734 replies to this topic

[templar7]

Laohu, on 27 May 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

Hmm... Stannis first to charge the beach and first to climb the ladders putting himself in harm's way. He is trying his hardest to be cannon fodder, is he not?

no more than the way Robert and Ned are portrayed in the books. Robert Killed Rhaegar Targaryen on the battle field

[templar7]

Zappotack, on 01 June 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

One thing I just noticed where/when did Tyrion lose his helmet because I recall Pod giving it to him but then he doesn't have it with Mandon...

At the 53.33rd minute of episode 9 Tyrion takes off his helm just prior to the ser Mandon moment.

[7V3N]

rmholt, on 01 June 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

I'm sorry you were upset.  I read the bob book and still couldnt tell the men apart in the series.  perhaps you shouldnt watch if you are upset.  too bad the bob battles lacked water, boats, and wildfire with huge realistic explosions.

No it was running through mortar and artillery explosions everywhere, machine gun fire, limbs flying every, people losing limbs or splattering entirely, vehicles blowing up. And it did have flamethrowers, many large ships, tanks, etc. Don't be so subjective because I "insulted" Blackwater. The writing was the best of all season. GoT either isn't being given enough money or is using it in dumb/wrong ways, and the Blackwater episode suffered.

Samples of The Pacific:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=yqnqLblyNa4
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=HlbAl87k06w

Edited by The Shadow Fox, 02 June 2012 - 02:28 AM.

[Arawni]

DurararaFTW, on 01 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

The Red Wedding did not prevent the shedding of blood. Robb's entire camp got butchered, hundreds, if not thousands of people died.

But still far fewer suffered than if there would've have been yers of battles as it probably would've gone if Robb would've lived. So Tywin saved thousands lives with Red Wedding and as such, if saving lives is suitable excuse for Stannis, it should be for Tywin, too.

DurararaFTW, on 01 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Who do you think he did for then?

For himself.

DurararaFTW, on 01 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

And I'm sure Stannis would have preferred to do it that way, just as he would have preferred to hang Renly's lords for betraying him. But certain things need to be done or Joffrey reigns forever.

As I said, his actions can be seen as practical but that doesn't make them any less dishonourable or disgusting. Same goes with Tywin.

DurararaFTW, on 01 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

In a more perfect world, I'd agree. But this is Robert's kingdom. It's filled with people that need to be forcibly removed. Installing Robert 2.0 or Aerys 2.0 on the Iron Throne or have Robb win the war then say screw and go back to Winterfell in the throne doews nothing to aid the realm.

The mere fact that Stannis would not be as bad as a king as Aerys was doesn't meen that he would be a good king. Also, I'm not convinced he would be better king than Robert. Sure, his shortcomings are far different from Robert's but still there are many of them.

DurararaFTW, on 01 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

What do you mean his kingly line is not established? All the lords of the seven kingdoms have sworn fealty to him and he's been sworn in by the High Septon as far I know. There's a reason why everyone calling himself king of the seven kingdoms in westeros put Baratheon behind his name. King Robert became King by right of conquest, the crown passes to the next of his line, Joffrey thought it was him, Stannis knew it was him, Renly knew it wasn't him, he went to war to make hmself king by right of conquest, to do that he needsto prevail over Stannis and Joffrey, he didn't, Stannis killed him.

Err... Not all lords have sworn to Stannis - if they had, there would be no war. Unless you mean Robert of course but as seen, it's not enough that lords swore to him. They'd need to swear to Stannis for him to be really a king. At the moment his kingship is disputed and as I said, one cannot be a king if one is not awknoledged as one. What I said about established line I meant somewhat longer dynasty, for example Targaryens. Robert's line is not secure exactly because he was usurper. Once he seized the throne it was obvious that such an act was possible it's his death and not his years as a king that will test true validity and ability of his line. And yeah, Robb for instance does not claim to be a king of Westeros, but if he had succeeded, there would've been no king of Seven kingdoms and so Roberts dynasty as a ruler for whole Westeros would've ended there.

[boojam]

BlackTalon, on 01 June 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

I am currently watching The Pacific and the first six episodes at least have definitely NOT put Blackwater to shame. I can barely keep the characters apart, the only two I know by name so far is that Leckie guy and Basilone, and him only because he got the MoH. (I have to admit though the two chicks from episode two are a match for anything GOT has come up with ^ ^)

Also, keep in mind that there are still tons of WW II surplus and war materiel (rifles, uniforms, cars, tanks, planes ...) around they could use for the show, that is a LOT cheaper than a show like GOT where EVERYTHING from the shoelaces upwards has to be specially designed and made. Plus, it is all either jungle, indoor studio or ordinary city streets cleared of modern signs.

I am not aware that there is THAT much useable WWII gear around still , and that they had to fabricate a lot of gear.
That mini series was shot , 10 episodes, 200 million dollar budget, that about 20 million an episode and the invasion of  Peleliu and Okinawa looked like every dollar of it.
The Pacific and Band of Brothers seemed near perfect WWII depictions to me.
I had no problem following them , I think they were the best mini series duo HBO has ever done.

Edited by boojam, 02 June 2012 - 04:19 PM.

[kevinbgwrites]

Posted a video with some of my thoughts/open for discussion http://www.youtube.c...U&feature=inbox

[StannisandDaeny]

Quote

Err... Not all lords have sworn to Stannis - if they had, there would be no war.

All the more reason they should have sworn to him, the bastards. Even the most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war, the crime of starting a selfish war does not change the law or grant you legitimacy, on the contrary. The law is there to prevent war, which is the most just cause there is.

Quote

But still far fewer suffered than if there would've have been yers of battles as it probably would've gone if Robb would've lived. So Tywin saved thousands lives with Red Wedding and as such, if saving lives is suitable excuse for Stannis, it should be for Tywin, too.

So you're trying to defend the Red Wedding, good luck with that ^^'

You think by putting effin' Ramsay Snow in a position of power in the North is 'saving people'? Another war has already started there because they can't keep their subjects under control, and Tywin knew this. The intent was to have the North exhaust it's strength further from the start. Tywin ordered many senseless massacres for no reason, enough to prove 'preventing more deaths' was never his intent.

The comparison Assasination of Renly - Red Wedding is ridiculous for many reasons:

- Stannis was right in removing the rebel and usurper Renly, who had no cause to declare himself King and willingly go to war to kill his brother Stannis and all of his bannermen, which he would have. This opposed to Tywin who's starting of the war in the Riverlands was a complete and total overreaction. Ned Stark and his men were murdered for doing the right thing: the North was fighting for a just cause, Tywin was not. And neither was Renly.
- The Red Wedding was a complete pointless massacre. Capturing the Starks was a possibility over killing them, which the Red Wedding Alliance ignored out of sheer spite.
- We still don't know for sure if Stannis was certain about what was going on with Renly. The show makes it seem so, the books do not offer certainty.
- Shadow magic is just another tool, it is no different than shoving a sword through someone or marching on a 2000 man army with 20 000 men of your own and 60 000 in reserve. So the argument 'hurr it's disgusting simply because it's magic' does not float. In the way Jaime Lannister would have said it: 'Would you have felt better if he had been killed in battle, rather than through Shadow Magic?'
- Stannis and Robb were both fighting to remove Joffrey and the ridiculous Lannister regime, which, as has been proven, is an extremely crappy regime. They released religious zealots on the land, slaughtered the people of King's Landing in the streets, allowed dwarfs and other people to be killed on the streets, incurred the wrath of the Iron Bank, messed up their alliance with the Tyrells and hold a very weak grip over the Seven Kingdoms, not to mention establishing feuds by crimes such as the Red Wedding that would echo for centuries. Tywin on the other hand was fighting to maintain this regime. In the long run, the victory of Stannis and Robb would have always been better. The North was willing to treat with Renly because he was the most powerful Baratheon at the moment, if Stannis had been holding King's Landing and their enemies lay defeated at their feat, the North would have treated with Stannis as well. Stannis has been shown to be able to listen to good advice. Davos would urge for a treaty, and even Melisandre would, as her POV tells us she is genuinely concerned with stopping the Others, which would be easier if the North and the South stood together.
- If Renly hadn't been destroyed, it would have set an awful precedent for further generations. All rebellions we've heard about were always the cause of the rebels thinking they had some right to the throne, through blood or otherwise, but none were as daring as to simply base it on 'I think I'm great and I have the biggest army.' In the long run, Stannis getting the throne and pointing out the law does matter and those defying the rightful king are doomed to fail (as the superstitious Westerosi would believe) would always win out in the 'preventing war and thus deaths' department, whereas Renly getting on the throne would be an encouragement to anyone to start wars. Why was Renly thinking Dorne, the Vale, the Riverlands... would ever accept him as their King? He would have had to conquer these in bloody campaigns as well.

Quote

Robert's line is not secure exactly because he was usurper.

No. Aerys lost his legitimacy as a ruler by senselessly killing off his subjects. Rightful king or not, what Aerys did does not belong to what a king should be allowed to do, on the contrary, it is the King's duty to defend his subjects. His right to rule ended right then and there. That's why the Baratheon claim to the throne is still valid.

Edited by StannisandDaeny, 03 June 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[Arawni]

StannisandDaeny, on 03 June 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

All the more reason they should have sworn to him, the bastards. Even the most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war, the crime of starting a selfish war does not change the law or grant you legitimacy, on the contrary. The law is there to prevent war, which is the most just cause there is.

If lord would've though that way, Robert would've never become a king. As said, I personally don't think Stannis would've made a good king and seemingly many lords of Westeros agree with me (not to mentions their own personal ambitions for power, of course).

StannisandDaeny, on 03 June 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

So you're trying to defend the Red Wedding, good luck with that ^^'

Well, you are defending Stannis – a murderer, a kinslayer, a fanatic. However, I am not actually defending Red Wedding because I think it was disgusting and appalling deed. Thing is that I think same way about Stannis’s actions. I find it hypocritical that some atrocities can be defended with “end justifies the means” –argument and some cannot depending on does one like or dislike the person who committed them.

StannisandDaeny, on 03 June 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

- Stannis was right in removing the rebel and usurper Renly, who had no cause to declare himself King and willingly go to war to kill his brother Stannis and all of his bannermen, which he would have.

No, it is NOT right to murder a man and it is especially not right to murder one’s brother! I simply fail to understand why people are ok with Renly’s murder. So what that he was an “usurper”, so what that he was wrong according to inheritance rights in Westeros. Killing a man without trial is a MURDER. Killing one’s brother is KINSLAYING. Id doesn’t matter that Stannis didn’t kill Renly personally, he ordered/allowed Melisandre to do it and as such he is as accountable as she is.

So our Stannis is now practical kinslayer. Good for him.

You know, there  was another way to save his soldiers if that was his main motivation. He could’ve just given up and join Renly. Yes, I know that Stannis is not a man to do so and I’m not saying he should’ve done so, but it was an option. The fact that he rather killed Renly and that he didn’t give damn if “thousands” would die at Blackwater, tell me that he doesn’t care about lives of his men. He just wants to be a king. I really haven't got any vibe from him that he wants to be king to save people or to make the land prosper or anything. He wants to be king because "it's miiiiiine!!"

StannisandDaeny, on 03 June 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

- We still don't know for sure if Stannis was certain about what was going on with Renly. The show makes it seem so, the books do not offer certainty.

As said, I talk about Show Stannis. In the last episode he clearly acknowledges that he murdered Renly. And I agree with him.

StannisandDaeny, on 03 June 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

- If Renly hadn't been destroyed, it would have set an awful precedent for further generations. All rebellions we've heard about were always the cause of the rebels thinking they had some right to the throne, through blood or otherwise, but none were as daring as to simply base it on 'I think I'm great and I have the biggest army.' In the long run, Stannis getting the throne and pointing out the law does matter and those defying the rightful king are doomed to fail (as the superstitious Westerosi would believe) would always win out in the 'preventing war and thus deaths' department, whereas Renly getting on the throne would be an encouragement to anyone to start wars. Why was Renly thinking Dorne, the Vale, the Riverlands... would ever accept him as their King? He would have had to conquer these in bloody campaigns as well.

Oh but there already has been a precedent – it’s called “King Robert”. He not only proved there can be a king who is not Targaryen but also that throne can be seized through fighting. And that’s exactly what our kings in Westeros are trying to do now. It doesn’t matter that rebellion didn’t start as a way to destroy Targaryen regime, it’s the results that count.

StannisandDaeny, on 03 June 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

No. Aerys lost his legitimacy as a ruler by senselessly killing off his subjects. Rightful king or not, what Aerys did does not belong to what a king should be allowed to do, on the contrary, it is the King's duty to defend his subjects. His right to rule ended right then and there. That's why the Baratheon claim to the throne is still valid.

I wasn’t talking about legitimacy or rights. I wrote that Robert’s line is not secure which it clearly isn’t because as soon as he died, several people started fighting for the crown.

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

For those criticizing Stannis's actions - please!  This IS Stannis in all his red passion, stripped bare of everything except his all-encompassing desire to be King, which is his RIGHT.

"Ours is the Fury", indeed!  He stayed back and watched his fleet get blown to green hell. Then instead of shrinking in horror and defeat, he took his fate in his own hands and went to TAKE what is HIS.

It's now perfectly clear why Tywin, Tyrion, Cersei, and Varys truly feared this man. We hadn't seen that before.

I FELT every moment of Stannis's mad charge and his reluctance to leave alive. Wow. Just wow.

George RR Martin presented us with the essences of who these characters really are in this episode. Truly the best cinema-TV-film experience I've ever had.  The rest of the writers try on their episodes, but really they are hacks in comparison.  

There is only one GRRM. And he made me understand that there is only 1 Stannis, truly.

Edited by A Bong of Ice and Fire, 09 June 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[RhaegarTheRed]

House Clegane words:

"Fuck the King"

[Castel]

Quote

You think by putting effin' Ramsay Snow in a position of power in the North is 'saving people'? Another war has already started there because they can't keep their subjects under control, and Tywin knew this. The intent was to have the North exhaust it's strength further from the start. Tywin ordered many senseless massacres for no reason, enough to prove 'preventing more deaths' was never his intent.

I'm pretty sure the Boltons had things in hand before Stannis the Wildcard jumped in. Of course Tywin cares about preventing deaths. Just not across the board, I doubt he gives two fucks what happens to his enemies. And no, I don't think that Tywin ever ordered a single "senseless" massacre.

Quote

- The Red Wedding was a complete pointless massacre. Capturing the Starks was a possibility over killing them, which the Red Wedding Alliance ignored out of sheer spite.

Except that this was always the plan. Cat was to be captured. Capturing Robb is a dangerous game. What if he escaped?  On top of that, unless he dies the North will always have hope. The point is to establish a new regime in Winterfell, that's best done by taking out the current leader. Robb had no value as a chip. Everyone thought that all his heirs were dead and that Sansa was with the Lannisters. What are they going to do? Surely they're not going to trade him. He was a traitor and there was nothing to gain from keeping him alive.

Quote

- Stannis and Robb were both fighting to remove Joffrey and the ridiculous Lannister regime, which, as has been proven, is an extremely crappy regime. They released religious zealots on the land, slaughtered the people of King's Landing in the streets, allowed dwarfs and other people to be killed on the streets, incurred the wrath of the Iron Bank, messed up their alliance with the Tyrells and hold a very weak grip over the Seven Kingdoms, not to mention establishing feuds by crimes such as the Red Wedding that would echo for centuries. .

The things in bold happened after both Stannis and Robb had lost their major battles. The Starks went to war first to free Ned and then for revenge. Stannis went to war for his claim. That's that. Honestly pretending that there's some greater cause here for Robb is strange. He's not trying to put a better person on the Iron Throne, he's doing his best to make it irrelevant and thumb his nose at the concept.

Quote

This opposed to Tywin who's starting of the war in the Riverlands was a complete and total overreaction. Ned Stark and his men were murdered for doing the right thing: the North was fighting for a just cause

As opposed to Robb going to war because Ned was put in prison by what he knew to be the rightful king at the time based on really questionable evidence?  

Quote

No, it is NOT right to murder a man and it is especially not right to murder one’s brother! I simply fail to understand why people are ok with Renly’s murder. So what that he was an “usurper”, so what that he was wrong according to inheritance rights in Westeros. Killing a man without trial is a MURDER. Killing one’s brother is KINSLAYING. Id doesn’t matter that Stannis didn’t kill Renly personally, he ordered/allowed Melisandre to do it and as such he is as accountable as she is.

Renly admitted his guilt, a trial is only an issue in such times when the person denies their guilt and/or isn't trying to swing a sword through your head. You really think that all kings dealt with their enemies with trials? Renly was planning to kill Stannis and claim his throne, Stannis killed him first. C'est la vie.

Quote

So our Stannis is now practical kinslayer. Good for him.

And so were the Targs when they fought their Blackfyre cousins. Such things happen in war. Why should Renly be spared because he happens to share some common DNA with Stannis?

[STANN1SBARATHEON]

COME WITH ME AND TAKE THIS CITY!

[buckfosto]

Hi everyone, I'm new to the board. Started reading the books on Memorial Day and I'm just about done with SoS now, so I wanted to wait before posting anything.

I actually liked the emotional beats of Blackwater better on the show than I even did in the book. I thought Dinklage's "I'll lead the charge" under his breath, surprising even himself was really brilliant.  I got chills and I still do when I think about it.  In the book, I didn't feel the same emotion and feel him torn as much. Same with Cersei's speech to Sansa.  I really felt her character.  The Hound was amazing and getting to see the fire through his eyes really brought home his fears.  The way he delivered "the Blackwater's on...fire" was great.  

For epic scale of the battle, the book definitely had it.  But for me, the character moments were even stronger on the show.  I'm really enjoying the ride of both

[rmholt]

OK i'm on my 5th watching. Or 6th, not sure

"Ive seen you kill a man with a shield. You'll be unstoppable with an axe"

Edited by rmholt, 28 July 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[sagaz]

Sorry I didn't read the whole thread and I don't know if someone said this but I was thinking (and I didn't rewatch, i saw 209 blackwater 3 times when it aired and a rewatch of the whole season in june) that with this episode Martin has given us a Cersei chapter of aCoK.
Cersei wasn't a POV at that point, but she was there.
Because of the show, we can see it through her eyes, as her POV.
Very clever of GRRM!!