The Dragon Demands

Members
  • Content count

    465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About The Dragon Demands

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York City
  • Interests
    I'm an Administrator on the Game of Thrones Wiki, devoted to the TV show (which interlinks with A Wiki Of Ice and Fire).

Recent Profile Visitors

1,976 profile views
  1. @The Bard of Banefort You have to understand....Benioff and Weiss honestly believed that Sansa was "a powerful player in Season 5", so that's why they hyped Dark Sansa. Problem is, their definition of "powerful player" - verbatim - is if *Sophie Turner*, the actress, was giving a "powerful" performance...crying helplessly in a rape scene. I'll talk about this more. Have you heard that Rhaenyra has an army? IMPORTANT: I've heard vague rumors about Natalie Dormer being unsatisfied with the show or asking to leave, but no confirmation. Do you have links or anything? These would help, I need citations for the wiki and to make other videos.
  2. Why the Stannis storyline failed in Game of Thrones - Emoting & Acting Interested in everyone's thoughts on this video, also on the Cersei video.
  3. Why TV-Cersei differs from Book-Cersei, and why she has a black-haired son with Robert (also, is it Gendry?)
  4. You understand everything I tried to convey. In the event that I suddenly die, or get banned, I need you to keep these criticisms alive. All of you. All the ranters. This needs to spread.
  5. (sheepish grin) I *suspected* that line was an ad-lib, but I haven't confirmed it....
  6. Hey gang, my next big video is sort of about news: Ava DuVernay openly criticizes Game of Thrones for going an unprecedented 3 years without a female director: Also unprecedented to go 4 years without female writers. This isn't normal.
  7. I thought the entire Sandor chicken joke was funny, really....given that Cogman wrote it, and expressly said he was trying to copy the kind of posturing that happens in Western cowboy movies when two guys are facing each other across a table in a saloon right before a huge fight breaks out. I actually consider it a good line. Though I'm annoyed at how the morons care more about that than say, SanSan. Lest we forget that was still early Season 4 when the show was still fairly good. Dear god, the sharp drop in quality by Season 5 was just staggering. Even relative to their earlier problems, which were at least 'under the radar" to the non-book readers. No surprise: the first year they wrote after the international mega-success of the Red Wedding. Season 4 was already in the can (done writing) when that aired. Mad with power. Well, look at what I'm saying: WE all make twitter posts and memes about it, but to share our pain on stuff. Or rather.... damn it, our memes are witty and thoughtful. Casual viewer memes are just "quote lines you like on twitter". Not like puns or sarcastic allusions to the books. Everything we've lost we'll take back. I intend to humiliate Benioff and Weiss. Then I will break them. Benioff and Weiss teach a man the real depths of Hate.
  8. Something I thought of just pondering today... ....all the people you see in comments sections who *blindly adore* D&D and their TV changes, and will go on long rants saying "it's great". but I mean, just vague "it's great" adjectives.....not a measured response of "I honestly think this was adding nuance to that character". Which is of course a tell that they're just spewing blind, non-thinking adoration. And I keep coming back to how even *I* was fooled for a while. Even Season 1 I thought they must be good writers. And while I ...."disagreed" with them starting in Season 2, I thought they were still rational writers making decisions I didn't like. Not "just plain incompetent". But I mean cited quotes, post-Season 6, that PBS interviews where Benioff admits "we had no idea how the logistics of film making work, only script writing" when they started. Just how unqualified they were. But then they hit a breaking point in Season 5, and at least a large number of people admitted there were problems. I mean there are die-hards who rationalize, mindlessly, "this was an improvement over the lousy fourth and fifth novels". I think it all comes down to "celebrity culture". Simply....why do people love the NFL, still, after the concussion scandal? Or actors (and athletes) who are celebrities....that people adore even after details of their horrific personal lives come out. Example: there are still rabid Johnny Depp fans....even after his domestic abuse incidents were revealed. And okay maybe he's got issues and it isn't black and white but.....I'm talking the worst case scenarios. Big on TV here in America and swept the Emmys last year, that dramatization of the OJ Simpson trial. And it's this big commentary on celebrity culture. Before that, people just loved "OJ Simpson" the ...'character' they perceived on TV, from sports, movies, and commercials. And they had 911 emergency tapes, hard evidence audio tapes, of domestic battery incidents - of OJ shouting like a monster, undeniable evidence that he was beating his wife.... .....and everyone still loves the really likable persona he projects of being this really great friendly guy. Hell, maybe he isn't even acting (it really seemed to be just an act), but he never showed a hint of remorse for the confirmed domestic abuse cases. So why do so many people blindly praise D&D? I mean even today, in threads over on WOTW, I'm seeing people saying they DO NOT want a prequel based on World of Ice and Fire "because Elio & Linda wrote it, and they hate D&D" and they'd love D&D to still be attached to it.... I think after a while celebrity culture just sets in. They were really good at marketing themselves (some writers stick to behind the camera). Every promo video. Created a false sense of honesty and friendship. People just...project what they want to onto celebrities, to build them up as what they want them to be. In the past week, the news jumped on that Battlestar Galactica's Ron Moore admitted very publicly that he never had a plan for the story, it just rambled into a corner....NO this isn't "architect vs gardener", even gardeners have outlines. But he said that when the show ended as well: There NEVER WAS a plan, he was flat out lying to hook viewers. Basically the "Lost" effect, BSG and Heroes copied that. GRRM later said that by the end BSG was every insulting for just writing itself into a corner. But....AT THE TIME, I was a blind fanatic. I even met Moore once on the rope line at a con and was enthralled. And I remember hanging on his every word like he was some sage genius. And I realize...I *wanted* it to be true. I wanted it to have some actual thought put into it, and not "I just made it up from week to week". Hard to convey in words just how strongly I believed it, even DEFENDED them against those accusing they weren't planning the show out. Of course, they were constantly bragging "We planned this out", so when they didn't it was a huge shock that they'd just openly lie like that. So I think a lot of people blindly praise D&D because they want them to be good. And I'm disgusted at myself for mistaking Season 1 successes as them really planning things out well (which I later got confirmation they didn't). Because early on, we hoped they'd be the next Peter Jackson. That's the narrative, isn't it? "Great new show comes along with well-qualified writers who interact with the fans regularly with Q&A and open transparency".....when we didn't get that, when they started ignoring Talisa questions in Season 2....I started souring, but still didn't want to believe it. So succinctly I'm left asking, "Why do people ignore the shocking and repulsive personal lives of celebrities like movie stars and sports figures, choosing to believe that they resemble their fictional personas?" Because it's sort of the same phenomenon. On top of this I read a nice article once about how the combination of social media with prestige TV is a bad thing, even compared to the Sopranos 10 years ago. There's a difference between a well-written, structured, professional "Review" and a "Reaction". All the "Reaction" videos to the Red Wedding were not "Reviews". Dumb people want to feel important with minimal effort. These days, any idiot with a Twitter handle can write a "Review" of a Breaking Bad episode, along the lines of "it was so good!"....not a structured analysis of technical aspects like cinematography. I'm actually seen people arguing, "D&D are great because of the show's artwork like Cinematography, Editing, Music" etc. And....dude....they aren't personally responsible for those. Yes they do have some great directors and cinematographers working for them. Yes, D&D themselves may have made some good choices with those. But.....I see this from people who DO NOT KNOW what the cinematography being employed actually is. Just "I like it". "Okay, from an art school perspective, which use of camera angles was structurally great in it?" They don't know. So I think this is all a big expression of "the hype" as they say: an overlapping mix of celebrity culture and the rise of social media, which has fueled celebrity culture to new untold heights. It isn't even "about" the TV show anymore, but about the reaction posts you make on Twitter about "Kit Harington was cool in this episode!" - a celebrity they never met, behaving like a stereotype of the role he originated. (shrug) I've submitted half a dozen panel applications to New York Comic Con yesterday. I hope I do better than last year when they didn't accept any - not from me or anyone (no cast came that year). I have hope it will be different this year because it makes a huge difference if you've run a panel at a prior local convention before that (it asks this on the application), and I did; instead of going straight for NYCC year after year I realized I needed to build up my resume on the local convention track first. With luck this means that I'll be running some panels at such a public venue, where I can actually give substantive criticisms of D&D and not just blind praise. Alea iacta est. I found out in late August if any got in.
  9. My upcoming "Battle of the Bastards" video will be all about that KITN scene. why it happened. DVD talks about it. But Cersei and Stannis videos come first.
  10. NO. NO. Blatantly no. You ASSUMED that. Watch my longer video on Dorne (yeah it's a few hours long). The Dorne fight scene was bad because they put too LITTLE attention on producing it. It was an afterthought. Terrible camera angles, filmed during the DAY.....all because D&D weren't paying attention to it. You keep saying "the writing is at fault". NO. This is the OPPOSITE of "writing". What do you specifically mean by that phrase, "writing"? "Ideas for the fictional story?" It's bad because, as they ADMIT in the Blu-ray commentary, "We reconceived Dorne to show off Indira Varma's acting talents". They DID NOT make "Ellaria" vengeful. They didn't make Ellaria anything. They just pushed Indira Varma into a position in which the actor yells a lot, to show off her emotive range. Please, I implore you, watch the videos and reassess what you think.
  11. Drop what you're doing and watch my videos. The ENTIRE POINT of them is that YOUR interpretation, personal interpretation of the TV show, is trying to come up with rationalizations or justifications that make sense, which they never thought of. NO, not with "a grain of salt" -- it extends to the point that they say in commentaries "look at what a powerful player Theon is" while he's being tortured, until it becomes blatantly obvious they're describing the actors' ability to emote. I read your posts in a sing-song voice: "oh, we shouldn't judge, TV is different, and just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad." We ARE NOT "book purists". Even as TV fans, this was jut plain bad writing. And the entire point I express in my videos is that it isn't even "this is a different, TV-continuity fictional character I dislike" but....dear god, it's just stunt-casting the actor. There IS NO fictional character. @sweetsunray Painful as it is, I hope you do watch Season 7 - not "watch" to enjoy, but "watch" in order to gain more ammo to criticize it. One of my major points is that the TV fanbase got so insulted by Benioff and Weiss that we stopped checking out their interviews or DVD commentaries....in which they actually got sloppy and admitted the embarrassing real reasons they did things. Statements so bizarre they would destroy their careers, or at least severely harm them. It's sort of like someone saying to Varys, "LIttlefinger offends me so much with his lies that I'm going to stop listening to anything he says"....not "heeding", but "listening"....meaning you can't "scrutinize" them.....for stupid mistakes to use against him later.
  12. Well then - and I actually do mean this with politeness text can't convey - you should comment more thoroughly once you've watched the whole thing.
  13. (double post)
  14. You didn't pay attention to any of my video. As I said: Stunt-Casting actually isn't inherently bad, but it isn't inherently good either. It needs to be supported by writing. No. You cite how Breaking Bad expanded certain characters -- yet even Vince Gilligan said that he had to support this with *rewrites*, and he had to resist the temptation to just point the camera at the actors and let them ad-lib. No. - the part where I said this had *nothing* to do with "maybe a romance would work better with a modern audience" but PURELY: "We want to show off Richard Madden as a romantic lead". NO. Pay attention. The ENTIRE SECTION of the video where I explain "this didn't set up Volantis at all"...MUCH LESS was "clever". Oh if they'd planned it out better, it actually might have been, but was so poorly executed it didn't. They didn't include many real details about Volantis nor did it have any impact when we actually saw Volantis. By the Smith's hammer.....this is absurd, Oona Chaplin looks like Jeyne Westerling in the books, due to Jeyne having a foreign great-grandmother. NO, the "change" we're discussing WAS NOT....changing the race of the character/actress! A - It isn't the change to the story, B -.....her race actually wasn't really changed. Pay attention. The "change" was making it a Romance. how...wha...how...I'm flabberghasted. "Not confuse her with other pretty white women".....wow. This had nothing to do with race but story changes. On top of this....and ANYONE replying to this respond to this point directly, do not DO NOT let it slide: You think casual viewers can't tell the difference between different white women characters, apparently unable to remember their, you know, DIFFERENT NAMES.........and yet you think they will remember the "exotic" name of the ACTRESS, Oona Chaplin, never uttered on-screen? On top of this, and to your shame.... "Sansa, Dany, Ygritte, Margaery, Rose, Cersei, Melisandre" 1 - .......you listed "Rose Leslie", THE ACTRESS, in a list of fictional characters from the show. 2 - .....you listed "Rose Leslie" in THE SAME LIST as the CHARACTER she plays, Ygritte. NO. Pay attention. It was explicitly a last-minute rewrite after they were already in production on Season 2. NO it had nothing to do with "modern audiences wouldn't get honor vs romance". They STATED, verbatim, "we did this to show off Richard Madden as a romantic lead". EDIT: Look you don't really seem up to speed on this and I'm not sure if you watched my whole exhaustive video analysis of this. If you didn't have time, please check it out in full, you really need to re-assess what you're saying.
  15. Well it was cited from something GRRM said in So Spake Martin: taking your husband's surname isn't automatic or by law, it's generally by preference - often by choosing the more prestigious name. If a Frey girl marries a Tyrell, she'll use "Tyrell". If a Tyrell girl marries a Frey, she'll keep "Tyrell". Or a Lannister girl marrying down to a Frey, i.e. Gemma Lannister. If they're of roughly co-equal rank it varies by personal choice - i.e. Catelyn loves Ned so she stresses her bond with him by taking his surname, though they're both from Great Houses. Of course, among the eight or so non-royal Great Houses, there's still some jockeying for position: the Tullys and Tyrells were never kings, but the Starks/Lannisters/Martells used to rule their regions. I think Tully is a bit less prestigious than Stark or Arryn, so Lysa went with that. But it's just personal preference. Point is it was never "a law".