Humble AK

Members
  • Content count

    311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Humble AK

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

584 profile views
  1. Yeah, sorry, that's really reaching. And certainly doesn't make me think that bringing Cat back would be good.
  2. Well, considering in this thread alone fans are already talking excitedly about what material should be cut/condensed, I think having too much of Wheel of Time would be disappointing to most book fans. Hey, we all like our Wheel of Time, but despite all the good stuff it had to offer it was a deeply flawed series. I see one of two things happening in the most ideal circumstance where the network that broadcasts it goes all the way and the show isn't prematurely cancelled. 1) It gets the serious adaptation, and the show runners try to be as faithful as they can to the material. In this case it will not exceed 100 episodes, and almost certainly will be in the range of 70-90 episodes. 2) It goes to a channel that embraces the "more is more" philosophy, and it gets like 22-26 episodes a season. These channels don't give a shit about quality programming and there's basically no chance that they'll be faithful to the material. It will get the Legend of the Seeker treatment, where you have more episodes, but they basically have nothing to do with the books. No chance at all, however successful the show turns out to be, that it's faithful and manages to be more than 100 episodes. If you're pinning your hopes on 150 episodes or more, then I think you might as well let yourself accept that the show will disappoint you.
  3. They could certainly make the show as long as they want to, for sure. They don't need to spin their wheels and add filler because they can take as much of the filler from the books as they desire. Although they would probably opt to put in their own filler instead. Anyway, this turning out to be anything more than a loose adaptation would be shocking, and it's almost assured not to get the kind of reception GoT has, just based on the type of story it is. People have complained about Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones taking too many deviations, but I'm pretty sure those have been the most faithful to the source material by far. Look at what happened to Legend of the Seeker and Shannara Chronicles, for instance. If Wheel of Time gets the sort of faithfulness that Game of Thrones has it will be a small miracle. At any rate, the novels are remarkable in the way things fit together so well, and the painstaking plotting that RJ did, but no one can accuse the story of WoT of transcending the generic fantasy story. All the stuff that gives Game of Thrones acclaim - multidimensional characters, a deep plot of intrigue, the white-knuckled uncertainty of where things are headed, the exploration of the nature of power - none of these things apply to Wheel of Time. It's a straightfoward story that we've essentially already seen in the likes of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Still, I do hope for the best, despite how stacked the odds are against this show seeing more than two seasons and actually being decent.
  4. They wouldn't need to have at least 200 episodes. They could probably get away with 80-90 episodes. Maybe less. The books are long and numerous, but quite a bit of it involves characters pointlessly dilly-dallying around. They could probably cut Crossroads of Twilight out entirely and not miss a beat. A Song of Ice and Fire may have a smaller word count, but it has much more substance in the writing. That's not to say Martin doesn't put in a good amount of filler in his books; but it's nowhere near to the extent Robert Jordan did.
  5. Zombie Catelyn, a victim of the injustice of the Red Wedding, scoring points against those who wronged her is what lessens the impact. She shouldn't be the agent of any kind of "payback", or that lessens the impact. A character restored from death and exacting revenge is a character no longer dead. The death was part of the impact, and that death was lessened. Is she in the happiest of states? Certainly not. But I think based on how many people are outraged by the notion of there being no "payback" to the Freys by Zombie Catelyn, it's a clear indication that this revenge generates some sense of satisfaction of an injustice being corrected. So the greater injustice to Catelyn, it seems, is to deny her the revenge. She and Robb were betrayed and murdered by the Freys; she and Robb are dead and can do nothing about it - this is something that many people don't like because it's unfair. But life is unfair - if someone is brutally and unjustly slaughter, they don't get the chance to revive and take their revenge. The existence of Catelyn feels like a take-back, and that's a big deal because the Red Wedding did have a profound impact, and so anything that diminishes that seems rather glaring. Tywin mentions in the book and the show the point of, to paraphrase, "Explain to me why it's worse to kill a dozen people at dinner instead of letting thousands die in battle." I did not say the Red Wedding was the right thing - I can't say that dropping two nukes on Japan was the right thing. These are morally complex issues and there really is no right or wrong, just morality predicated on opinion. But it can be justified because it works. Tywin is not evil - he commits atrocities, but for the most part he commits atrocities for a reason. He gave peace and plenty to Westeros for something like 20 years, and even mitigated a lot of the damage inflicted by the Mad King. In a society so underdeveloped they don't really have the luxury to cultivate a sophisticated sense of humanity, Tywin's way probably has provided the most net good to everyone that any alternative style of ruling has given. This is what was the highlight of Feast/Dance: exploring the nature of power, and those who hold it and their varied way of dealing with that power. It's a mercurial thing, and even those with good intentions can fail (see Jon, Dany), or totally short-sighted and malicious intentions (see Cercei). The show runners aren't perfect, but you don't write the preponderance of material of, and produce, the single most popular and acclaimed series on now by being an idiot. I know you are infatuated with your own opinion, but I can pretty much guarantee you that D&D are smarter than you are, regardless of how much they differ in their interpretation of Martin's work, or how they are able to execute their interpretation. I'm not saying you're stupid, mind you. I'm saying that they're smarter than you think you are. You're very optimistic to think we'll ever be able to read that story, but you are right that we can only know by reading it. Yeah, I agree that that was a stupid scene. So were some scenes in Dorne, so was Yara running from dogs. But why add to them? The point of putting something in the show should be because it makes things good, not because it's something you're attached to from the books and it won't be quite as stupid as some other scenes (although I think hissing LSH would probably give hand-grenade kid a run for their money).
  6. No doubt. It's so silly in life when some injustice is committed and there's no act of recompense or restoration to the imbalanced equilibrium. Why, I was watching Making of a Murder, and I say that they need to rewrite events where all the prosecutors and police and those involved in that horrible miscarriage of justice are one by one brought down by some vengeful specter. It's not like there's substance to a story exploring that bad things can happen to good people and life goes on, with those who committed the misdeeds not receiving 'fair' punishment. Catelyn taking her revenge doesn't seem like a tragic case of her not resting in peace. The tragedy is from the innocent people who are caught in her web of revenge. I do not feel the least bit sad for sociopathic zombie Catelyn who is on a rampage. Maybe in an abstract 'it's a pity someone is like that' sort of way, but I feel no worse for Catelyn than I do for the Boston Strangler. Yeah, it's too bad that events and who they are and all the important variables aligned in such a way that they behave as they do, but one could say that about any perpetrator of horror. It doesn't make me sympathize with the actual perpetrator though. I feel boundless sympathy for the Catelyn who was betrayed and saw her entire world destroyed before her eyes before she herself was killed. Catelyn the victim was a huge tragedy. Vengeful Catelyn is only tragic in the harm she does to others, regardless of what brought her to that point. A serial killer could be a serial killer because they were beaten as a child, and that child abuse is very sad, but the serial killer themselves do not strike me as tragic or sympathetic characters. And you can have that misplaced revenge without her leading the group exacting the vengeance. The Red Wedding was a strong, important event. It was ruthlessly practical and effective. It seemed wrong because it was such a violent, shocking betrayal, even though one can easily justify the reason for it coming about. That one of the victims of the Red Wedding comes back to exact vengeance against those who wronged her and her family is pure revenge fantasy that is at odds with what you see in real life. I know people are trying to make it seem like a mournful extension of Catelyn's desecration (all she cares about is revenge, look at what an empty, sad figure she is), but this is in fact a very common trope in storytelling. It happened to the most famous character of revenge, the Count of Monte Cristo. He became merely a hollow vessel of revenge that 'lost his soul' in the pursuit of taking down those who had wronged him. It's a story told over and over, and it's not especially interesting to me as represented in zombie Catelyn form. This is particularly true through visual representation. I don't want to see Michelle Fairly in zombie make-up hissing and glaring her way through a path of revenge. That seems like it would be really, really dumb. Oh yes, the condescending tone of someone who thinks they are smarter than they actually are. Obviously someone who doesn't share your infallibly good taste must only do so through ignorance. I really don't want to see an actual victim of the Red Wedding leading the vengeance - that I feel is something that would rob it of its impact. As for Brienne's conflict of loyalty - considering that she already has recovered one of the daughters she swore to protect, I think the show is taking a different direction anyway (or perhaps a different route in how they explore the idea of loyalty). Regardless, it's all much better without Catelyn around. For those interested in the harmony of themes, events turning against the Freys, as they likely will anyway through the BWB, holds to that. You don't need it to be through the direct action of a hissing zombie; it could be as a consequence of a betrayed family.
  7. The show runners had considered cutting Dorne because it didn't fit with the show, but unfortunately they managed to shoe-horn it in, and now it is a permanent black eye to an otherwise remarkable series. I think the really stupid zombie Cat would have been black eye number two. Sure, you'd get your initial cheap shock when she first makes her appearance, but then it's non-stop silliness after that. And it robs the Red Wedding of its impact, just for that cheap thrill and ensuing silliness. You are focused on book Blackfish and book Sansa. I don't agree with your assertion about book Blackfish - I could see him growing to condone increasingly unjust acts - but I do agree about book Sansa - she's a soft girl who is easily manipulated (just like the show), but she hasn't experience the kind of trauma that would make someone crazy with hate for the world, regardless of who else is affected. I can see show Sansa having just that mindset. And there's nothing about show Blackfish that makes me think that he would be appalled by a BWB rampage. BWB may not perceive themselves to be honorless. One can be on a crusade of righteousness and commit many unrighteous acts in the process (see: the Sparrows). This is not an argument that the Ramsay treatment of Sansa empowered her - quite the opposite. It's an argument that it totally would have fucked up her mind, and thereby made her capable of depredations that she would not otherwise have been capable of. Although I'm sure some will argue that acts of revenge are acts of empowerment, but I don't see it that way.
  8. I think you guys better brace for more articles like this. A central criticism of GoT (show and books) has been misogyny, so it's only natural that this will be a popular consideration in articles on the show and its episodes. Feminism and misogyny are ill-defined concepts, but people sure do like to throw them around a lot. In the article, the author regards themselves as feminist. And yet that article is receiving a lot of umbrage from people on this thread, who consider themselves feminists. There are even self-proclaimed feminists now accusing the material that the author of the article - a self-proclaimed feminist - is praising as feminist to be misogynistic. Of course the roach in the pudding is that everyone seems to think their idea of feminism and misogyny is infallibly correct. As long as feminism and misogyny are so vaguely defined, people will passionately throw these labels out and be convinced they are right to do so. So, pertaining this post to the subject of the article, it totally makes sense that someone would view violently murdering innocent people for totally mystifying reasons as pure feminism. Because it's the easiest thing in the world, with the modern view of feminism, to call anything feminist. I disagree with the article, but doubtless the author would say that that's only because I'm a misogynist who hates women too much to see the truth.
  9. Uh...no? No work of art is universally liked. Even Shakespeare has his critics. I know people who think The Godfather and Shawshank Redemption are trip. People are free to have their opinions. I do get insulted when people are insulting about their opinion, though. You see a lot of snobbery, where those who believe themselves to be smarter than they are and refined of taste have an emotional reaction to a work of art, decide their opinion is the correct opinion, and view those who disagree with them as stupid plebs. You find this attitude all the time, particularly on this forum in regard to Game of Thrones. There are people who simply cannot fathom that it's possible to be an intelligent person and like Game of Thrones (like, say, the President of the United States), and when they get analytical about why they think Game of Thrones is bad, and find that those who like it are unpersuaded by their reasons, they make the declaration that the person obviously doesn't understand what they're talking about. I've had numerous people tell me that Game of Thrones is intellectually vacant and if I like it I must be dumb, and that the only reason I can like Game of Thrones is for the spectacle and the nudity. And there's a cognitive dissonance about it too. Some people who dislike the show can appreciate the subjective nature of all shows, and we discuss things and ultimately agree to disagree - I can respect their opinions and I enjoy the fact they have a difference of opinion because it allows for a stimulating discussion. But there are so many out there who have a total douchebag attitude, and even when they are annihilated in a debate they are unable to recognize it and like rubber bounce back to their original position and ignore that their points had just been disemboweled, and they just get more insulting and condescending. That attitude is annoying and somewhat frustrating. But, you know...that's just how some people are, I guess. TL;DR: Anyone is free to have an opinion about anything, but try not to be an asshole about it.
  10. Haha, well anyway, good luck with your writing if you don't understand the audience you are writing for. You can be obdurately insistent that people must behave one way when all you have to do is take a look at any consumer report for evidence that they behave another way. But success will be hard won if you go "No, no - this is what you're supposed to like, so I command you to like it!" And you'll just continue to be like this at the response.
  11. As done in romance novels I do. They're not realistic, that's the point. Just as the sex in the male-focused porn is not remotely realistic, and I know many females who find that hilarious - in fact, it's often made fun of. The romance in romance novels is not realistic it's all idealized and silly. It's funny to read stuff like: “When the day shall come that we do part," he said softly, and turned to look at me, "if my last words are not 'I love you'-ye'll ken it was because I didna have time.” because no one says these things. It's pretty much the analog to "play with her ass". It's just really funny.
  12. It doesn't seem difficult to set up the situation. Ramsay sends Jon a letter this season, or someone informs Jon of Sansa's plight, or any number of workarounds. It's not out of nowhere if things are set up this season. Perhaps it will seem rushed, perhaps even with it being set up this season it will seem to lag too much, or perhaps it will be perfectly paced. I guess we'll know when we see it.
  13. I don't know if it's that mystifying. For female erotica, take the Outlander approach. For the male erotica, take the Game of Thrones approach. Although I'll grant you that either audience it seems embraces one approach and is turned off by the other approach, so they are kind of mutually exclusive. I don't think I've ever read any male-focused erotica - if I want porn, I'm going to watch it, not read it - but I have read female-focused erotica because I find it hilarious. The advantage of the written word is that you can focus on the thoughts and emotional aspects of the situation, whereas the advantage of pictures/movies is that you can focus on the physical, so it's no surprise why consumer behavior for genders is as it is. Still, I'd say that if you go heavy on the sex and light on schmaltzy feelings you'll get your male audience. If you go heavy on the emotions and how special the guy makes the girl feel, you'll get your female audience. Find a way to do both without going overboard one way or the other and maybe you'll find male and females want to read your stuff.
  14. I would be profoundly disappointed if LSH makes an appearance in the show. I can't say that I actually hate any element in the books (some things I find less interesting than others, some I find somewhat silly), but I come close to it with LSH. The BWB turning to a hypocritical band was already indicated in the show, and their misplaced path of revenge (killing innocents in the process) would be far more interesting without an annoying zombie leader. So I would very much like to see the Riverland plot and the North plot come to a close, but please, please, no LSH.
  15. Mostly what I remember from Jon's chapters were long interludes where he was counting supplies and wringing his hands over getting the Wildlings through. It wasn't exactly boring, but there were lots of things that bothered me. I absolutely detested how they handled Mance (the glamour). I did not like that he abandoned post over fake Arya. I can't remember specifics of his decisions because I don't want to re-read those chapters just to provide a convincing argument for my opinion (which you won't understand anyway, because you are so deadset on the opinion that the books are untouchable and the show has no value). What I liked about the show Jon, and the North in general: -Hardhome was amazing. -Mance was actually killed off, no stupid glamouring. -I liked that Jon was more liberal about his vows and the vows of Sam. -I liked how Jon interacted with Davos, Stannis and Mel. -I loved the execution of Janos Slynt. It makes me smile how people were so upset that Jon didn't say "Edd, get me a block." I think "Olly, get me my sword" is a much better line. -Speaking of which, I liked Jon the mentor and Olly. -I liked how for the watch was done. -I liked the stare off between Jon and Allister, and like the nature of Allister and Jon's interactions in general. People are hung up on the geography of the travel, but I find that to be an incredibly pedantic concern - on the level of people saying a show is ruined because someone used a flintlock musket rifle in 1750, and they were first used in 1768. I thought it was a really good cinematic moment. I could go on, but will additionally add that whatever value you attribute to "themes" in the book, I likely don't care a fig for. I think themes are for eighth grade book reports, and so something being, in your opinion, "thematically significant" in a book is as persuasive to me as someone trying to convince me that evacuating one's bowels every morning has thematic significance.