Jump to content

why was Ladystoneheart cut out


Black Dragons

Recommended Posts

Quote

What is silly is the show having 0 revenge for RW. Supernatural intervening to bring its victim back adds to the impact of RW and tragedy of Catelyn now robbed of peace.

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.

Quote

Everyone wanted to see beloved characters come back, and vengeance for the RW. But it all turns into ashes in our mouth. It makes Cat's story, and the RW story, even more tragic, because she isn't even allowed to rest in peace, she can't do anything but dwell on her family's tragedy, and revenge isn't just as satisfying to us as it should be. She has nothing left but bitterness, and a faint hope of getting her daughter(s) back.  

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.

Quote

This was a joke of course. and now for real. How the hell is LSH destroying the RW's impact? To think that, you have to absolutely ignore literally everything about the misery of Cat's new existence. Oh, and everything Beric said about resurrections. Oh, and also Thoros and his outright despair in AFFC.

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.

Quote

 

Or, you can simply not read the books. Only a summary or two.

I doubt that one can have an opinion about a book he didn't read. But I could be wrong.

 

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.

Quote

It is always astonishing to me when someone doesnt see LS as an extent of RW tragedy. The show not including her would have created problems - not an actual victim of RW leading vengence, Brienne's conflict of loyalty being gone and Beric being dead even if he only dies by giving his life to someone else. Having Cat in the role solves all of this.

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.

Quote

 

 Actually it is more of a consequence of the RW fuck-up by the Freys. Most importantly - they didn't bury people as ought. If the Freys hadn't been so intent on desecrating a dead person (while we are equal in death), but simply gave Cat the common funeral rites of the RL (in a boat, set it afire with flaming arrows) then she couldn't have been resurrected. And there would be no LS. Things going wrong when people desecrate the funeral rites of the dead has been part of literature at least since ancient Greece (Sisyphus cheats death; Antigone punished for trying to burry her brother properly, commits suicide and the desecrator's son and heir who was her fiance commits suicide too; Priam's plea with Achilles for Hector's body) , and even dynastic Egypt if you count the Isis-Osiris Myth written on tombs as literature. Desecration is done by the culprit to prove their power, but in literature it classically empowers the dead, not the living.

And George is following in that tradition's footsteps with many storylines:

- Mance Rayder turns graverobber => Ygritte says things started to go very wrong after that, and it looks like that may have helped the Others with a wight army

- Ned worries about the rusting swords in the crypts in order to keep the dead locked into the crypts, and he has as of yet not been properly buried => Bran and Rickon nevertheless had dreams about him, Arya hears her father talk to her through he HH heart tree, Jon dreams of WF's heart tree with Ned's face. With Arya, Ned's "ghost" prompted her to escape HH

- Freys dump Cat's body in the river without funeral rites => Her body is resurrected and LS is born.

So, no it does not do away the impact of the RW, it is classic impact of desecration of the dead. To claim LS lessens the impact of the RW is like saying that the ghost of Hamlet's father telling Hamlet how he died lessen the impact of the muder that Hamlet attempts to avenge.

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Humble AK said:

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.

Sorry to say, but your post is the perfect example of logical fallacy. First you say that LSH lessens the impact of RW, but then you talk about vengeance against Freys. How are those two connected? Yes, LSH is responsible for killing Freys, but that has nothing to do with the impact of Red Wedding. No matter how many Freys she kills, Red Wedding is still going to be the most infamous and most gruesome crime in the history of Westeros. Even if she kills all the Freys, the tragedy of RW will be as big as it is now.

LSH only messes with strange ideas some people have. For example, the idea that Tywin is "lawfully neutral" and that his actions, RW included, are justifiable because of their efficiency. Unfortunately, two individuals of that kind are running GOT, which kinda explains everything.

As for the story of LSH in the books, I think it's too early to pass some final judgement on it. That story is still at its earliest stages and nobody who isn't GRRM can't know how is it going to be developed further on. So far I like it, but that's it. Only when that storyline concludes I'll be able to say how truly good it was.

About Michelle Fairly, I wouldn't like to see her return to this show because she deserves better. She's quite a good actress and she definitely deserves better writers than D&D. But if she does return as LSH, even in the ridiculous manner you suggest, even then she's not going to be the biggest problem for GOT, This is a show in which strange kids throw hand grenades. I don't think a hissing zombie will matter too much in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Sorry to say, but your post is the perfect example of logical fallacy. First you say that LSH lessens the impact of RW, but then you talk about vengeance against Freys. How are those two connected? Yes, LSH is responsible for killing Freys, but that has nothing to do with the impact of Red Wedding. No matter how many Freys she kills, Red Wedding is still going to be the most infamous and most gruesome crime in the history of Westeros. Even if she kills all the Freys, the tragedy of RW will be as big as it is now.

LSH only messes with strange ideas some people have. For example, the idea that Tywin is "lawfully neutral" and that his actions, RW included, are justifiable because of their efficiency. Unfortunately, two individuals of that kind are running GOT, which kinda explains everything.

As for the story of LSH in the books, I think it's too early to pass some final judgement on it. That story is still at its earliest stages and nobody who isn't GRRM can't know how is it going to be developed further on. So far I like it, but that's it. Only when that storyline concludes I'll be able to say how truly good it was.

About Michelle Fairly, I wouldn't like to see her return to this show because she deserves better. She's quite a good actress and she definitely deserves better writers than D&D. But if she does return as LSH, even in the ridiculous manner you suggest, even then she's not going to be the biggest problem for GOT, This is a show in which strange kids throw hand grenades. I don't think a hissing zombie will matter too much in that regard.

Yes, but if she returned, they would only have to follow a story that has already been written in the books. It wouldn't be bad, it would be one of the best scenes from the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

orry to say, but your post is the perfect example of logical fallacy. First you say that LSH lessens the impact of RW, but then you talk about vengeance against Freys. How are those two connected? Yes, LSH is responsible for killing Freys, but that has nothing to do with the impact of Red Wedding. No matter how many Freys she kills, Red Wedding is still going to be the most infamous and most gruesome crime in the history of Westeros. Even if she kills all the Freys, the tragedy of RW will be as big as it is now.

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.

Quote

LSH only messes with strange ideas some people have. For example, the idea that Tywin is "lawfully neutral" and that his actions, RW included, are justifiable because of their efficiency. Unfortunately, two individuals of that kind are running GOT, which kinda explains everything.

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.

Quote

As for the story of LSH in the books, I think it's too early to pass some final judgement on it. That story is still at its earliest stages and nobody who isn't GRRM can't know how is it going to be developed further on. So far I like it, but that's it. Only when that storyline concludes I'll be able to say how truly good it was.

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.

Quote

About Michelle Fairly, I wouldn't like to see her return to this show because she deserves better. She's quite a good actress and she definitely deserves better writers than D&D. But if she does return as LSH, even in the ridiculous manner you suggest, even then she's not going to be the biggest problem for GOT, This is a show in which strange kids throw hand grenades. I don't think a hissing zombie will matter too much in that regard.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Humble AK said:

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.

Quote

What gives you the right to speak to me this way? If you think that D&D are more intelligent than you are, that's your right, but you shouldn't drag other people into that fanboyism. And you definitely shouldn't drag me into it.

Among showrunners, D&D are possibly the least intelligent that I've seen. David Simon, Vince Gilligan, David Chase, Ronald Moore, Matthew Weiner, are all way smarter than D&D. And that's based not only on their work, but on their interviewees and everything. David Simon gave many interviews, much more than D&D, and even though he appears as an arrogant prick in some of them, he never gave a stupid answer like "Creatively it made sense to me because I wanted that to happen". D&D forgot that Sam is a POV character, for God's sake. In the first pilot, they forgot to establish that Jaime and Cersei are twins. What can be more ridiculous than that? Just think about how many times D&D had to watch that scene with Jaime and Cersei before they showed their pilot to anyone, and in all those viewings they didn't realize that they failed to establish that Jaime and Cersei are twins. That's insane really.

I also work in a creative field and I never made such a stupid mistake. None of my coworkers ever did something as stupid as that. So yes, I'm convinced that D&D are less intelligent than I am, which is not saying much because they really aren't that intelligent to begin with.

As for interpretations, once again you seem like someone who's interpreting the show, and not the books, In the show, it was never established how dreadful it is to be brought back from the dead. There is just one scene in which that is addressed, and in that scene the emphasis is on Arya wishing Ned is brought back from the dead and saying Beric is still better off than her father. So if you go by that, and ignore everything that's said on the subject in the books, then yeah, I can see why you interpret LSH the way you do. And for sure, if D&D just dropped LSH like a rock in their show, as they usually do with new characters, she'd look cheap and silly. LSH and the entire concept of bringing back from the dead needs to be established first, and D&D are really not masters of establishing, as the first pilot proves. But in the hands of competent writers, LSH would be a very intriguing addition to the story which, if the endgame GRRM designed for her is smart, can grow into one more fascinating storyline.

And once again, stop trying to interpret my intelligence. You're just not good at it. Interpret D&D's intelligence if you want, interpret your own intelligence if you must, but leave me and my intelligence out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

What gives you the right to speak to me this way? If you think that D&D are more intelligent than you are, that's your right, but you shouldn't drag other people into that fanboyism. And you definitely shouldn't drag me into it.

Among showrunners, D&D are possibly the least intelligent that I've seen. David Simon, Vince Gilligan, David Chase, Ronald Moore, Matthew Weiner, are all way smarter than D&D. And that's based not only on their work, but on their interviewees and everything. David Simon gave many interviews, much more than D&D, and even though he appears as an arrogant prick in some of them, he never gave a stupid answer like "Creatively it made sense to me because I wanted that to happen". D&D forgot that Sam is a POV character, for God's sake. In the first pilot, they forgot to establish that Jaime and Cersei are twins. What can be more ridiculous than that? Just think about how many times D&D had to watch that scene with Jaime and Cersei before they showed their pilot to anyone, and in all those viewings they didn't realize that they failed to establish that Jaime and Cersei are twins. That's insane really.

I also work in a creative field and I never made such a stupid mistake. None of my coworkers ever did something as stupid as that. So yes, I'm convinced that D&D are less intelligent than I am, which is not saying much because they really aren't that intelligent to begin with.

As for interpretations, once again you seem like someone who's interpreting the show, and not the books, In the show, it was never established how dreadful it is to be brought back from the dead. There is just one scene in which that is addressed, and in that scene the emphasis is on Arya wishing Ned is brought back from the dead and saying Beric is still better off than her father. So if you go by that, and ignore everything that's said on the subject in the books, then yeah, I can see why you interpret LSH the way you do. And for sure, if D&D just dropped LSH like a rock in their show, as they usually do with new characters, she'd look cheap and silly. LSH and the entire concept of bringing back from the dead needs to be established first, and D&D are really not masters of establishing, as the first pilot proves. But in the hands of competent writers, LSH would be a very intriguing addition to the story which, if the endgame GRRM designed for her is smart, can grow into one more fascinating storyline.

And once again, stop trying to interpret my intelligence. You're just not good at it. Interpret D&D's intelligence if you want, interpret your own intelligence if you must, but leave me and my intelligence out of it.

That was brilliantly argued and I totally agree with almost everything you just posted. Well said, my compliments!:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Humble AK said:

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.

 

Except for the fact that this is a fantasy series, and I wonder when Jon revives if the viewers will be excited and will think it's normal.

What if Jon resurrects and he seeks revenge too? It's still a possibility. Would people think the same? Because I think that one of the reasons of the possible cut of LSH is not to show to two UnVersions and give Jon more protagonism.

And If I mention the identity of Cersei's new guard....(both book and show) would you have the same arguments that "life is life and that they can do anything against it"...... towards its case?

 

Spoiler

The  Mountain fans may think that his death and the one of his partner was a big impact in S4 too. And...oh....isn't he a kind of zombie too? Well, Frankenstein is as fantasy as a zombie 

But...he will be on the show!! Because He was more important than Catelyn, of course

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28 April 2016 at 8:21 PM, sweetsunray said:

A burrial ritual is for decades regarded as a sign of being human. Whatever paleonthologists find as remains, once those remains have signs of a burrial ritual, that species is regarded as being of the human branch in the evolution of species. Hence, it is one of the most profound taboos and shocking things anybody can do in our eyes. And hence, it is classically seen as something that will always karmically bounce back twofold to bite the desecrator back. George didn't just write in desecration of dead in aSoIaF for shocks and giggles and make us think 'ooooh, how evil is such and such person'. He includes supernatural consequences for it.

I actually never picked up on that before but now I see precisely what you are pointing out and it is literally all throughout the book with stoneheart being the most glare img example of this. Nice work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Humble AK said:

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.

Sure, a "balance" can be done through surviving family. But for the past +3000 years of literature, the supernatural thinking empowered the dead or the ghosts of the dead in stories of desecration. It's based on the spiritual principal and beliefs that if you do not give the dead their peace and chance in an afterlife, they come back to haunt you, because they have no other place to go. And in religions it's an act of hubris because a mortal presumes to judge over a dead soul, which is the gods' prerogative. And what is aSoIaF - a fantasy story with magic and thus supernatural phenomenons. It features zombies in the prologue of the very first book. We know from the get go that dead can rise. The interesting thing about aSoIaF is not that it is a realistic world without magic and supernatural, but that the people living in a supernatural, magical world believe their world is without i, and behave and act and choose as a lot of people did in historical times (and still do) - which is the reason why it feels so realistic, nitty gritty and we feel we can connect with many characters. But their world is indeed different from ours. And if the dead can walk in prologue and magic is rising, then yup, empowering the dead after desecration is perfectly fitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StepStark said:

Among showrunners, D&D are possibly the least intelligent that I've seen. David Simon, Vince Gilligan, David Chase, Ronald Moore, Matthew Weiner, are all way smarter than D&D. And that's based not only on their work, but on their interviewees and everything. David Simon gave many interviews, much more than D&D, and even though he appears as an arrogant prick in some of them, he never gave a stupid answer like "Creatively it made sense to me because I wanted that to happen".

People do not always articulate exactly what they mean. Surely you have failed to explain what you mean very well at some time in the last 6 years? And without a horde of ready detractors ready to repeat even the smallest slip ad nauseam.

It makes much more sense if you accept it wasn't very well said, and read it as "Creatively it made sense to me; I wanted that to happen".

(Excuse me if I have not made proper use of the semi-colon, but that may help prove my point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Humble AK said:

 

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.

 

Outstanding!

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with StepStark completely.  D&D are not very good adapters, lack creativity, and are pretty piss-poor at dialogue.  I'm also involved in the creative field and these guys are lackluster at best.

Just reading a single passage or chapter in GRRM's novels, I get a good sense of high IQ and imagination from the author.  Choice words, sentence structure, narrative tone.  D&D's adaptation and writing skills are borderline 90 I.Q., headed unfortunately toward below average.

I think that is the biggest effrontery to me in the differences between books and screen: the complete divide in intelligence between the two versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mister Stoneheart said:

I agree with StepStark completely.  D&D are not very good adapters, lack creativity, and are pretty piss-poor at dialogue.  I'm also involved in the creative field and these guys are lackluster at best.

Just reading a single passage or chapter in GRRM's novels, I get a good sense of high IQ and imagination from the author.  Choice words, sentence structure, narrative tone.  D&D's adaptation and writing skills are borderline 90 I.Q., headed unfortunately toward below average.

I think that is the biggest effrontery to me in the differences between books and screen: the complete divide in intelligence between the two versions.

Exactly, the writing on the show is lackluster at best. I agree with Step Stark, too. Not only have they failed to capture the essence of the source material, they have not told a story of their own well at all, there's an art to telling stories, and they don't even seem to be trying for art, but aren't even adequately presenting a sequence of events with any consistency or depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mister Stoneheart said:

I agree with StepStark completely.  D&D are not very good adapters, lack creativity, and are pretty piss-poor at dialogue.  I'm also involved in the creative field and these guys are lackluster at best.

Just reading a single passage or chapter in GRRM's novels, I get a good sense of high IQ and imagination from the author.  Choice words, sentence structure, narrative tone.  D&D's adaptation and writing skills are borderline 90 I.Q., headed unfortunately toward below average.

I think that is the biggest effrontery to me in the differences between books and screen: the complete divide in intelligence between the two versions.

Bingo, D&D&C (C is for Cogman) have made some head-scratching additions and omissions and twisting existing characters to behave in a way that lacks continuity.

In relation to the OP, I still hope for Lady Stoneheart but the time we really needed her was shen she appeared in the books, the last two seasons when her family was completely dragged through the dirt and all hope seemed lost. After the Red Wedding and this is especially on the show, it was dreadful for two long. Two season where the antagonists, The Lannisters, the Freys and Boltons have had their way, time and time again. In the books, Lady Stoneheart gave hope for justice and that has been sorely missed on this show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

Bingo, D&D&C (C is for Cogman) have made some head-scratching additions and omissions and twisting existing characters to behave in a way that lacks continuity.

In relation to the OP, I still hope for Lady Stoneheart but the time we really needed her was shen she appeared in the books, the last two seasons when her family was completely dragged through the dirt and all hope seemed lost. After the Red Wedding and this is especially on the show, it was dreadful for two long. Two season where the antagonists, The Lannisters, the Freys and Boltons have had their way, time and time again. In the books, Lady Stoneheart gave hope for justice and that has been sorely missed on this show.

The Lannisters didn't really have their way in season 4 (Joffrey and Tywin died) and the Freys and the Boltons dealing with what they did happened in book 4 for the Freys and book 5 for the Boltons and season 4 didn't use these books as the main source material so it's really only season 5.

Having LSH appear and then ignoring her for an entire season until they decided to do the Riverland storyline wouldn't have made much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Humble AK said:

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."

Which is Tywin BS,since about 3000 men were killed at a dinner in a region of the kingdom where he let loose Gregor, Bloody Mummers and Ser Amory under his command at Harrenhall to empty the area of hundreds if not thousands of people who couldn't even defend themselves, torture them, pillage and rape them and burn their lands so they could starve.

Tywin committed a regional genocide to save his family's ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, farerb said:

The Lannisters didn't really have their way in season 4 (Joffrey and Tywin died) and the Freys and the Boltons dealing with what they did happened in book 4 for the Freys and book 5 for the Boltons and season 4 didn't use these books as the main source material so it's really only season 5.

Having LSH appear and then ignoring her for an entire season until they decided to do the Riverland storyline wouldn't have made much sense.

The Lannisters still have power, the took losses but Joffrey was a problem, even for them, they had Tommen to step up which everyone was better off with. Tywin was a set back but not for Cersei as she was given more freedom. House Stark has not had anything really good happen for it since Season 2. They battle of Oxcross or better know in my mind as the Battle of the "farting" guard. Same episode as Mel birthing the shadow baby. My point is that the Lannisters have been sitting on the damn thrown, prancing their Bastards as Royals and enjoying the life while House Stark has been deprived of that one entity that is still fighting them directly. Without Lady Stoneheart on the show, we have had nothing to resists them. Hell, even Sansa was submissive on the show to the Lannisters while she was in their clutches. That was not so in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the people saying that LSH cheapens the Red Wedding, I really don't think you could possibly have read the books at any more than a "what is happening" level.  

To begin with, LSH is not Catelyn.  Catelyn's desires were for an end of the war.  For peace, so she could mourn her dead family and pick up the pieces that remained of her life and continue on.  Lady Stoneheart is everything that Catelyn stood against in life.  The entire message of the story is that seeking revenge is bad, and being consumed by it reduces our ability to be truly human.  

Not only that, but Lady Stoneheart lives in constant grief.  The thing that was Catelyn now spends every moment consumed by the despair that was Catelyn's last moments.  Her revenge has even corrupted the Brotherhood without Banners away from their much more noble mission, as reflected through Thoros' doubts.  

 
Quote

 

"Justice." Thoros smiled wanly. "I remember justice. It had a pleasant taste. Justice was what we were about when Beric led us, or so we told ourselves. We were king's men, knights, and heroes . . . but some knights are dark and full of terror, my lady. War makes monsters of us all."
"Are you saying you are monsters?"
"I am saying we are human. You are not the only one with wounds, Lady Brienne. Some of my brothers were good men when this began. Some were . . . less good, shall we say? Though there are those who say it does not matter how a man begins, but only how he ends. I suppose it is the same for women." The priest got to his feet. "Our time together is at an end, I fear. I hear my brothers coming. Our lady sends for you."

 

The entire purpose is to show how dark the path has become, and how there is no reason we should root for this.  So yes, Catelyn is alive, and we get an ever so brief moment of "you go girl, kill those Freys." But even then GRRM takes this from us, because we aren't supposed to root for revenge in his mind.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Which is Tywin BS,since about 3000 men were killed at a dinner in a region of the kingdom where he let loose Gregor, Bloody Mummers and Ser Amory under his command at Harrenhall to empty the area of hundreds if not thousands of people who couldn't even defend themselves, torture them, pillage and rape them and burn their lands so they could starve.

Tywin committed a regional genocide to save his family's ass.

Exactly so.  In addition, in-world tradition has it that those who break guest right are cursed.  This isn't just a question of religious mumbo-jumbo.  It's the equivalent of killing someone under a flag of truce or someone with diplomatic status.  These things (in the real world and in Westeros) are there to facilitate negotiations for peace/treaties, and so on.  This is why Tywin is no "lawful neutral" - far from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...