony from what is obviously a rigged court. Regardless of his belief in Tyrion's innocence though, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the regicide was committed against Joffrey, a monster. Sure Oberyn says he wouldn't kill Joffrey for the sake of his vengeance against Tywin and the Lannisters, but he doesn't say anything about whether he considers killing Joffrey bad in itself, and the audience certainly isn't expected to consider it in a negative light.

In addition to these few things, there's also the fact that he's pretty much universally loved in Dorne and seems like a great and loving father to his children. You don't get to be that way by being a bastard who does everything for the sake of vengeance. Certainly he went to King's Landing to seek out vengeance, but vengeance is just a negative and more personal spin on justice.
Ok, well I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

On your first point, the whore bit. You are a bit dismissive of the whoring bit, "pretty much everyone else does." I would argue that a hero does not do what "everyone else does." Sure, this quality doesn't damn him, but it isn't something that I would so readily blow off. I mean look at some of the other "heroes." Does John Snow go after whores? What about Sam? Sansa? Brienne? Sir Barristan? Davos? Lots of people don't partake in the hobby of paying poverty stricken people who have no better options to have sex with them.

As to sexual freedom. Sure he isn't discussed by sexuality or "put his wife in a chastity belt," but you are demonstrating how he isn't a villain. He doesn't fight for his paramour who is persecuted for her sexuality. No, he just let's her have sex. This I would say is not something that makes him awesome, in my eyes anyhow. A pretty good trait by many's standards, but not one that real makes him a champion of good. Again that's just how I see it.

As for the Lanister soldier. First of all, he was super looking for a fight. He literally had no other reason to approach the two men. His paramour obviously is aware of this and leaves the room to pull him away. Yes, one of the soldiers believed that Oberon's paramour was a whore, but only because she was a beautiful woman in a whorehouse, not really a huge stretch. Yes, he did make some racist remarks, but only after Oberon insulted the smell of the city, likely the place the soldiers grew up. To say he insulted his paramour on purpose is not fair, and his racial insults did not appear from thin air either. Sure, the man he stabbed was willing to fight, and perhaps wasn't as great as my original wording suggested, however murdering a guy is at a minimum a little extreme for the crimes committed. Lots of other people are given some pretty harsh insults, and they don't start stabbing. Tyrion walks in on a guy referring to him as a "demon monkey," but his first instinct is not to send Braum to murder him. John is regularly insulted for being a bastard and yet he finds a way to not start fights. Jamie is called oathbreaker and King Slayer so much that it might say that on his driver's license yet he stays his blade. Sure, crippling this lanister soldier wasn't the worst thing you could do, but it is far from the best.

As for the Lanisters sacking Kings landing. That is not why Oberyn dislikes them, or at least we have no evidence to suggest that this is at all a reason. He hates them because he blames them for his sister's death. Sure, he is more or less fighting the bad guys, but that does not automatically make him a good guy. "He does know that Tywin did absolutely nothing to prevent what anyone could have predicted." We have no reason to believe that. Yes, Gregor is a psychopath, but we do not know that he was sent to capture the princess (this is in reference to the original post who is only a TV viewer for whom this argument was made). We have no reason to believe that Gregor didn't just stumble onto the woman as she tried to escape the country. Her appearing in Gregor's hand could have been bad luck.

As for the trial. Sure, it is obviously rigged to us, but how is it so obvious to Oberyn? How do we know he is "unwilling to believe" anything. I would say it is more likely that he just doesn't care. Some of what was said on trial was true after all. He made some pretty harsh threats to the queen and the king. He did hate the king. Was the king a monster? Yes. How do we know that Obyron knows this? Sure, he was a jerk at his wedding, but for all the Red Viper knows he was just really drunk.

Overall I think we will just have to agree to disagree. As for me I liked the Red Viper, but I would just hesitate to call him good. However, I am of the opinion that the viewer is as much the part of the story as the author and that we all have our own interpretations and biases.
 

CrazyCajun777

New member
Apr 2, 2013
152
0
0
Chris Tian said:
Well, in Haryy Potter every book had its own very clear storyline, so thats a bad example.

I see it exactly the opposite way :D
We are already at the end of book 3, thats almost half way through, we should be done with the setup and premise phase by now.
While Harry Potter does have a more episodic nature the first 3 books have very little character progression. Ron remains Ron. Harry remains Harry. Hermione is still Hermione. Where in Game of Thrones we see characters being made into heroes if you will. Jon elevates himself in the watch. Sansa learns the ways of politics. Arya learns the ways of a killer. Jamie picks up a little honor...ect. While Harry Potter set up a lot of plot elements in those first three books, Game of Thrones has set up character elements. You may prefer a more episodic nature, but I think it is a little harsh to discount my example on those grounds. This may sound like semantics, but I stand by it :).

Harry Potter Spoiler

Voldemort didn't come back till book 4 and the Holocrux's weren't really a major player until book 6 if I'm not mistaken.

I think the example is very good.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
CrazyCajun777 said:
I criticised spesifically that GoT lacks a mainstory or any real longterm goals for its characters that I can watch them work towards.

Thats why I said Harry potter is a bad example, It has those. It has a very clear main story in every book and establishes another overarching mainstory in the fourth book.

I agreed with you that GoT has several interesting characters with their own character arcs. My main gripe with the show/the books is that it does nothing notworthy with them.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Chris Tian said:
I never claimed he subverts tropes whenever he can, I just said when he does it its almost as predictable as the tropes themself, so the whole "its so shocking beause its the opposite one would expect" effect goes out of the window.
So...tropes are predictable, and subversion of tropes is also predictable. And doing both is predictable.

Good to know. Sucks that writing is just so universally predictable.

Fox12 said:
It's not really hindsight if I saw it coming before it happened.
That's great. You've stated already his writing is predictable because you've come to understand his "style". So I'm asking, for a third time now, for you to demonstrate your ability and predict what's going to happen. It should be easy. You know his style.

Fox12 said:
..but if you look at it logically there was no other way for it turn out.
Your "logical" analysis of both situations were pretty wanting, and you hand waved and or ignored a shitload of contextual details. I'm beginning to suspect you either never read the books, or read them once a long time ago.

Fox12 said:
Martin has certain patterns that he reuses over and over in particular situations.
Such as? Examples please. And multiple examples of each pattern, to establish "over and over".

Fox12 said:
Character acts heroic, or gives a heroic speech, and then something horrible happens to "subvert" it.
Examples? What about all the times a character acts heroic, and something horrible does not happen? How do those fit into the pattern? Or are they the exceptions that prove the rule?

Fox12 said:
This supports his nihilistic theme.
Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.
Please explain in detail how Martin's themes are nihilistic. As a writer, this should be easy for you. Demonstrate multiple examples of how the books promote "nihilism" as the central theme of the story.

Fox12 said:
Game of Thrones subverts the archetypal knight image by having The Hound kill some people or something.
What an excellent summation. That is incredibly keen insight. I look forward to your other equally sharp insights into the story.

Fox12 said:
Concerning the death count in Game of Thrones, I apologize for not having my charts and graphs on hand to show the actual percentage of deaths per capita, but, believe it or not, Game of Thrones is known for having a rather large body count. My main issue with the series is its themes, though, more than anything else.
See, if I were to complain about Lord of the Rings, stating that "Most of the characters had died", and someone called me out on it, I'd look like a clown if I had a sulk about how I "didn't have my charts and graphs" on hand, because hardly any characters died, and that's actually also the case with ASOIAF. Virtually without exception, the POV characters are all still alive, and the overwhelming majority of secondary and tertiary characters are as well. It was aimless shit talking about books you clearly don't like and evidently barely remember, and are going out of your way to slam with some absolutely ludicrous rambling about how "predictable" everything is, how you "came to know his style", and about how the central theme of the novels is apparently "nihilism".

The silliest part is, there's plenty of places to attack ASOIAF. The pacing collapse in books four and five. The obsession over tangential detail at the expense of momentum. The lazy insertion of a hilarious multitude of new POV characters rather than having your plot arranged properly and allowing events to be seen through existing POVs, as was the case earlier on. Authorial bloat. A lack of editorial reign-in. Etc, etc.

But "too predictable"? "Darkness induced apathy"? You like TV Tropes...this is coming off like Hate Dumb. You can dislike a show or a book without sniffily intoning you saw the whole thing coming a mile away, or making robustly false assertions about the death count, or rambling at length about how something is "nihilistic" because occasionally a character dies. It comes off as...weirdly bitter axe grinding. Like condemning "Seinfeld" for being too whimsical or "Alf" for being communist.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
and subversion of tropes is also predictable.
The way Martin does it, yes. Good for you if he can surprise you, but alot of people see his "shocking moments" comming to early for them to work properly.
 

Post Tenebrae Morte

New member
Jun 6, 2011
267
0
0
Just watched the scene. I've never been one for tv adaptions, but I liked it. I'm still going to avoid watching more, till I've read the books (lord I need more free time). But as for the scene, while the red viper was quite affable, he was also extremely overconfident. His opponent was nicknames "The mountain", there was a reason for that. Considering his size, bulk, and skill with that claymore or broadsword, it was clear he had experience in combat. The viper should have ended it as quick as possible, then taken steps towards going after the guys bosses later when he wasn't in danger of his brain becoming a jack in the box.

Instead, he show boated, almost galavanting in a way. For that, he fell into a trap that only those overconfident or inexperienced fall into. If I was in his position, the moment I had the mountain on the ground, I would've went for the exposed head instead of a abdominal thrust or attack. In truth, it is realatively hard for someone to die due to being stabbed in that area. Only wounds that would do some real damage would've been a heart or lung stab. Even in medieval times, it was rare to die from that.

The viper acted like a fool, for that he died. Combat isn't something to joke about unless you got Dante's or wolverines healing ability.
 

Reiper

New member
Mar 26, 2009
295
0
0
Does anyone else feel like Stannis is getting shafted in the show?

In the books he is such a baller, and although he has had a few good moments in the show (leading the blackwater charge), I feel they have thus far portrayed him very negatively. Between his evil sounding music, his 5 seconds of time in the season 4 previews and interviews where the show creators state that "stannis would make a terrible king", it seems like they display clear favouritism for some characters. In a lot of ways he is a very tragic character, but despite being notoriously "unlikable" and "humourless", I find him both extremely likeable and hilarious in the books.

It is also very telling that all of my book reading friends think he is one the best characters but, the show only watchers I know all dislike Stannis, despite the fact that he is not only the true king, but also probably the best king.

Oh well, maybe in the next episode Stannis will shine in his big moment.



Also, what was with Sansa revealing herself in the vale? That story line is massively accelerated, past even the books, and tells us that the whole "lords declarant" thing from the books is meaningless.
 

Adamantium93

New member
Jun 9, 2010
146
0
0
Honestly, I have never been surprised by a death on GoT because almost all of them are heavily foreshadowed and just make sense.

That aside, I really dislike when people say that "The Bad Guys Always Win" on GoT. First, lets assume that there are good and bad guys (really, no character except maybe Davos is entirely good and only Ramsay and the Mountain are definitively bad).

Now, lets look at the bad guys. Think about how many bad guys introduced in the first season are

1. Still Alive
2. Still a "Bad Guy"
3. Haven't suffered a massive personal tragedy.

You get...Tywin, maybe Allistar Thorne? (even then, Thorne isn't a bad guy, he just sees Jon Snow as arrogant and inexperienced. Partially, he's right.) Also I'm not counting the White Walkers since they really havent done much in the story yet.

Bad Guys Who Have Died
-Viserys is burned to death with molten gold.
-Joffrey Was Poisoned
-How many has Arya killed?
- Three bad guys killed by Dany in Qarth
-All of the slavers Dany has killed.
-That rapist at Craster's keep and Rast.
- Lysa Arryn flew.
-Craster was killed by NW deserters.
-Although the Mountain killed Oberyn, it doesnt look like he'll survive his wounds.
- The guy who cut of Jaime's hand and then tried to kidnap Bran got Hodor'd

Bad Guys Who Are Good Guys
- Jaime Lannister
- Stannis and the Red Woman are, if not good, at least no longer portrayed as bad.
- The Hound
- Theon became a bad guy, is now more pitiful than bad.
- The Wildlings are basically an entire group of people who have been exiled to live in a frozen wasteland simply because they lived too far north and now they want to escape death by walker.

Bad Guys who have suffered massive personal tragedy
-Cersei loses her child and becomes an alcoholic. Also may have been raped ("that scene" was consensual in the book and was meant to be in the show)
-Littlefinger lost the only woman he has ever loved.

A lot of "good guys" are still alive (heck, Dany's entire story has been one upward climb since the end of season one). If anything, being a bad guy is no better for you. The giant rock of GRRM smashes good and bad beetles indiscriminantly.

Let's not forget that there are no real bad guys or good guys, and also that the series isnt even half over yet. You wouldn't announce a winner to a sports game halfway through, don't do the same thing here.
 

Clive Howlitzer

New member
Jan 27, 2011
2,783
0
0
Reiper said:
Does anyone else feel like Stannis is getting shafted in the show?

In the books he is such a baller, and although he has had a few good moments in the show (leading the blackwater charge), I feel they have thus far portrayed him very negatively. Between his evil sounding music, his 5 seconds of time in the season 4 previews and interviews where the show creators state that "stannis would make a terrible king", it seems like they display clear favouritism for some characters. In a lot of ways he is a very tragic character, but despite being notoriously "unlikable" and "humourless", I find him both extremely likeable and hilarious in the books.

It is also very telling that all of my book reading friends think he is one the best characters but, the show only watchers I know all dislike Stannis, despite the fact that he is not only the true king, but also probably the best king.

Oh well, maybe in the next episode Stannis will shine in his big moment.



Also, what was with Sansa revealing herself in the vale? That story line is massively accelerated, past even the books, and tells us that the whole "lords declarant" thing from the books is meaningless.
Minus the whole burning his own people for worshiping the wrong God, I actually like Stannis. I wish he'd get more screen time. I haven't read the books but I do feel like the show tries to demonize him for some weird reason. I like that he is mostly lawful, I liked all his screen time in season 2 and was hoping for more of him but he has mostly fallen out.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Chris Tian said:
The way Martin does it, yes. Good for you if he can surprise you, but alot of people see his "shocking moments" coming to early for them to work properly.
Okay then. Predict what will happen. Not in this season, you could Google that shit. Tell me what will happen in Winds of Winter. Tell me what will happen in A Dream of Spring. It's predictable. It should be easy. What's the end game? Who lives or who dies.

Reiper said:
Does anyone else feel like Stannis is getting shafted in the show?
Yes. His character has suffered more than almost any other in transition from book to screen. It's an odd portrayal, to say the least.