[Spoilers] Rant and Rave without Reprecussions - Season 6 Edition

[LadySoftheart]

42 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

I don't know, when I heard that, I thought, too bad. Might have been more beauty and the beast hints there. But of course, that would get cut. Who cares about how the characters are actually feeling about anything besides manipulation and killing, or anything. Then again, knowing them, I am sure we are better off without seeing it.

Yeah, but I think tonally it would have been incredibly jarring. We've just heard Sansa talking about the pain she feels form Ramsay etc. in front of Brienne and I somehow don't feel like it would be at all credible that she'd go from that to teasing Brienne about the crush Tormund has on her. To me, it's just another example of them prioritizing shit they made up over the actual story in the books. Brienne's book story is heavily tied into Jaime's, but on the show she hasn't thought about him for two years - even though she still wears the armor and sword he gave her. It's all "Revenge for Renly!" and Tormund glances. To me, it feels like they are actually making fun of Brienne too - she wants handsome Jaime (or she did, anyway!) and loved handsome(ish) Renly, but the only guy who could be attracted to her sexually is a comic relief character. Because who could ever seriously find Brienne attractive? (And I know I don't really like ShowBrienne that much, mostly because of the writing, but it still feels like another middle finger to the books and the people who loved her storyline in the books.)

4 minutes ago, Liver and Onions said:

Very well said. The show takes the grim dark approach and ramps it up to almost ludicrous levels. At this point, the characters are unrealistic because their actions make no sense, and no one around then reacts logically. I find that hilarious in a show that claims realism as one of its strengths.

For me, some of the most triumphant moments of the books are the simple brave acts and speeches, more so than massive battles and one-on-one fights. It was great when Brienne slew some of the Brave Companions in AFFC, or when Sam killed an Other by chance in ASOS, but then in ADWD you have Davos making his case to Manderly in front of the Freys. Even a climatic fight is about more than just one person killing the other, like Barristan's duel with the gladiator at the end of Dance. Barristan has made his choice to interpret and enforce his Queen's will in her absence and is showing off his chivalrous nature as much as his fighting skill.

Brienne going out to fight seven Bloody Mummers to protect the children at the Inn was, for me, one of the most heroic moments of the entire series: "no chance and no choice" and no one will remember her in songs and stories for this action because she's not defending a prince or a king, but pauper children that literally no one in Westeros cares about. THAT is heroism! Riding in and slaughtering some convenient Bolton soldiers to rescue Sansa from a good licking by the bloodhounds is not the same thing, and I think conflating those two things is just another sign that the writers of this show don't *get* the main idea.

[Ser Quork]

10 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

Not just Ramsay that needs to pay for her suffering, LF must pay too, Sandor or maybe, LSH if we get her or Sansa herself. If one kill and one kill only, LF before Ramsay. Ramsay is a regional bad guy who was handed Sansa on a silver plate. LF has destroyed her life, isolated her, systematically since Season 1. He is supremo bad guy #1 and that is why while it was good to hear Sansa vent, I was dissapointed but not surprised with LF not acting regretful at all. Fake as shit and worst of all, she let him walk away with his life. She should have killed him there. Brienne is a brute and she is her brute. Kill him and enjoy the moment or have him come to Castle Black. Have him take the black as a ha, ha moment or kill him if he refuses. He said that he would make it up to her any way he could. Take the black now or death? I dunno. Show never gives us a fully satisfying moment with Sansa or the Starks. That seems only reserved for Dany, Tyrion and most of the time for Cersei.

Absolutely.  Now he's effectively "unmasked" as her "enemy or an idiot" (wouldn't have happened to Bookfinger), persisting in his plot armour is just ridiculous (but we know that. *sigh*)

10 minutes ago, Liver and Onions said:

Very well said. The show takes the grim dark approach and ramps it up to almost ludicrous levels. At this point, the characters are unrealistic because their actions make no sense, and no one around then reacts logically. I find that hilarious in a show that claims realism as one of its strengths.

For me, some of the most triumphant moments of the books are the simple brave acts and speeches, more so than massive battles and one-on-one fights. It was great when Brienne slew some of the Brave Companions in AFFC, or when Sam killed an Other by chance in ASOS, but then in ADWD you have Davos making his case to Manderly in front of the Freys. Even a climatic fight is about more than just one person killing the other, like Barristan's duel with the gladiator at the end of Dance. Barristan has made his choice to interpret and enforce his Queen's will in her absence and is showing off his chivalrous nature as much as his fighting skill.

Agreed, these are the heart and soul of the books.

[YouSnowNothing]

On 5/24/2016 at 3:21 AM, Tijgy said:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/BWW-Recap-GAME-OF-THRONES-Reveals-Shocking-Truths-in-The-Door-20160523

Excellent article. People haven't been talking about that Children/Others scene enough. It was just dropped into the middle of the episode, like D&D suddenly remembered they had to squeeze it in before Leaf and BR died, without bothering to give it any build-up, follow-up, or thematic relevance to the rest of the episode. It was a huge, world-changing reveal and it was just thrown in and came off as underwhelming as a result.

[Le Cygne]

23 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I wish the D's had this much respect for the books they decided we're good enough to make in to a series only to destroy them. I know the Coppolla notebook video was shared before, but wow, he is now going to publish it. 

Take note HBO hacks. 

http://www.vulture.com/2016/05/francis-ford-coppola-godfather-notebook.html 

Oh, I am definitely buying that book. I love "making of" books of the great films (and series, the Pride and Prejudice book is a good one! The Colin Firth version, of course, he actually read the book).

[YouSnowNothing]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think that hits the nail on the head.  The producers consider that a medieval society (or a society that In Essos which is more like the ancient world) is a society without moral standards, in which victory goes to the most ruthless, vicious, bastard.  And, that the only way to wield power successfully is through force and fear. 

Medieval and ancient societies could countenance appalling levels of cruelty (although the same is true of more modern societies) but  it would be quite wrong to think there were no moral standards, and no consequences for violating those moral standards.

57 minutes ago, LadySoftheart said:

Great post, @YouSnowNothing! I am currently reading The Last Duel by Eric Jäger, which is nonfiction about a duel to the death between two French noblemen in 1386 over the rape by one of the other's wife and I'm constantly highlighting passages where the "that's how it was in medieval times" defenses of Game of Thrones are completely off the mark.

With the kinslaying, it looks like Stannis should have just stabbed Renly through the heart at their meeting and all Westeros would have followed him no problem! He would have been a trendsetter.

15 minutes ago, Liver and Onions said:

Very well said. The show takes the grim dark approach and ramps it up to almost ludicrous levels. At this point, the characters are unrealistic because their actions make no sense, and no one around then reacts logically. I find that hilarious in a show that claims realism as one of its strengths.

Yeah, if the show wanted to be a camp, over-the-top murder fest then it's a very good one. But to have critics repeatedly cite its realism, and any problematic moments being cast aside because "that's how things were back then", is completely infuriating.

 

 

 

[Dolorous Gabe]

1 minute ago, YouSnowNothing said:

Excellent article. People haven't been talking about that Children/Others scene enough. It was just dropped into the middle of the episode, like D&D suddenly remembered they had to squeeze it in before Leaf and BR died, without bothering to give it any build-up, follow-up, or thematic relevance to the rest of the episode. It was a huge, world-changing reveal and it was just thrown in and came off as underwhelming as a result.

I agree. The Children/Others reveal should have been given more historical backstory in its own episode. As a result of packing it all into one episode, Bran's story with Bloodraven feels terribly rushed (and Von Sydow's presence wasted).

[Liver and Onions]

16 minutes ago, LadySoftheart said:

Brienne going out to fight seven Bloody Mummers to protect the children at the Inn was, for me, one of the most heroic moments of the entire series: "no chance and no choice" and no one will remember her in songs and stories for this action because she's not defending a prince or a king, but pauper children that literally no one in Westeros cares about. THAT is heroism! Riding in and slaughtering some convenient Bolton soldiers to rescue Sansa from a good licking by the bloodhounds is not the same thing, and I think conflating those two things is just another sign that the writers of this show don't *get* the main idea.

You mention Brienne just riding in, and I just got the scene in my head from Monty Python's Holy Grail where the knight runs by the historian and kills him. And keeps on going because apparently he just rides around and kills people all day?  It's so random and sudden, and yet there are still consequences in the end when constables arrest an entire army.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, YouSnowNothing said:

Yeah, if the show wanted to be a camp, over-the-top murder fest then it's a very good one. But to have critics repeatedly cite its realism, and any problematic moments being cast aside because "that's how things were back then", is completely infuriating.

 

 

 

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether Richard III murdered the Princes in the Tower (which once provoked a very heated argument on this forum), but it's a useful example.

The fact that many contemporaries thought that Richard had murdered the Princes in the Tower did immense damage to his reputation (it certainly wasn't just a piece of Tudor propaganda invented after 1485). People didn't think "Richard was a real badass for killing the Princes."  People who believed the rumour were disgusted by it. 

Ditto the widespread belief that King John had murdered his nephew Prince Arthur.  Many of his French barons turned against him over the issue, and Philip Augustus exploited it masterfully to undermine support for John.  Nobody took the view "good for Jon" for murdering his nephew.

So, while medieval rulers were certainly ruthless by our standards, and had to be in order to survive, they couldn't afford to violate the moral codes of their own societies.

[SuperMario]

6 hours ago, Karmarni said:

That's absolutely it. The way to engender media response and control it.

Has anyone watched the day after talk show HBO is hosting? After the Thrones or whatever it's called. I keep failing to do it. I'd like to see it once to see the direction and how serious (or not) it takes itself. This, along with the Outside the Episodes are their way of controlling and pseudo-explaining what's going on in the show. 

It's hilarious to me how seriously it takes itself now. And yet, we still need the showrunners to explain what really happened in some scenes. But since this is the show that lies to its audience with a straight face as a rule and as a media ploy, why should we believe them at all? They'll secretively guard their surprises and tap dance around what they don't want their viewership to know until airtime.

The showrunners valued and lived by the Red Wedding. Now all they want to do is recreate it's emotional reaction over and over. But you can only go to that well so many times. It won't surprise me if, in the end, the Red Wedding inspires its own trope.

Yep. That's a good point as well. I forgot about the "After the Thrones". I have yet to watch it because I don't think my stomach can handle it, but I've heard even diehard show lovers say it is pretty bad.

But yeah, that is just another way they are manipulating the talking points.

[The Wull]

I was just thinking, and I don't think I've seen anyone mention it - Does anyone think the Blackfish supposedly taking back Riverrun in the show means that the BwB conspiracy/resistance is close to doing the same in the books?  It felt like one of those check-the-box throwaway lines from LF where certain things have to happen so they happen, but I think it's a pretty decent guess that RR gets retaken fairly early in TWoW.  

Also, if we do get to see LSH, who thinks she'll be a spooky skellington skittering around on the ceiling.  "Damnit Cat! Get down here!"

[SuperMario]

23 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

I agree. The Children/Others reveal should have been given more historical backstory in its own episode. As a result of packing it all into one episode, Bran's story with Bloodraven feels terribly rushed (and Von Sydow's presence wasted).

Yep. Similar to the ToJ scene. It just jumped out of nowhere with no context and again Von Sydow's presence wasted.

[LadySoftheart]

11 minutes ago, Liver and Onions said:

You mention Brienne just riding in, and I just got the scene in my head from Monty Python's Holy Grail where the knight runs by the historian and kills him. And keeps on going because apparently he just rides around and kills people all day?  It's so random and sudden, and yet there are still consequences in the end when constables arrest an entire army.

Brienne has definitely been turned into a very Monty Python-esque character. I'm surprised they didn't have Stannis tell her that it was just a flesh wound when she killed him

In ignoring Brienne's devotion to honor, her constant admonishments to herself in Feast that she carries a hero's sword but isn't a hero (though she totally is) and her courage and willingness to die for her ideals, in favor of making her an invincible killing machine, they've done a grave disservice to a really wonderful character to pay lip service to the idea of Strong Women^TM

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

So, while medieval rulers were certainly ruthless by our standards, and had to be in order to survive, they couldn't afford to violate the moral codes of their own societies...

Very well said. I want to add that the moral codes were also based on religion - that it was a constant (and hopefully sometimes comforting) presence in medieval society. I think we often look back on medieval Christianity from the lens of the Reformation and post-Reformation, but ... people really, genuinely DID believe that they would be punished for evil deeds by a higher power and rewarded for good ones. And yes, there were reformist movements in medieval Catholicism like that of St. Francis of Assisi but they were aimed at making the church purer and better, at bringing people closer to God, rather than cynical power plays. Again, this is something I think the show writers really don't strive to understand. The Sparrows are Martin's version of St. Francis's Fraticelli, but none of that comes across on the show.

[Ser Quork]

2 minutes ago, SuperMario said:

Yep. That's a good point as well. I forgot about the "After the Thrones". I have yet to watch it because I don't think my stomach can handle it, but I've heard even diehard show lovers say it is pretty bad.

But yeah, that is just another way they are manipulating the talking points.

Well, we have Thronecast here in the UK.  I watched it a couple of times during season 5 and it's real 'brown-nose' stuff.  Avoid!

2 minutes ago, The Wull said:

I was just thinking, and I don't think I've seen anyone mention it - Does anyone think the Blackfish supposedly taking back Riverrun in the show means that the BwB conspiracy/resistance is close to doing the same in the books?  It felt like one of those check-the-box throwaway lines from LF where certain things have to happen so they happen, but I think it's a pretty decent guess that RR gets retaken fairly early in TWoW.  

Also, if we do get to see LSH, who thinks she'll be a spooky skellington skittering around on the ceiling.  "Damnit Cat! Get down here!"

Noooo!

I've just had a horrible thought - do you suppose the spooky skellington ceiling-clingers are the show's version of "ice spiders".  *sulks*  I want ice spiders!! Not spider-wights, damn it! 

[Ser Quork]

1 minute ago, LadySoftheart said:

 

Very well said. I want to add that the moral codes were also based on religion - that it was a constant (and hopefully sometimes comforting) presence in medieval society. I think we often look back on medieval Christianity from the lens of the Reformation and post-Reformation, but ... people really, genuinely DID believe that they would be punished for evil deeds by a higher power and rewarded for good ones. And yes, there were reformist movements in medieval Catholicism like that of St. Francis of Assisi but they were aimed at making the church purer and better, at bringing people closer to God, rather than cynical power plays. Again, this is something I think the show writers really don't strive to understand. The Sparrows are Martin's version of St. Francis's Fraticelli, but none of that comes across on the show.

Very much agreed.  This is one of the things that highlights the utter lack of "realism" in the show's premise.  It's clear they've taken religion = bad hipster stance, but that betrays utter ignorance of the fundamental belief systems of that time.

[SerProle]

41 minutes ago, YouSnowNothing said:

Yeah, if the show wanted to be a camp, over-the-top murder fest then it's a very good one. But to have critics repeatedly cite its realism, and any problematic moments being cast aside because "that's how things were back then", is completely infuriating.

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether Richard III murdered the Princes in the Tower (which once provoked a very heated argument on this forum), but it's a useful example.

The fact that many contemporaries thought that Richard had murdered the Princes in the Tower did immense damage to his reputation (it certainly wasn't just a piece of Tudor propaganda invented after 1485). People didn't think "Richard was a real badass for killing the Princes."  People who believed the rumour were disgusted by it. 

Ditto the widespread belief that King John had murdered his nephew Prince Arthur.  Many of his French barons turned against him over the issue, and Philip Augustus exploited it masterfully to undermine support for John.  Nobody took the view "good for Jon" for murdering his nephew.

So, while medieval rulers were certainly ruthless by our standards, and had to be in order to survive, they couldn't afford to violate the moral codes of their own societies.

There are plenty of people these days who view sociopathic behavior as realistic, its all about survival at all costs. Rules are for suckers and losers. I don't see any evidence that D&D have a problem with this world view. It is a lot more about our own time than it is about Medieval values or whatever.

However I see no evidence that George Martin has this view, there seems to be a lot more explicit evidence that he is fundamentally hostile to this view. Why on earth would he spend the better part of his creative life writing thousands of pages to expound on the glories of war, torture, cruelty, injustice, inequality, hierarchy, rape, murder, betrayal etc? Doesn't make sense. 

I have a lot of sympathy for fan theorists who look forward to an eventual outcome in the books that either shows the consequences of all this horrific behavior is extinction--'go team Night King!'--or that some of the characters seem to show another better way to live after they've passed through the crucible of their own suffering.

If D&D are serious that the show will end up in a different place than the books, I kinda think it may be something related to this. The show will end up with a hero or heroine who has of course tortured, raped, brutalized, exterminated, done whatever was necessary (maybe shed a lone tear or two in a weak moment of reflection so we forgive them their horrific acts) in order to save the day and restore the hierarchy as it should be. If D&D had orgasms over the Red Wedding, then why wouldn't they want to spend millions showing this sort of ending?

But I'd be very surprised and disappointed if the books turned out that way, it would seem to go against everything Martin has ever said about his view of the world. Why would he be so upset about the Rabid Puppies if his books turn out to be some sort of fascist fairy tale, the very thing they would worship? 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

3 hours ago, YouSnowNothing said:

There is no Lady Stoneheart,

Excellent post; very well said!

I'm highlighting this point you made because it doesn't get said enough. Since the showrunners have been insisting that everything is about "REVENGE!" (Needle means "REVENGE!", Sansa getting "REVENGE!" for her family, Ellaria getting "REVENGE!" for Oberyn), when push came to shove they did two things:

(1) Turned Ellaria Sand - whose only purpose in the books is to be a voice against vengeance - into a revenge monster, and

(2) Eliminated Lady Stoneheart - whose only purpose in the books is to be a revenge monster.

 

1 hour ago, LadySoftheart said:

Great post, @YouSnowNothing! I am currently reading The Last Duel by Eric Jäger, which is nonfiction about a duel to the death between two French noblemen in 1386 over the rape by one of the other's wife and I'm constantly highlighting passages where the "that's how it was in medieval times" defenses of Game of Thrones are completely off the mark.

Great book; I really enjoyed it.

 

[LadySoftheart]

3 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Excellent post; very well said!

I'm highlighting this point you made because it doesn't get said enough. Since the showrunners have been insisting that everything is about "REVENGE!" (Needle means "REVENGE!", Sansa getting "REVENGE!" for her family, Ellaria getting "REVENGE!" for Oberyn), when push came to shove they did two things:

Even the Night's King is about REVENGE, no? (And yet they eliminated the two canonically vengeful characters - Lord Manderly and his Frey pies, and Lady Stoneheart - perhaps because they are actually subtle commentaries about the ultimate futility of vengeance, especially when it makes you kill people simply based on their associations (LSH) or do actions that would justifiably horrify the world (Frey pies.))

Have you read Jager's other book about the murder of the Duc d'Orleans in 1407 by the Burgundians? It also looks really good!!

[Ser Quork]

7 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Excellent post; very well said!

I'm highlighting this point you made because it doesn't get said enough. Since the showrunners have been insisting that everything is about "REVENGE!" (Needle means "REVENGE!", Sansa getting "REVENGE!" for her family, Ellaria getting "REVENGE!" for Oberyn), when push came to shove they did two things:

(1) Turned Ellaria Sand - whose only purpose in the books is to be a voice against vengeance - into a revenge monster, and

(2) Eliminated Lady Stoneheart - whose only purpose in the books is to be a revenge monster.

 

Because she is a revenge monster - not a "badass".  They believe in revenge - Martin doesn't.

4 minutes ago, LadySoftheart said:

Even the Night's King is about REVENGE, no? (And yet they eliminated the two canonically vengeful characters - Lord Manderly and his Frey pies, and Lady Stoneheart - perhaps because they are actually subtle commentaries about the ultimate futility of vengeance, especially when it makes you kill people simply based on their associations (LSH) or do actions that would justifiably horrify the world (Frey pies.))

 

 and more eloquently so by LadySoftheart.

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, LadySoftheart said:

Brienne has definitely been turned into a very Monty Python-esque character. I'm surprised they didn't have Stannis tell her that it was just a flesh wound when she killed him

In ignoring Brienne's devotion to honor, her constant admonishments to herself in Feast that she carries a hero's sword but isn't a hero (though she totally is) and her courage and willingness to die for her ideals, in favor of making her an invincible killing machine, they've done a grave disservice to a really wonderful character to pay lip service to the idea of Strong Women^TM

 

The whole point about Brienne in the books is not that she's a badass, but that (unlike most knights) she epitomises everything that a true knight is sworn to be - someone who really will defend those who cannot defend themselves, or else die in the attempt.  Yet, she gets mocked because she's a woman. 

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, SerProle said:

 

There are plenty of people these days who view sociopathic behavior as realistic, its all about survival at all costs. Rules are for suckers and losers. I don't see any evidence that D&D have a problem with this world view. It is a lot more about our own time than it is about Medieval values or whatever.

However I see no evidence that George Martin has this view, there seems to be a lot more explicit evidence that he is fundamentally hostile to this view. Why on earth would he spend the better part of his creative life writing thousands of pages to expound on the glories of war, torture, cruelty, injustice, inequality, hierarchy, rape, murder, betrayal etc? Doesn't make sense. 

I have a lot of sympathy for fan theorists who look forward to an eventual outcome in the series that either shows the consequences of all this horrific behavior is extinction--'go team Night King!'--or that some of the characters seem to show another better way to live after they've passed through the crucible of their own suffering.

If D&D are serious that the show will end up in a different place than the books, I kinda think it may be something related to this. The show will end up with a hero or heroine who has of course tortured, raped, brutalized, exterminated, done whatever was necessary (maybe shed a lone tear or two in a weak moment of reflection so we forgive them their horrific acts) in order to save the day and restore the hierarchy as it should be. If D&D had orgasms over the Red Wedding, then why wouldn't they want to spend millions showing this sort of ending?

But I'd be very surprised and disappointed if the books turned out that way, it would seem to go against everything Martin has ever said about his view of the world. Why would he be so upset about the Rabid Puppies if his books turn out to be some sort of fascist fairy tale, the very thing they would worship? 

There is awful brutality in the books, but I think the author's stance is quite clear, that pity, mercy, compassion are worthwhile even when they cost the person who displays them.