• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aoede

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. [quote name='Erzulie the Unruly' post='1599483' date='Nov 24 2008, 21.08']Ease up, homeboy/girl.[/quote] Aoede: (Boetian) muse of Greek mythology; feminine. Also transliterated as "Aoide". [quote]I don't know you, you don't know me.[/quote] Good. No personal issues to cloud judgment. [quote]Geek, nerd, dork, call it what you like. If someone does LARP or SW re-enactments, I think it's safe to say the majority of their suggestions for various aspects of a TV series will be bogus. We're talking about the kind of people who are somehow stuck in a pre-pubescent emotional state of mind, who are not necessarily particularly gifted within any field, but typically spend a lot of their time on archetypal escapist activities. Often hygienically challenged. Poor eye-hand coordination. Penchant for junk food and comic books. Little to no experience of interacting with the opposite sex. Will not be well versed in literature, philosophy or the arts. Antiquated gender views to be expected. Likely to have seen the light and bought a black leather coat after having watched the Matrix, symbolising their vain hope that their feeling of displacement and incompatibility with the world they find themselves locked in a seemingly neverending struggle with is a result of it being naught but an illusion. These are the people whose voices I would not like to be heard. Whose prayers I would not like to see answered.[/quote] 1. What you have just constructed a beautiful portrait of the stereotype. It is also a complete and utter strawman. While I don't doubt that there exist some people who perfectly exemplify what you've described, they don't seem to be swarming this board. 2. "Archetypal escapist activities": the arts, in a word. 3. Having an interest in LARPing, re-enactments, etc, does not imply ignorance, bad hygiene, or a "pre-pubescent emotional state of mind." One of my good friends is a great D&D enthusiast, loves to read SF&F, doesn't have a girlfriend, and goes to a science/tech school; he is also the president of the philosophy club and one of the smartest and most courteous people that I know. Another is deeply involved in RenFaire and (text) RPing, and loves to read fantasy; [i]she[/i] is a straight-A student and the mother of her circle of friends. [quote]One example is the amount of people who want epic/symphonic/viking/what-have-you metal music to score the series. This is a truly horrible idea, and betrays cognitive issues and a lack of ability to abstract on the part of the advocate.[/quote] I checked through the music thread [i]just to be sure[/i] and found a grand total two (2) posters who actually were in favor of epic/symphonic/viking/whatever metal for the score. Even the metal fans - and I'll add myself to that number, though I said nothing of it in the thread - have utterly rejected the idea of using epic/etc metal for ASoIaF. [quote]I admit I am amused by your idea of an "intolerant 20th century mindset (that proliferates, no less!)" . Are you trying to insinuate that geeks, as a sort of socially incompetent ethnic minority, have been stigmatised and persecuted throughout the last hundred years?[/quote] "Ethnic" is incorrect in this context. I do not [i]insinuate[/i] that those who had wholeheartedly thrown themselves into esoteric pursuits, even as young people, were stigmatized and persecuted; I say it outright. Perhaps it's different in Norway?
  2. [quote name='Morrigan' post='1598844' date='Nov 24 2008, 11.47']You're playing a semantic game, here. What Erzulie clearly meant was geek in the sense of a [i]nerd[/i], or, to put it less kindly, a dork. I tend to agree.[/quote] Allow me to clarify: while LARPing and Star Wars reenactments in no way qualify someone to play any part in the production of a TV series, [i]neither do they disqualify that person[/i]. Furthermore: "[i]nerd[/i]: [n] (slang, derogatory) A person who, although having good technical or scientific skills, is introspective and generally introverted. [i]dork[/i]: [n] (US, pejorative, slang) A quirky, silly and/or stupid, socially inept person, or one who is out of touch with contemporary trends. Often confused with nerd and geek, but does not imply the same intelligence level." I'm not picking obscure definitions here - these are the commonest definitions, these are the slang definitions. Kindly examine them. Since when do introspection or introversion disqualify someone as part of a production? Or look at "dork". "Quirky" is value-neutral and "socially inept" is irrelevant, while "silly and/or stupid" disqualifies ANYONE, not just people who participate in activities labeled "geeky". Considering the demographics of most Internet fora, "out of touch with contemporary trends" is hardly likely. In summation: if you wish to imply that Erzulie spoke in full knowledge of what she was saying, then her statement was both blinkered and reactionary. [quote name='Frank Stark' post='1598983' date='Nov 24 2008, 12.50']What if "purists" had been used instead of geek/nerd/dork? Hopefully, Benioff and Weiss will give ear to all advisors, including this board. But if the show is made FOR and/or by purists, I'm pretty sure it will fail. I will like it, probably a lot, but as a TV adaptation with hopes of a 2nd season, it would probably fail. Mr. Martin has said the pilot script is faithful, and that's good enough for me. But I suspect there are some here who will be disappointed.[/quote] Which is why this board isn't making the adaptation - Benioff, Weiss, and their associates will. Not because the board is populated with "geeks", "nerds", and "dorks", but because most of us (if not all) lack the experience and technical expertise that they have. ...and of course, there will always be people who are disappointed with a work. The greats couldn't escape it, could they? :)
  3. [quote name='Erzulie the Unruly' post='1598443' date='Nov 23 2008, 20.48']Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but I sure don't want to see people who run around in the woods playing LARP or recreate Star Wars scenes have any say whatsoever in any part of the production of this series.[/quote] Excuse me? [i]Geek[/i]: (from Wiktionary) An expert in a technical field, particularly to do with computers; A person intensely interested in a particular field or hobby, generally at the expense of broader social interaction. Example: [i]Most famous actors are really theater [b]geeks[/b] at heart.[/i] You WANT geeks - people who are intensely interested in the story they're telling, in the medium they're using to tell it. I will assume that what you wrote was a product of ignorance and not of the intolerant 20th-century mindset that still proliferates today. [quote]Enough ranting? No. I would much rather see good actors than actors that are the right age (regarding the kids). With very, very few exceptions, child actors are painful to watch, and can completely ruin the immersion of the viewer (in this case, me). As I also generally think the "child POVs" are the weakest of the series, I wouldn't mind seeing most of them aged a bit. I would rather see Sansa well acted by a girl some years older than she is in the books than ineptly portrayed by some girl who happens to be the right age.[/quote] The issue isn't the age of the actor, it's the age of the [i]character[/i]. In corollary with that, the actor merely needs to look youthful enough (or OLD enough) not to strain credulity.
  4. [quote name='Padraig' post='1596293' date='Nov 21 2008, 09.24']General age? As in Bran should be a boy, so he should be around 7 to 12 years of age? Sansa should be a young lady, so she should be around 11-16? Sure, that's true. But isn't that what I said originally? :)[/quote] Not really. I'm referring to this post: [i]"I'm sure this will be discussed in another thread but ageing the characters will have very little effect on the story. GRRM himself has admitted that he would have aged the characters older if he started again. Age is nothing but background detail (ignoring extreme cases where Bran is turned into a 19 year old."[/i], which doesn't specifically talk about keeping the general age. [quote]At the same time, if you want to argue that Bran must be 7 and Arya 9 etc? Well, not sure how you could justify that. And since the author himself disagrees with you, it'd be amusing to see.[/quote] See my post: [i][b]while it's irrelevant exactly how old each character is[/b], the general age is still important for many of the bigger characters.[/i], which specifically says that exact ages are irrelevant. I'm not sure where GRRM disagrees with that, but okay.
  5. [quote name='Padraig' post='1595787' date='Nov 20 2008, 19.24']I'm sure this will be discussed in another thread but ageing the characters will have very little effect on the story. GRRM himself has admitted that he would have aged the characters older if he started again. Age is nothing but background detail (ignoring extreme cases where Bran is turned into a 19 year old. ;)).[/quote] Disagreed - while it's irrelevant exactly how old each character is, the general age is still important for many of the bigger characters.