Cron

Members
  • Content count

    1,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Cron

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,580 profile views
  1. Yeah, I think nearly everyone agrees with you on that. Even GRRM , as I understand it, now says if he had it to do over he would age up th characters like they are in the show. So, I take it you like the aging up in the show? Anything else in the show that you prefer over the books?
  2. Permanently, or just for this season, or we don't know? (I still think Dany should end up with Daario. He is a MUCH better match for her than Jon, and there really aren't any other eligible bachelors at all, that I can think of)
  3. Well, I hear you, but luckily there are a LOT more Asha and Theon chapters than Damphair or Victarion. My favorite Greyjoy would have to be Asha, no one else even close. I prefer the book version, BUT, the actress has done a good job in the show with "Yara" I think, too.
  4. Yeah, one thing I noticed (and liked) about 701 was that I THINK we saw at least SOME time with nearly every major remaining character (only exceptions I can think of offhand are Olenna, Sand Snakes, Ellaria, and maybe Daario.) I hope they keep that up, I think it worked well, and that will mean seeing plenty of Bran every week!
  5. Yeah, Jon's character, right from the beginning, brought a sense of "not quite belonging," which a lot of people can easily relate to. In fact, I'd opine that almost everyone, at some point, has felt a sense of not quite really feeling like they belonged with or were fully part of a certain group, sometimes for reasons as simple as the fact that the rest of the group has been together longer (say, for example, starting out at a new school) Regarding Bran, I think he's incredibly important, probably one off the top 3 most important characters (along with Jon and Dany), so I enjoy his scenes too, for sure..
  6. Okay, but what I was saying was that I don't think I've seen anybody who prefers everything in the SHOW over the BOOKS. (Not that I'm claiming you are such a person, of course) Easy. Aging up of the characters. This thread is LOADED with posts and arguments to the effect that the show-ages are better than the book-ages, I'm not going to re-type it all. The arguments have been made MANY times in MANY places, and I don't think I've seen a person ever claim that the book ages are better. Indeed, as I've mentioned, my understanding is that even GRRM says if he had it to over, he would have made them older in the books, too. That was like catching starving fish in a barrel, my friend. I had an understanding that the show having Tyrion knocked out for that battle was an excellent example, but as I understand it now you are saying you DON'T object to Tyrion being knocked out of the battle. Is that correct? in any event, I'm sorry, I'm just not going to review our numerous very lengthy posts above looking for a complaint of yours that I think neatly fits into this category. If one occurs offhand to me, I'll try to mention it, but I interact with a number of people here (as I'm guessing you do), and I just don't have enough free time on my hands to spend the time it would take scouring prior posts by you to find some exact language of a complaint that I think fits this. Even if the budget "required" Tyrion to be knocked out for the battle, I think the Vale tribes still served a purpose because they played active roles in multiple other scenes (I won't list them all, but one such scene would definitely include when Tyrion had a few with him when he confronted Pycelle. Why did Tyrion take them? In my opinion, it was cuz they were some of the very few people he knew he could trust in KL) I believe the Vale tribes also served a purpose b/c lots of fans of the books wanted to see them on-screen b/c in the books they are a significant part of Tyrion's story, and I think a lot of fans would say that seeing SOME Vale hill tribe characters and action is better than none. Regarding your last sentence, I guess all I can say is that I too prefer the books, I too would agree that D&D did not do a perfect job OR do the show the way I would have, but again, to me there's no great conflict between the books and show. I view them as parallel universes, one of which I prefer (books) but both of which I enjoy. You know, "suspension of disbelief" is not something that just applies to magical or sci-fi special effects or storylines. To a degree, it can also sometimes apply even plot holes in a story. I said "to a degree." Sure, if the plot has so many craters it looks like the surface of the moon then THAT'S a big problem, but I don't expect anything to be perfect. If a person is determined to look hard enough, I believe flaws can be found in virtually EVERYTHING, even GRRM's books. Each person has to decide how far that should go for themselves, though, and of course that is highly subjective. By the way, what were your thoughts about 701?
  7. Interesting. I take it by "Greyjoy" you're not counting Theon, since his time was expanded in the show? Guess you don't like the rest of them though, huh? Any particular reason? (Personally, they are not my favorite characters, but I found some it it interesting, especially Asha's stuff)
  8. No offense taken. My rating takes into account how much I "enjoyed" it. Well, long anticipation can make a person "enjoy" something more. It's a highly personal, highly subjective thing. That doesn't mean if something is garbage I'm going to love it just cuz I waited a REALLY long time, though. So no, I would not extrapolate to the extreme hypothetical you asked me about. Having said that, I waited 16 years between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace, and I've gotta say, I was pretty ready for Phantom Menace when it was released Hmm. I think a lot of people would agree with me that anticipation can enhance an experience. In fact, some people purposely take things slowly in order to savor them. I don't lean heavily in that direction, but there IS some of that in me. A lot of people really enjoy a big build-up, I think.
  9. Interesting. Well, that Battle was late last season, and we've only had a few episodes since. I guess we'll continue to see how it changed him.
  10. Sure, there's bias in favor of the show, too. No doubt. But I don't think I've communicated with anyone who has read the books and seen the show and believes the show is better in all ways. But "bias in favor of the show" doesn't necessarily make people biased in favor of the show "wrong," either. If they enjoy it, that's fine, just like the person who loves highly abstract art, even though I don't. Sure. These things are called "fads," and they come and go, as you basically say. GoT might be one of those things, but some things last longer. Star Wars has been booming for 40 years, with no end in sight (indeed, last I heard Disney says they plan to continue making Star Wars movies indefinitely. In other words, I'm sure, as long as they are making great money, which they ARE doing. Same with Disney/Marvel superhero movies. Last I heard, they are planned indefinitely, meaning they have many projects in many stages of development, and have no plans to stop initiating new projects, as I understand it.) Well, as I"ve said, if I had made the show, it would have followed the books much more closely, and added material would be just about exclusively stuff that does not contradict the books (some allowances have to be made for budget reasons, though. We can't get around that, I don't think, at least not until virtual reality allows authors to just sit around imagining stuff and having a computer convert it to viewable images, or even raw information to be downloaded into the "viewer's" brain as virtual reality, too. I love talking about stuff like that, I'm a huge sci-fi fan) Well, I certainly won't try to defend such changes from books to show. However, I will say this: In my opinion, the books in ANY story are almost always going to be better than a show of the same story b/c the books can give vastly more detail and information.No getting around that. In my opinion, that change was likely made to (a) save time, and (b) save budget money. Such a battle would have been expensive to film, especially so early in the show when the budget was smaller. I think we have no choice but to make allowances for that. It would be nice if the showrunners had infinite money and infinite time to get everything perfect, but they don't. i think you might be holding the show to standards they can't possibly meet. They've got to produce this stuff in what you and I call the "real world," including time and budget limitations, and it's a LOT cheaper and quicker to have Tyrion knocked out than to film that battle. Mmmm...I think likability can be discussed. Again, go back to my "art museum" discussion. Consider highly abstract art. People discuss it all the time, and whether they like it, without analyzing it in terms of logic and reason. As I've said, people have different priorities about what they value, and some people "feel" A LOT more than they "think," believe me. I guarantee you that is true. Hmmm. I'm not sure about that. LOTR is a STRONG allegory, and was intended as such, I've heard. My understanding is that a lot of logic and reason was intended by the author, and I think we can evaluate how much we believe he succeeded at that. Sure, the viewing experience is highly subjective, and there is SOME form of "bias" (good or bad) in every viewer, I think. Personally, I choose to focus more on positivity, and frankly I think that leads to a happier, healthier life. But each person has to make their own choice about that. Answer: Largely because of budget and time restrictions (but not exclusively b/c of these things, I admit). Wouldn't it be nice if they could hook GRRM's brain up to a computer, download the story as he imagines it, then give us that in virtual reality? Well, I have good news. That technology is coming, and may not be too far away, in fact (relatively speaking) (By the way, Westeros has been running very poorly for me lately. I'm guessing it's b/c of the high traffic b/c the new season is out. Don't be surprised if I take a long time to reply to something.).
  11. Oh yes, I like Jon's character a lot. He probably has one of the most exciting stories, too (lots of action, adventure, exploring, romance, learning about the WW/Others, defending the Wall, retaking Winterfell). Closest thing to a true action hero that GoT has, I would say. And year, he's a genuinely good guy. Very easy to like as a character, and very easy to root for.
  12. I considered giving it an 8, but the fact that it was the season premiere, after we had waited so long, pushed it up to a 9. (Not surprising it wasn't a 10, though. As a season premiere, we can't expect much in terms of big events or major developments)
  13. I've heard Ed Sheeren is appearing on GoT this season. Does anyone know which character, and which episode(s)? Was he on last night? Oh, was he the character who sang that song last night? That would make sense. He must have been sitting around the fire then, too, right? Which character was he?
  14. Yes, I agree completely. However, "losing your head" (my words) under pressure is NOT the mark of a good leader. in fact, it's the exact opposite. Far more often than not, I think, the person you want as a leader is calm, cool, and collected, even when everything is going to hell all around you. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, though, just commenting further.
  15. Ah, I see what you are saying. A very fair point. None of those Robert scenes had a chapter-POV character in them. Okay, that is a great explanation of how it would disrupt the structure, but still, my other points remain. I like those scenes a lot precisely because they were not in the books, but COULD have happened in the book-story, but we just weren't given them, for whatever reason (and perhaps the reason is what you say, cuz there was no chapter-POV character present for any of those 3 scenes with Robert) Got it. I see what you are saying now, and that is a strong point. I guess what I meant when I said those scenes could have happened in the books without disrupting the structure is that those scenes could have happened in the books' STORY, but "offstage." Technically, though, you are right. In order to actually add those scenes to the books would take some work, possibly adding entire chapters with a new POV character (probably Robert, since he was the only one present for all 3 of those scenes) To me, some comparisons between books and shows have what I would call "directly corresponding material" (where the books and show are VERY similar), and some comparisons have "indirectly corresponding material" (where, for example, entire scenes are chopped out or added in). For an example of the latter, the fight between Brienne and Sandor DOES have "indirectly corresponding material" in the books. There is no actual fight scene in the books, BUT there is overlap with some of the events, such as how and why Arya and Sandor parted ways. At least, that's how I view it. Well, I agree with you that the show's fight scene between Brienne and Sandor DOES "contradict" the books, b/c it is a major discrepancy between them. I did not intend to suggest that that scene could be easily shoehorned into the books, though. For the scenes that I said do not contradict the books and could have been part of the book-story, I believe I specified the Robert scenes and the Jaime and Jory scen you mentioned. In theory, though, GRRM could have incorporated the Brienne vs. Sandor fight scene, although, yes, some changes would be needed. I thought that in the books some time passed between when Sandor was wounded and when he parted ways with Arya. I thought the wound was festering and became infected, like in the show, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Still, though, with a pretty minor change (Sandor not being wounded quite so badly at the inn), GRRM could have still had Sandor fight Brienne plausibly, but still injured enough to make it realistic that she beat him (anyone who denies that Brienne ONLY beat the Hound cuz he was already so messed up is, I think, simply dreaming. Clearly, the Hound was NOT at 100%, in fact, at times prior to that he could barely walk, and Brienne BARELY beat him as it was. I think it's obvious that if he had been at full strength he would have beaten her, and probably without a whole lot of difficulty, which is not surprising, since he is a VERY big, VERY strong man, which matters a lot in melee fighting, especially some of the fighting they were doing, without weapons. At full strenght and size, I'd have to estimate Sandor outweighs Brienne by AT LEAST 50 to 100 pounds of muscle, and anyone who thinks that doesn't matter in the kind of fight they had is dreaming) Hmmm. An interesting point of view, and I do NOT claim to know better than you do what is going on in your mind (I have a small pet peeve about other people trying to tell me what I think, claiming to know that better than I do, so I try not to do that to others). Having said that, as human beings we are ALL subject to subconscious biases, and I've got to say, at some point it starts to add up to pretty big coincidences that you seem to prefer ALL book material to ALL show material. What would you say is the statistical probability of that, without some underlying thread that runs through and connects all those instances by you of favoring the books over the show? Well, that's interesting. I'd be happy to hear more about those two categories of things. Well, in my mind, "quality" is HIGHLY subjective, which gives it major overlap with "likability." "Beauty is in the eye fo the beholder," right? Frankly, I don't see how we could totally separate quality and likability. Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? A very useful tool in thinking about things. Picture two circles on a piece of paper, partially overlapping each other. One circle represents quality, and the other represents likability. The Venn diagram tells us they are not always exactly the same thing for all purposes, but there IS substantial overlap between them, and in this case I think the overlap is pretty big, b/c "quality" and "likability" are both HIGHLY subjective when evaluating and talking about a show like GoT. Indeed, different people place different values on different things when judging "quality" and "likability." You, it seems, place a VERY high value on logic. That's okay, I do TOO (I really do. You might be surprised by how true that statement is.) But other people don't care very much about that at all, and to them watching ANY show CAN be mindless brain candy, and they LOVE it. And on that spectrum between "pure logic" and "mindless brain candy," there are a LOT of different points, where most people fall (between the two extremes of the spectrum) I actually agree quite a bit with a lot of stuff you're saying. But please see my immediately preceding discussion. Let's say, that on the spectrum between "pure logic" and "mindless brain candy," we have a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "mindless brain candy," and 10 being "pure logic." I'd say I'm an 8 or 9, depending on the type of show we are watching. But the fact that some people may be a 1 or a 2 does not make them "wrong," it just makes them different, in my opinion, and to them even a show that you might judge as being of very low "quality" is actually very high "quality," cuz your evaluation of "quality" places a much higher emphasis on whether things make sense, while some other people, I guarantee you, couldn't care LESS if it makes no sense. My friend, we are talking about "ART" here. GoT is an artistic expression, not a college exam on logical reasoning. And different people like different kinds of art. Personally, I favor "realism" (and I have to assume you do, too). If I go into an art museum and look at some highly abstract "art" that I can't even make sense of, well, that doesn't do much for me, but other people LOVE it, and the fact that you and I can't make logical sense of some bizarre abstraction does not mean it is of poor "quality" in some objective way. (Have you seen "art" where people are just literally throwing paint from cans at a canvass on a wall? I look at that stuff, and I'm baffled, but hey, to each his own.) I too place a VERY high value on logic and realism and consistency, so I get what you're saying. But in my mind, (a) I don't think the books are perfect either (although I love them a lot), (b) I'm mellow about differences b/c I view books and show about parallel universes, and (c) as I've said, even when something is radically illogical (like Jon surviving the Battle of the Bastards) I have the ability to "suspend disbelief," and just accept it and enjoy it for what it was (a grand spectacle of a battle, which it was) You seem to me to be a HIGHLY analytical person. Well, I am too, VERY much so, but I don't allow that part of my brain to get too much in the way of enjoying something which I KNOW is never going to meet the highest standards of perfection. If something gets TOO bad, I'll stop watching it, sure but meanwhile, I just continue to watch, tending to focus more often on the good than the bad (although that does NOT mean that no nit-picking or criticism is warranted. In fact, there's plenty of that on these boards. Although I'm happy to discuss these things with you on my thread, and thank you for your extensive contributions to it, have you seen the "Rant and Rave Without Repercussions" threads? Whoa. HARRR!!!)