StepStark

Members
  • Content count

    1,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About StepStark

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,836 profile views
  1. In short, this is why I don't think that aging up of the characters is really a change, let alone an improvement: 1) there was nothing wrong with ages of characters in the books. 2) aging up of the characters in the show didn't affect characters or their arcs. 3) ages are never mentioned in the show except once or twice and only for Bran and Rickon. As I already said, I like ages in the books because that's how kids behaved and matured in the past. That all changed in the last 70 years, but in both world wars there were children aged 8 or 9 or 10 who made some truly heroic and extraordinary achievements. We now think that a 15 year old could never lead an army but that's how old was Alexander The Great when he was leading his first military campaign for example. I think I already said that the only child who acts unrealistically for his age is Rickon, because a 3 year old boy can barely run properly and not to mention that a 3 year old boy can't have coherent thoughts on something like death and grave. Aging up of Rickon in the show solved those problems in the first season, but in later seasons Rickon was written so badly that even his age can't be seen as improvement. About other characters, their ages are not even mentioned, and their behavior is either as in the books or much less mature (Robb), which is not a problem because a boy of 18 can easily loose his kingdom over a mistake just like a boy of 15 can. And not to mention that ages in the show aren't aged up for some artistic reason, but because English laws prohibit sex scenes with minors. I like books ages because it forces readers to think more deeply about the mentality of people from the past, but I get that many people like show ages more and I really have no problem with either version. If GRRM wrote a story in which Dany and Jon are 15 year old and Bran is 10, I wouldn't mind of course because I wouldn't even know better, so I'm not objecting the change in the show on its own. But in reality, that change is just over-hyped because it really meant nothing for the story itself. In fact, show fans usually have no idea about how old the characters in the show really are (and how could they know, of course), so they're really talking about actors' ages, which is weird actually. I don't object omitting the battle because they said they didn't have the money to film it, but I don't really like the way they did it. In season 2 they also omitted Robb's battle, but that was much more clever. That with Tyrion being knocked out looks like a very poor slapstick to me, it's not funny it's just cheap. It'd be much better if they faded out of the battle at the beginning, briefly moved to some other scene that happens in the same time (possibly Cat waiting with Rodrik in the wood) and then go back to the very and or immediate aftermath of Tyrion's battle. That'd be much better than Tyrion being knocked out for the entire battle. You definitely recall that Vale tribes simply disappeared from the show at some point, without any explanation or reason. That's how important for the show they were, they simply weren't in the show any more at some point and nobody even bothered to mention them ever since. In total they appeared in 2-3 scenes and they could easily be replaced in every one of those scenes, either by Bronn or someone else. I still didn't see it, I'm probably going to wait a few more weeks and then binge watch episodes because I'm not too much interested in the show any more.
  2. You simply came to this forum after many members who agreed with me already left. But maybe we can turn this around, for example maybe you should tell me one thing that you are absolutely certain that show did better than the books. You probably think that for a lot of things, but pick one that you are absolutely certain that is undeniably better in the show and let's see what arguments can be found for and against it. Agree. Just like "bias against the show" also isn't necessarily "wrong". That's why I try not to discuss likability. Of course that budget isn't limitless, that's jut common sense. But do you think that any of my complaints that we've discussed here can be explained by financial reasons? You misunderstood me here because I didn't object against the omitting of the battle but against keeping Vale tribes when without the battle they obviously have no purpose in the story. I'm just saying that if you're not going to film the battle, then Tyrion's personal army doesn't have any purpose so cut Vale tribes completely. I was talking about scenes where they tried to stay faithful to the books but didn't work. And really, what was the purpose of Vale tribes in the show? None. They could easily do without them. And that's what I'm saying, that D&D make mistakes even when they're trying to stay faithful to the books.
  3. No, small talk is for small writers. Just like themes are for eight graders. D&D are so SERIOUS! They just never heard of subtlety or logic, but SERIOUS they are.
  4. But you don't think that it's just as possible, if not even more so, that all the campaign and the hype and the buzz make people subconsciously favor the show more than they'd naturally would? I'm old enough to remember many shows with that fate. While they're on air and the hype is on, everybody seems obsessed with it and it looks like the best thing that ever happened to television. But then after the show ends and few years passes, many realize that it was just overrated. But of course, at that point they're already overrating another show that is the plaything of the moment. When I'm analyzing a show I'm trying to assess how would it look to completely unbiased eyes that are looking for a quality material to watch, and I definitely don't see anything special that GOT has to offer to that kind of viewer. In fact, it has good stuff to offer (almost exclusively scenes taken from the books), but it also has embarrassingly bad stuff, and that doesn't go well with unbiased but demanding viewers. The most glaring example for me is the first Stannis' scene in the show, when they burn the statues of the Seven. It's a reasonably faithful scene, especially if we compare it to later seasons, but really, what was the point of that scene? Religions are largely absent from the show until season 5 (High Sparrow), but even then the religion just becomes one more player in The Game and not a spiritual need as in the books (it has political influence there too of course, but that's not the primary function of religion in the books). The entire context in which that scene makes sense is absent from the show so why keep that scene at all? I think it only added to confusion. Also Vale tribes. The point of Vale tribes in the books is to be Tyrion's personal army, but what's the point of Tyrion's personal army if Tyrion is going to sleep through the battle as in the show? I'm not denying the importance of likability, I'm just saying that it can't be discussed (unless it's analyzed with tons of data from surveys and studies but that's not what we're doing here anyway). And also, don't take my words literally. When I'm talking about logic and realism, it's because GOT presents itself as a drama set in fictional land, as something that aspires to realism more than to fantasy. There'd be no point in looking for logic and realism in LOTR because that's not that kind of story. But isn't that what bias is? You said it, with your own words, that you "don't allow" critical parts of your mind to "get too much in the way" of enjoying the show, and that you are "tending to focus more often on the good than the bad". Well, for me to be unbiased would be not to favor your enjoyment over your critical mind and not to focus deliberately on either good or bad. When I read books, I didn't do any of that because I didn't need to, because they were so good. When I watch a good movie or a good show, same thing. Why is it too much to ask the same thing from GOT?
  5. This applies to practically every character in the show.
  6. But how it can not change the structure of the books? I'm not talking about what happens in those scenes, I already said I'm okay with the content, it doesn't contradict the spirit of the books for the most part. But in which chapters would you included those scenes, or more precisely, in whose chapters? Just focus on that one scene and forget other added scenes we discussed. I don't see how it's possible to include it in the books. Can you just suggest in which chapter to put it? Sorry but aren't these two statements somewhat contradicting? If we go by the first statement, then there isn't a corresponding material in the books because there is no corresponding scene. But if we go by the second statement, then that quote I put in my post (fight in the inn) actually is the corresponding material. Sandor in the books "dies" because of the fight in the inn. You can't shoehorn another fight (with Brienne or whoever) between that fight and his death, because his "death" comes immediately after the fight and is the direct result of the fight. It pretty much is one scene in the books. If you want to add his fight with Brienne, something has to change radically for both Sandor&Arya and Brienne. So while the fight scene in the show is pretty interesting, what lead to it and what came out of it makes it not really worth it, because Sandor's "last days" and Brienne's whole arc are much better in the books for many reasons. You're talking about the outcome but not the cause, and purism is about the cause. Purism is that you dislike something no matter how good it maybe, simply because it's different from the purity you cherish. But that's not the case with me, isn't it? I never criticized even a single scene in this entire thread from the position of "it's different than in the books", but only on the basis of logical complaints. You maybe disagree with those complaints or maybe you don't care to much of them and therefore enjoy the show, and that's your right, but it doesn't make me a purist. D&D's poor writing is what made me dislike all those scenes, not purism. In fact, I dislike many scenes which they tried to stay faithful to the books, and I also stated many times than some of D&D's ideas weren't bad and better writers would make good changes from that ideas. I have no problem with that, and that is why we aren't discussing that. We're discussing the quality, and not the likability of the show. In fact, I don't even know how can you discuss likability, but never mind. This is a perfect example of what we don't have any reason to discuss. You like that scene and how can anyone tell you not to like it? That's absurd. And also absurd would be the discussion about it. But the logic and the realism and the actual quality of the scene is fit for analysis and discussion. Just one thing I disagree: EVERYTHING can be well done "for what it was", and that's why it's not a good basis for analysis. For the analysis to be meaningful more practical criteria is needed, like logic and realism and consistency.
  7. There is no absence of those scenes in the books. I know that you just used it as a figure of speech most probably, but many people really think like that: "That scene wasn't in the books but I liked it in the show so it means that the books are in need of that scene". But it's a logical fallacy because even if those scenes were groundbreaking (they weren't, they're just decent), how could you even include them in the books? You'd have to change the entire structure of the novels. It just doesn't work like that, because those scenes were added (in the best case scenario) to work around the lack of narration in the show, so why would you (and how could you) shoehorn them in the books, when you have a better solution there (narration)? Just as an example, tell me how could you include any of those scenes in the novels. Sorry but I have to ask at this point: how well do you remember the books? The reason is, you seem to think that the fight at the inn happens as in the show, way before Sandor and Arya part ways. It doesn't seem that you recognized that that quote I put in my previous post actually is the corresponding material, because it's taken from the last chapter in which Sandor is officially appearing, the chapter where Arya eventually leaves him to die. About Brienne, that scene can't be included in her books arc in any meaningful way, so strictly speaking there's no corresponding material in her case, but even though I'm not the biggest fan of her book arc, I think her fight scenes there are not only great but also very meaningful for her character growth. Oh and also, what about the silly fact that Brienne and Pod loose Arya after the fight, because of course the plot requires them to? Don't you find it stretched at least, to say the least? But anyway, is there a point to all this questioning? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it, but if you're trying to find some contradiction or logical fallacy in my complaints about the show, I'm afraid you're wasting time. I've been watching it for years, people were complaining about the show from the logical perspective, but show lovers were just dismissing it, like: "You're just book purists, we love the show". But what they never understood is that it's not about purism or liking, but about visible and logical flaws of the show, especially in the writing. There is no special motive for which I dislike the show or those particular scenes that we're discussing. I dislike them because they usually make no sense, because at some point they suspend the basic logic, and in some cases even the logic established by the show itself. And that's why I don't think you can logically prove that disliking the show is logically wrong or implausible, because the show is often working against the logic, because that is how bad D&D are as writers. To get back to Occam's razor, every single scene that we're discussing here can be explained by the assumption that D&D simply don't understand the setting or the characters. But a show lover has to come up with tons of assumptions to explain how those scenes can make sense.
  8. So it's possible to dislike everything about this show for two years? I'm not talking about special effects because probably nobody watches the show for special effects, and besides we weren't even talking about special effects. We were talking about the writing and storytelling, and there you are saying that there's nothing to like about writing and storytelling in the last two seasons. So my question is why is it extreme to dislike the entire show for the same reasons and not just two seasons? Maybe the writing was bad from the start, but you didn't notice it because D&D were taking more scenes from the books and that way their poor writing wasn't as obvious. But this thread is specifically about scenes that are changed or invented for the show, which means scenes that were written specifically by D&D and their team. And just saying, Emmys loved the last two seasons more than the first four. Is that also extreme? How do you explain that? It's not even that I dislike everything and I explained it. And in those scenes that I dislike I often find something good, just like I explained. So I'm not sure what you're even talking about. And about understanding why I watch the show, you don't really have to understand everything about me. I don't know why would you even try. I'd suggest that you stick with what I wrote. You don't have to address even that, of course, nobody's forcing you, but if you want to reply to my post I think that'd be lot more logical. I have no idea where this came from, but just in case, I don't think you need to be expert in swordfights to realize how poor is the choreography in the show in most cases.
  9. You understood correctly but just to be clear I'm talking about the final product as it is, because in the hands of good writers changes would also be significantly better. But on the other hand good writers would keep changes to minimum because of that golden rule: if it works, don't fix it. I already said which I prefer in my previous post. In short: I prefer the books version, because it's more appropriate for pre-modern times, except Rickon who is written unrealistically for his age in the books, but he's also written poorly in the show so there you have it. It's necessary to add some scenes, you have to, it is a very rich setting that needs to be depicted in details and you can't do it through narration as the books do. But we're coming to that point again: D&D are very bad writers and they don't know how to add a scene from GRRM's world. I have to repeat, good writers would add good scenes, but D&D aren't capable of that. There are very few exceptions, for example the scene of Tywin's introduction, when he talks with Jaime while skinning a deer. Solid writing and solid acting, but most importantly that scene actually gives a lot of necessary information about the war. It's a pity that scenes like that one are exception and not the rule. That scene added nothing to the characters. There is nothing in that scene that reveals anything about Robert or Cersei that wasn't already covered by other scenes. The dialogue in the whole is not terrible, but not particularly good either. Some lines are pretty good and in spirit of the time ("It's a neat little trick you do, you move your lips and your father's voice comes out"), but the only real benefit from that scene is their discussion about Targaryen+Dothraki invasion, but that is one of the problems: Cersei is not really the best choice for a character who's discussing those thing with Robert. That conversation is needed, but not with Cersei. But when we look at the topic of their relationship and their marriage, I really don't understand what is so good about that scene. The scene would be much better if they ended it after two of them burst into laughter. He says: "I wonder what's keeping everything together", and she says: "Our marriage", and they both laugh, as in sudden realization that yes, their fucked up marriage really is the only thing that's keeping the realm from collapsing. That says it all, really. You don't need a dialogue after that. And in fact, dialogue falls apart after that. It turns into a cheap melodrama, something that could be taken from old soap operas. "Was it ever possible for us?" Seriously? Does that sound like a plausible question between medieval spouses who loath each other? The entire story practically rests on the fact that Robert and Cersei can't stand each other. That very laughter I just mentioned is so good because it rests on that fact as well. It's like they are the naked emperor, and in that moment they really don't have to pretend that they have any clothes, and they simply can't stop laughing at the fact. But would you really share your feelings with someone you loath? Of course not, and by the way the entire idea of sharing and discussing your feelings is too modern and very contradicting to the system of values that is essential to a medieval feudal society. GRRM understands it perfectly and that is why in the books there isn't a single example of such sharing. I'm talking about deepest emotions here. When Tyrion tells the story of Tysha to Bronn, it's like he's confessing how naive he once was and he's also telling Bronn about Tywin's cruelty, but he's not sharing emotions. Cat is careful not to mention Bran and Rickon's death when she confronts Jaime in ACOK. And Jaime actually surprises himself when he tells Brienne about Aerys, and even then he doesn't go into feelings. Neither Jon nor Sam never discuss their emotions for Ygritte and Gilly, not even to each other. And so on. That is why GRRM puts all the deepest emotions of characters into their thoughts. But of course, in the show some of that has to come out, because viewers need to hear some of that. But not like this, not as if the dialogue was taken from "Dallas". Compared to many other added scene, this one with Robert and Cersei at least wasn't entirely ridiculous and useless, but I really don't see what is so good about it. I disliked it, that scene just shows that D&D can't write even "guys' talk". Because no, guys don't pause the entire life just so they can recount their kills, and especially if they've been around each other for years and years! Again, compared to other added scenes this one isn't particularly bad, but there is a much better example of added scene that represents "guys' talk" much better, and that's Jaime-Jory scene, when Jory brings him a letter from Ned. The dialogue is less artificial there for starters, but also it reveals something about Thoros and Theon, which maybe isn't much and maybe the majority of the audience won't remember it, but at least it's there, it's not a waste of lines or time. The only thing I like about that scene is that it's short. Making the eight? Seriously? That's one of the best fight scenes in the show for sure. But the context in which it happens is silly. Brienne just stumbles into one of the two girls she's looking for? And their horses ESCAPED OVER NIGHT? Seriously? And also the dialogue between Sandor and Brienne before the fight is very poorly written. But please, what corresponding material in the books do you have in mind? Every of Brienne's fights in the books is much better set than this one. And I can't even begin to understand how can you prefer that to Sandor's "last days" in the books. Have you read the fight at the inn recently? Here's a little quote from that chapter, right after Polliver tells Sandor about Joffrey's death and Sansa's escape: It's funny and tragic at the same time, and it's confusing for the characters because none of them have any idea what the other one is talking about, but it reveals and hints at so much, and emotions are subtle but at the same time almost exploding, and it even sets the entire "Jeyne as Arya" ploy. Do you really think that something in the show is better than this? And just like you, I'm actually curious, it's an honest question. The fight at Craster's Keep is a blasphemy, they didn't even bother to keep track of the number of men Jon brought with himself, it constantly changes between scenes. And please let's not get into tactics, because the way they attacked the Keep is exactly the opposite of the way you attack by surprise in the middle of the night. Hardhome had its moments, but overall the poor fight choreography ultimately ruined the scene for me, as it's often the case with poor fight choreography, not only in GOT but in general. I honestly don't see why do they keep putting all those fight scenes in movies and shows, when they can't do them realistically. Are people really excited to watch absurdly acrobatic fights where the outcome is telegraphed from miles away? Burt eventually, Hardhome was rendered meaningless in the show itself. It's barely mentioned ever since, and even when it is mentioned, it doesn't have any effect. I already told this, Euron is example of someone whose existence in the books I don't really understand or like. But in the show they did an even worse job with him.
  10. Short version would be: no, there isn't anything that I like more in the show than in the books. But that doesn't mean that I hate every change in the show. Some of those changes I understand, like the one you mentioned, aging up the kids. I have no problem with that. But I still like the book version more, because it is a story based on medieval history and in the past humans were becoming adults and responsible much sooner than we do today. Rickon was the only kid I had problems with in the books, he is acting more like a 5 year old than a 3 year old (everyone with kids can approve that probably), but in the show they made even worse job with Rickon even before the last season, and last season especially. In this debate I already said that I really liked how they did Robb's battle in season 2, it was much better than how they handled Tyron's battle in season 1. But I can't really say that Robb's battle was "improvement" compared to the book, because the book also gives us few precious details about the battle and lets us imagine the rest. And also, everything they did with Robb's storyline after that battle was one disaster after another, which I already explained in this thread. Drogo's big speech is interesting because I really love both versions. It's powerfully written so it can fly both ways, as a threatening whisper (in the books) or as a war cry (in the show), so it'd probably be as powerful if it was filmed as in the books, but the show version works perfectly, largely because of Momoa's performance (it was poorly directed scene, so Momoa's performance and the silent support from Emilia and Ian are really the only saving grace but it definitely made that entire scene). There are more changes that I don't dislike, but not many of them. But believe me, I'm far from the only one who thinks like that. There were quite a few posters here that disliked the show as much as I do or even more, but many of them stopped posting here years ago. Actually that's why I started posting after years of just lurking, because I saw that the balance is disturbed. And one more thing, lot of the points I make is the stuff I've read in their posts, way earlier than it became somewhat acceptable to criticize GOT. And nobody among them criticized the show because they just hated the changes, but they were constantly accused of some irrational purism, even though everything that happened later in the show proved their complaints were very valid. What I'm trying to say is that I think the quality of discussion in this forum dropped significantly in the last 2-3 years, and that's probably why now I'm the first person you heard with this opinion.
  11. Well, they had to keep him alive in the show, because otherwise Michelle Fairly would have to play a zombie and that would be just a waste of a good actress. Because she obviously wasn't wasted in the show as it is, and she'd probably hate so much to play a zombie. It's much better to have Beric argue with Sandor about how many bandits is he allowed to hang personally.
  12. So Talisa is a noble who learned and practiced medicine (LOL!) and before the war she spent her time tending wounded people? Oh yes, it's very convincing! Noble girls must be doing that all the time. That's why so many girls in medieval themed stories go around practicing medicine by tending wounded in their neighborhoods. LOL! Oh and it totally explains why Jeyne scenes would HAVE TO be more costly. The show doesn't have to explain who is this medic worker (LOL!) and what is she doing on a medieval battlefield, but if they stayed with Jeyne they'd HAVE TO cast her entire family, because the concept of family is much harder to explain than the concept of anonymous and nonaligned medic worker. Years ago a poster here wrote that filming Jeyne as she tends Robb wold be much less complicated and much cheaper than filming Talisa as she tends random soldiers on a battlefield. I thought he was right, but when you as an expert on budgets say otherwise then he had to be wrong. This is what Robb "learned" from Talisa: 1) If Robb didn't order the attack, that boy wouldn't be attacked. 2) That boy didn't kill Ned. 3) That boy is not Joff's personal friend. You're right, that surely is wisdom, she's obviously a blessing for him. Without Talisa, Robb would literally know nothing. Character growth, right? With just a minor difference that in the books they are treated with logic and depth. Which is why they actually ADDED Talisa and her scenes. What was it again: to increase the impact of Red Wedding? Smart investment, obviously. How about this context: you couldn't find at least one similar example in all of the five books. In all those examples you picked, there is clear social tension either leading to the insult or coming from the insult or both. About Cat, she's at a parlay, which means no violence, and Stannis still reacts to her tone, but the biggest difference is that THEY ALL KNOW WHO CAT IS! On top of that, in the books Tyrion in Essoss is example of what happens to noble people when they're far away from home and unable to physically defend themselves: he's totally at the mercy of local noble people, and they of course KNOW who he is. Class structure is never forgotten in the books and in those rare scenes when it was suspended GRRM gave logical reasons for that suspension. Talisa scenes are nothing like that, class structure just doesn't exist there without any logical reason or explanation. And there is no budgetary explanation behind, it's just poor writing.
  13. This is very untrue because Rome didn't have to be canceled as even HBO admitted afterwards (they openly called it a mistake), and Boardwalk Empire was doing reasonably well, even better than GOT at the beginning (GOT later dwarfed it of course). This is also untrue because I never refused any comparison. But here you're again refusing the comparison with The Sopranos by making another Strawman. I was specifically talking about writing, not about cast or episode cost but writing. But you only want to talk about cast and episode costs, don't you? When I press you on writing and on specific Talisa lines, you're suddenly all about "everyone has the right to an opinion". Well thanks, everyone really has the right to an opinion, but not all opinions are valid. If you don't want to admit that there's anything wrong with the line "Do you think he's friends with king Joffrey?", then you hardly have any criteria, sorry to say. Then it's all about what you personally happen to like or dislike for whatever reason. You happen to like Robb and Talisa and you're going to defend it to death and find weak excuses. And there is no end with weak excuses. When I say that Talisa is behaving against all social norms of the setting, you say that she's upset by horrors of war, which is wrong of course because social norms don't cease to apply because someone's upset, and when I remind you about that, you then say that there are rude characters in the books too. And when I explained you the difference between those situations and Talisa situations, with the biggest difference being that in all those scenes in the books social norms are never forgotten, and if they're suspended there is a good reason for it, you just changed subject. Here's another example, with Sandor. I mention him in a way that is precisely about what we were discussing about Robb, and that is characters having important things happened to them off screen. But instead of addressing that, you go on about how Sandor's episode was poorly written, which I agree with completely, but it wasn't what I was talking about! You even failed to understand what narration I was talking about in my last post. I was talking about book narration, and you replied with something about film narration. And you also confused GRRM's quotes, because that wasn't the one I was talking about. You even ignored Occam's razor, which you don't have to take as if it's a Bible, but at least you could address my point that on my one assumption you answered with your multiple assumptions. You're confusing and obscuring and ignoring issues all the time. For example, you keep saying that Robb can't "disappear" from the story without explanation. But who said that he has to disappear? I specifically described why he doesn't have to disappear even if his romance starts off screen. But you just ignored it and went on on why Sandor's departure and return to the story was not as Rob's would've been, even though it wasn't what I was talking about in either case. Here is the essence of our argument: 1) I'm saying that Robb's romance in the show was done very poorly. 2) you're saying that the start of Robb's romance must be shown on screen. That's it, those two points are what this really is about. It's not about Robb "disappearing", because Robb can have significant screen time in season 2 and still start his romance off screen. I explained number of reasons why I find Talisa and everything around her to be poorly written. You ignored most of my explanations and moved goalpost all the time, for example at first you didn't want to admit that her pacifism is anachronistic but now you admit that it is "little anachronistic" but that you don't see any problem with that (even though her pacifism totally disappears after that scene but you also ignore that). You can repeat that you like it and that you think it's 7-8 as much as you want, but ignoring legitimate complaints and moving goalposts isn't helping your case at all. But also, you never explained why Robb's romance has to started on screen. You keep talking about why Robb can't disappear, but that's not the issue here, nobody's saying that he has to disappear. The issue is would his romance be believable if it started off screen. I think it's totally nonsensical to say that it wouldn't be, when many other romances in the show started off screen but they are all believable. The history of film and TV is full of similar examples. Honestly, it's ridiculous to think that visual medium doesn't allow something like that. There is no point in continuing this argument, because if after all this time you didn't logically disprove any of my objections and you didn't support your main point in any logical way, you either can't or don't want to.
  14. @The Coconut God And also, why don't you address some of the points I made? You like to speak from your high horse and accuse me of refusing to change my mind, but I didn't hear anything from you about Talisa's lines lately. You were insisting that the dialogue in that scene was 7-8, but what do you say now? Do you still think that her lines make sense? What is Robb to do with Lannister soldiers who aren't friends with Joffrey?