259 replies to this topic

[TheMountainThatAbides]

Game On!

A place to discuss the final episode of the first season, "Fire and Blood". Spoilers from the novels allowed.

I wanted to copy the last post from the previous topic here but it doesn't seem like you can quote from a closed topic.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Remember, keep it civil and keep it classy. [/mod]

[Tywin's bastard]

At the end of the previous thread there were some talks about the new character of Shae altering the way she betrays Tyrion. I'd just like to point out that it's way too early to say something like that because a confident whore doesn't have any more relevant power than a less confident one. Since they even managed to get Eddard to confess to crimes he was innocent of it seems way off base to already assume that they can't force Shae to frame Tyrion.

Speculating about the character is fine but I think it's bad to complain about something that just might happen a couple of years from now.

[TheMountainThatAbides]

I don't know if this was discussed in the previous thread but one thing I found strange was the changed line for Jaime.
Instead of "There are no men like me. There is only me" he said: "There are no men like me. Only me".
It's one of my favorite lines in the book, I don't understand why they would change it.. If they decided to take it from the book why not keep it intact? It's not like the NW speech, that it just takes too much screen time..

On a more positive note: Osha _O_
I can't wait to see what GRRM has on store for her in the future. Think the actress has been cast perfectly.

[NW Deserter]

Rewatched the last three scenes (three of the best in the entire season IMO). New favorite Arya moment (sorry Syrio): "I'm good at killing fat boys. I like killing fat boys." I'm a dude and I just about 'squee'd at that.

Also, the look that Dany gives Jorah right before she stands up from the ashes is just haunting. That was Emilia Clarke's finest moment, as it should be.

[Ormond]

TheMountainThatAbides, on 21 June 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

I don't know if this was discussed in the previous thread but one thing I found strange was the changed line for Jaime.
Instead of "There are no men like me. There is only me" he said: "There are no men like me. Only me".
It's one of my favorite lines in the book, I don't understand why they would change it.. If they decided to take it from the book why not keep it intact? It's not like the NW speech, that it just takes too much screen time..

Could you elaborate on what you think the difference in meaning is between those two?

In my mind, "There is" in the second sentence are simply unnecessary words, and in the context of the first sentence the two constructions have the same meaning. So I am perplexed as to what it is you are disturbed about here.

[Demonblade]

I tried to get caught up reading in the first thread, but as there were too many fl00b complaints about various nitpicks, I got tired and left it at page 5.  But let me just say this.  After rewatching the episode, it is obvious that Drogon is black, not red.  He has red streaks, but he's a newborn, give him slack.

[Mad Sweeney]

Dear Ludigis (sp?),

Below is a quote from the locked portion of this thread.  You were responding to my differences in how my dislike for Syrio is different than the Shae Is So Different From The Books That It's Ruining Two Characters crowd.

Shae only needs to appear as a whore to capture her essence.-Me


Frankly, this only goes to show that you don't understand the essence of Shae and her relationship with Tyrion wery well. Read Eponine's post again! - You

You've taken this way out of context here.  I was discussing their APPEARANCE.  You can tell I was discussing their APPEARANCE by my use of the word APPEAR as well as the context of the original quote which you did not include.  Frankly, this only goes to show that you don't understand what you read very well.  Read the entire post again, only this time use context and actual definitions of words.

I understand Shae and Tyrion's relationship in the books quite well, thank you for your concern.  However, it is hard, if not pointless, to discuss TV Shae's relationship with Tyrion (at least as to how it will affect the events later in the story) at this point since we've only seen the very beginning of it.  After we get more info from the show, THEN we can discuss how relevant the changes in TV/Book Shae affect Tyrion and the story.  Until then, it's all a bunch of wailing and whining.  Well, not all of it, but the extreme end of the spectrum of doom and gloomers.  Those are the only people I'm having a go at.  

Bottom line:  Don't take quotes out of context to try and make some point that's flat out wrong because you didn't understand the whole post you're replying to!

Edited by Mad Sweeney, 21 June 2011 - 09:48 AM.

[TheMountainThatAbides]

Ormond, on 21 June 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

Could you elaborate on what you think the difference in meaning is between those two?

In my mind, "There is" in the second sentence are simply unnecessary words, and in the context of the first sentence the two constructions have the same meaning. So I am perplexed as to what it is you are disturbed about here.

Haha I know it sounds awful. I'm amazed at some of the stuff people complain about myself. I guess everyone has their own thing.

Let me try to explain.
First: Why not use the original sentence to please the fans, if it doesn't matter anyhow?
Second: I do think it matters. To me the emphasize is now on the first sentence, whereas I think adding "There is.." makes the second sentence more powerful.

[Winterfelon]

TheMountainThatAbides, on 21 June 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

Haha I know it sounds awful. I'm amazed at some of the stuff people complain about myself. I guess everyone has their own thing.

Let me try to explain.
First: Why not use the original sentence to please the fans, if it doesn't matter anyhow?
Second: I do think it matters. To me the emphasize is now on the first sentence, whereas I think adding "There is.." makes the second sentence more powerful.

I actually didn't notice this at all!

Perhaps it just didn't sound right when spoken out loud?

[Stark Truth]

I couldn't find this topic anywhere else so I thought I'd drop it here and see what people have to say:

Does it bother anyone else that the dragons don't have forelegs??  Personally I'm wondering how they prevent thier wings from getting dirty or torn up since without forelegs they must use thier arms (to which thier wings are attached) for everything from holding thier food to fighting each other and other things.  Also have to wonder if they are capable of running on the ground since their wings would be a hinderance and presumably get caught up underneath thier arms.

Also, for D&D / WoW / RPG fans out there: Dragons without forelegs are called Wyverns.  It is known.

[Thefalconemperor]

Stark Truth, on 21 June 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

I couldn't find this topic anywhere else so I thought I'd drop it here and see what people have to say:

Does it bother anyone else that the dragons don't have forelegs??  Personally I'm wondering how they prevent thier wings from getting dirty or torn up since without forelegs they must use thier arms (to which thier wings are attached) for everything from holding thier food to fighting each other and other things.  Also have to wonder if they are capable of running on the ground since their wings would be a hinderance and presumably get caught up underneath thier arms.

Also, for D&D / WoW / RPG fans out there: Dragons without forelegs are called Wyverns.  It is known.

True. In the ocident, dragons were always despicted as six-limbed creatures and this more bird-like version is often called a wyvern. If I recall correctly, Martin insisted his dragons were wyverns, so to speak. Who knows his reasons.

Edited by Thefalconemperor, 21 June 2011 - 11:23 AM.

[Xanrn]

No Dragons without forelimbs are Drakes.

Wyverns have a scorpion tail and most of the time, beaks.

Dragons are also ment to be sentient and able to talk smack while they try and burn you.

One major complaint I do have is why the fuck nobody is wearing goddam heraldry.

It too much work to give Lady Mormont a damm bear?

Who is the Lord who said "I will have peace on thoose terms" ment to be. Which one is Roose Bolton? Where is the white sun of Karstark?

Martin designed heraldry for pretty much everyone, so why the fuck is pretty much everyone dressed like goddam Mercenaries or State troops.

Also the King in the North scene, I take it that the ruins are ment to be Rivverunn? did they cut all the Riverlords except the Freys out completely or something?

[Mark Antony]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=oFQusWLvW28

[Simon Steele]

Hmmm...maybe that guy with the beard was Edmure? Just a thought I had.

[Knight Of The North]

I'm pretty sure Edmure is being cast next season, but I believe Rickard Karstark was featured as an extra, so I'm tempted to believe it was him.

Xanrn, on 21 June 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

It too much work to give Lady Mormont a damm bear?

Who is the Lord who said "I will have peace on thoose terms" ment to be. Which one is Roose Bolton? Where is the white sun of Karstark?

Martin designed heraldry for pretty much everyone, so why the fuck is pretty much everyone dressed like goddam Mercenaries or State troops.

Also the King in the North scene, I take it that the ruins are ment to be Rivverunn? did they cut all the Riverlords except the Freys out completely or something?

Questions, questions. Luckily, I have answers.

Metaphorically, no, but we'll get to that later. Literally...Yes. Yes, it is too much work.

We're unsure about the Lord. My theory is that it's Lord Karstark. And a point be made is that noone on the show walks around dressed in surcoats for battle - you see it alittle in the Tavern scene, but that's it; that type of dress just isn't really practical. However, they all dress in STYLES. The Northmen; heavy leathers and furs. Hence why Lady Maege isn't wearing a bear - the Northern Lords all know each other, and it's a meeting of war. No real reason to display their colours.
They're dressed like mercenaries and state troops because Northmen tend to lead from the front, and that sort of dress is damned useful.

The ruins are implied to be an abandoned keep; it's much too small to be Riverrun. The Tullys are being reserved for next season.

Edited by Knight Of The North, 21 June 2011 - 11:56 AM.

[Corvinus]

It doesn't matter how many damn legs they've got, they are still dragons. Chinese dragons don't have wings, yet they're still dragons. There are plenty of other fantasy stories where dragons have only 2 legs. The main feature of a dragon is the fire breathing ability.
So no more of this "it is known" crap. It is not known, because dragons have never been proven to have existed so that leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

[Gryffindor Queen]

Quote

. I actually think, with the new independent personality they've written into Shae, that they do plan to have her approach Cersei and independently sell Tyrion out. That's a real shame, to lose all the nuance of her.

OMG! Whay are they having Shay go to Cersie?  !Ack!

I like the show and stuff but the changes are jamakinmecrazy!

First they change the wolves, then Shay, who knows what's next?!

The writers care more about nudity than the spirit of the novels!

[TheMountainThatAbides]

Corvinus, on 21 June 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

It doesn't matter how many damn legs they've got, they are still dragons. Chinese dragons don't have wings, yet they're still dragons. There are plenty of other fantasy stories where dragons have only 2 legs. The main feature of a dragon is the fire breathing ability.
So no more of this "it is known" crap. It is not known, because dragons have never been proven to have existed so that leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

Couldn't agree more. I think they are perfect just the way they are.

[Tywin's bastard]

Corvinus, on 21 June 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

It doesn't matter how many damn legs they've got, they are still dragons. Chinese dragons don't have wings, yet they're still dragons. There are plenty of other fantasy stories where dragons have only 2 legs. The main feature of a dragon is the fire breathing ability.
So no more of this "it is known" crap. It is not known, because dragons have never been proven to have existed so that leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

The most important part is that GRRM always intended that the dragons look like they do in the show. That's the dragon shape that makes sense from the physiology perspective and George has also said that he thinks Vermithrax from Dragonslayer is the best dragon ever to be put on film. So anyone that complains about the dragons only having two legs obviously don't quite know what they are talking about.

As for the definition of a dragon, that's definitely not restricted to the four-legged and winged creature. The dragons in the show are definitely within the definition of what can be a dragon so you are entirely correct there.