siyxx

Am I The Only One Around Here Who V.2

402 posts in this topic

OK guys, very exciting V.2 is here. Before we start, let me repeat myself:

  • Be nice to your neighbors and don't criticize each other too much to start a fight, kids. We've got plenty enough threads for that already. 
  • For those who wish to create a "AITOOAHW Redux." to share random thoughts, feel free to start a new thread :D which means...
  • We will (mostly) stick to ASOIAF-related thoughts in this one.

 

And off we go with:

Am I The Only One Around Here Who thinks Greyscale has a real-life equivalent to leprosy, and Tyrion's encounter with the Stone Men in ADWD was more sad than terrifying? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're definitely not the only one, I think so too. The Sorrows posses a sense of doom and the atmosphere of Gothic horror (the mist, darkness and ruined once-splendid castles). 

 

AITOOAHW is disappointed at the show's decision (this far into the sentence I know I'm not but still) Brienne to meet Sansa and swear loyalty to her. Such a waste of a character

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you're not. I didn't like the fact that Brienne met both of the Stark girls and I didn't like that she actually managed to keep her promise to Catelyn by protecting Sansa. One of the main points of her arc in the books is that she never gives up looking for them and really tries to uphold her promise to Catelyn (instead of trying to avenge Renly), but doesn't manage to do so. I was really disappointed with Brienne's arc for the last seasons (despite the fact that I'm not a big fan of her book arc either) and I didn't like the way they've changed her character (but this applies to most characters on the show). 

I'm just gonna go with what I wanted to ask in the last thread:

Am I the only one around here who actually likes Ros in the show? I'm not a big fan of most other original characters and I generaly don't understand why the showrunners have included so many original characters, but Ros came of as quite sympathetic to me and the actress was really charming.  I was sad when she died. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Ros was a very useful character. She was a great substitute for the obscure prostitues of KL and she brought out so much from other characters (Joffrey, Varys, LF, Theon). Their scenes with Ros highlighted Important things about their characters. And Ros was, in general, a good person with hopes and dreams who just wanted to get by and became a tool and a victim of the power play. It's a sad story and a great reflection on how the game of thrones affects small people. It's kinda like Jeyne or Gendry. I absolutely appreciate Ros. 

 

Am I the only one around here who thinks the show overdid Mace Tyrell? Yes he was said to be oafish and weak-willed, but the show kind of made him the caricature of himself. Show Mace is a joke to laugh at, and not in a good way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're not. And I don't think the books ever implied that Mace was weak willed, on the contrary. He is not a political genius, Olenna is the brains of the family, and she calls him an oaf, but she also says in the same conversation that it was Mace's decision that Marg should marry Renly and Joffrey, and that she was against that. He is very ambitious, likes to throw his political weight aroind, and obsessively wants his daughter to be queen and to have a grandson on the throne. The show makes it look like it was Marg's wish, and like Reach is some sort of sexually free, female-dominated society, which is as far off from book Reach as possible. The Reach is the epitome of "chivalric" patriarchy. And Mace may be an oaf, but he has the last word and he is his family's official negotiator, not his mother, who just does things from the shadows. Which makes a lot more sense in terms of how things would work in a feudal, patriarchal society.

AITOOAH who thinks that the Ashford tourney theory is total bollocks? It's a prime example of people overthinking things and coming up with contrived tinfoil theories, sometimes out of confirmation bias, as with this one, which only seems to exist so people could claim their Sansa/Aegon or Sansa/Jon shipping has some basis in canon. As if GRRM was was going to drop clues abour Sansa's arc in a random line about some random girl in a Dunk and Egg story, rather than anywhere in Sansa's actual chapters/story/the main series. (Plus, even their own reasoning doesn't work, since she was also betrothed to Sweetrobin, so by their logic there should have been an Arryn in the mix.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're not I don't believe in the Ashford tourney theory, either. Actually I don't believe in a lot of theories, or there are some theories where I believe that they could be true, but I also believe that they have an equal chance of being false e.g. Aegon being fake. I think that for every good theory with a lot of evidence out there, there are probably 3-5 theories that have only very little supporting evidence and will most likely turn out to be false. 

Re Mance: I had the same impression as Annara Snow.

Am I the only one around here who really likes Daenerys  character in the books? I've got the feeling that she's nearly universally hated by this forum and by reddit as well, but she's one of my favourite characters. I also liked her Meereen chapters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'd say that about 40% of the fandom likes/loves her. She's easily my least favorite POV character (unless we count Varamyr Sixskins), but I don't hate her. I enjoy some of her stuff like the house of the undying and she's fun to analyse. Come to think of it, there isn't a single main character that I find completely uninteresting.

AITOOAHW really wants to see Casterly Rock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, though I can honestly do without seeing it. 

Mace: 100% agree with Annara. 

Daenerys: I've been a faithful daenerys fan from day 1. I don't understand why she gets so much hate. There are certainly things I don't like about her and the Meereen storyline in adwd was an utter disaster, but so many of my favorite things about asoiaf are linked to her. I just can't not love Daenerys. 

 

Speaking of, 

am I the only one around here who absolutely despises the nickname "Dany" and cringes every time grrm calls her that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Yes? I never heard of someone having a problem with it.

Am I the only one around here whose favorite book in the series is AFFC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's not my favourite, but grew on me while rereading. Although again, if GRRM doesn't finish, I might sour on it a bit.

I can't get into D-hate, either, and kind of suspect the haters aren't really in the majority; they're just very vocal and get amplified. AND I don't screamingly care for the nickname Dany, although i guess I don't exactly hate it.

Am I ... doesn't know what the Ashford theory is? What can the tourney have to do with Sansa? It sounds weird. Not as weird as Jojen paste; but weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're the only one. In the very first Dunk and Egg story there is a tourney held at Ashford castle, that beings with Lord Ashford's daughter as the starting Queen of Love and Beauty, and five champions defending her. All five of the champions end up defeated. The Ashford theory posits that Sansa and her potential suitors correspond to the Ashford girl and her five champions, in that none of the men Sansa is supposed to marry ends up with her in the end. I don't remember if anyone got specific about which champions equal which potential husbands for Sansa, but it's possible. Oh, and I'm not 100% on this but I think the reason Sansa was tied to this has something to do with her Whent heritage(?).

AITOOAHW was underwhelmed by the HOBAW in the show?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, but I was kind of underwhelmed by it in the books too. 

 

Am I the only one around here who thinks the show should have done a way better job building up r+l=j? I don't know anybody (non-book reader)  who questioned Jon's parentage or even knew who Lyanna Stark was until season 6. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yours is the popular opinion, as far as I'm aware. I've seen people say they set it up so badly that many show viewers have no clue about Rhaegar and some even think Ned and Lyanna had an incestuous relationship (facepalm). I know some people who are Unsullied but had figured out that there was a mystery of some kind there and that Ned wasn't Jon's father (because it was OOC for Ned to commit adultery and father a bastard), but that's a tiny, tiny minority. Then there are Unsullied who knew there was some mystery of that kind but thought Robert was his father because Kit Harington has black hair. I've complained about the lack of flashbacks before, so you can guess how I think they should have set it up.

re: THOBAW. It may come as a surprise, me being such a show hater these days, but I actually had less problems with it than most people - i.e. I can see why they didn't think it would work on TV. Not that a more ambitious showrunner couldn't have tried to bring it to life with some crazy Lynchian imagery, but the show has never been so bold or experiemental in its style. If they couldn't bring themselves to do flashbacks, I certainly didn't expect them to try to film THOBAW as it is in the books. I'm more bothered by how atrocious the rest of Dany's storyline in season 2 was. (Jon's, too.)

Dany is polarizing. She certainly has a lot of fans. But the haters are very vocal, and very extreme, so it seems like there are more of them than there probably really are.

There have been numerous Ashford theory threads on General forum, though I think it may have originated on Reddit (?). People latched onto the fact that one of the nominal "champions" of Ashford's daughter (who were definitely NOT her suitors, mind you - it's just a custom) was a Hardying, and a theory sprung that claims that each of her champions' family names (Baratheon, Lannister, Tyrell, Hardying, Targaryen) corresponds to men Sansa has been betrothed to/married (Joffrey, Tyrion, Willas, Harry the Heir...) so that must mean that she will marry Aegon! Or, in some versions, Jon SnowTargaryen, (They forgot that she was also betrothed to Sweetrobin, just as much as she was to Willas... Oops.) People take it way too seriously, and it gets really annoyed when they bring it up as canon: someone i na thread actually claimed that there are no canon foundations for SanSan, but there are for Sansa/Aegon, because "Ashford tournament"! Also, I think that most proponents of the theory tend to forget that none of the men in question were even suitors or potential husbands for the Ashford girl (she was far too below the rank of 4 out of 5 o them, for starters) or that none of them won (I don't think the tourney was ever even finished). What any of that has to do with Sansa in the first place, no idea.

Speaking of Dany in season 2... AITOOAH who found the "I didn't come here to argue grammar!" line even stupider and more ridiculous than "WHERE ARE MY DRAGONS?"

Edited by Annara Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not. I loved the spice king scenes, he was hilarious. That line about grammar fit into the scene perfectly: Daenerys being a little silly desperately trying to argue a clearly more savvy person and losing the battle. 

re This ashford business. This is the first time I ever heard of this theory, but gosh, it sounds ridiculous. I think, and this applies to many and more of the fan theories out there, it is impossible for the human brain to keep track of so many vague hints and build such a vast web of symbolism and foreshadowing. Therefore, 75% of the connections we make were completely unintentional and grrm never meant for them to be made in the first place.

 

am I the only one around here who thinks there's no more than maybe one giant conspiracy theory behind the grand design of asoiaf? All those things can't possibly be true, there can't possibly be a maester conspiracy and a faceless men conspiracy and a debt scheme (and whatever other conspiracies are out there that I haven't heard of yet)all at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope you're not. I don't believe in most conspiracy theories either. Especially a giant maester conspiracy sounds hard to organise. I do believe in a Northern conspiracy, but I doubt that as many houses as some people believe are on it. 

Am I the only one around here who really loves the dragons and doesn't want them to die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. I haven't yet come up with a happy scenario for the dragons and daenerys, but I do have a semi-specific idea about a beautiful death for them to die if it comes to that. 

 

Am I the only one around here who cannot wait to see more people killed off in  season 7 so that the plot could FINALLY move on? Starting with Cersei, if possible. That one is long over-due. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving the plot would certainly be a good thing, although my list consists more of Dornish and Ironborn (although I suppose Euron will have to do something, since he's here). It's always a little bittersweet, losing a really nasty villain like Joff or Ramsay. Whom will we hate now?

Speaking of season 2 Daenerys, am I .. was most put off by her burying the X chap and the treacherous handmaid alive? I hadn't even read the books yet; but it just felt wrong. If she was going to kill them, it should have been quickly. Not that I was terribly sorry for either malefactor; but that's just mean.Though at least they didn't get burnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, burying someone alive is crueler than burning them. Burning is a much quicker death than a slow, agonizing death of thirst and hunger. And yes, it's bothersome. It was an early that the show tends to conflate badassery with cruelty, and promotes the idea that cruel revenge is the awesomest thing ever. Even worse, it was the ending of her season 2 arc, so what was her arc about? Learning to be crueler and therefore more awesome?

re: the Spice King - that entire conversation was idiotic and out of place, like something lifted right out of people trolling each other in Youtube comments. And it's made even stupider by the fact that the Spice King wasn't even criticizing her grammar, but her vocabulary ("take" vs "retake"). Then on top of it you had Clarke's ridiculously dramatic delivery. Goes well with her monotonous, deadpan delivery of lines that are supposed to be epic.

And generally, it was a part of the show making Dany in season 2 into a silly brat that no one is taking seriously. That's not book Dany. Great adaptational choices, both that and making show Jon into an incompetent moron. 

AITOOAH who thinks Emilia Clarke's acting is fine whenever she is playing Dany being vulnerable (like in a lot of season 1, or the scene where she is locking up her dragons) but that she's usually unconvincing when she is trying to play badassness and comes off as either bratty and hysterical, or deadpan and monotonous?

Edited by Annara Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not at all, that's exactly what I feel. She did Season 1 Daenerys pretty well. But I also have this feeling the direction and writing during her subsequent "badass" scenes might be a contributing factor - really bad dialogues "All men must die, but we are not men." "Break the wheel" and stuff don't help at all, IMO.

She's definitely not Emmy nominee worthy however. I think she should possibly take up some villainous roles to expand her range if she can.

Now for something positive about the season 2 arc,

AITOOAH who quite liked the styling for Dany in Qarth? Specially the golden neck-and-chest piece? 

Pics for those who don't remember:

https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/11895613.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/cb/a3/2c/cba32c42ccc38f67448cf43395cedafd.jpg

Usually I don't like the styling of the show much (they aren't innovative, Margaery seems like she was wearing a variation of the same dress for seasons together). But this was an instance where they did try to get a little creative.

Edited by Little Scribe of Naath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you're not. I really liked her dresses in Season 2.  It was kind of the only thing I like about her arc in that season. They made terible choices about the adaptation of her storyline in ACOK. Same goes for the adaptation of Jon's ACOK storyline. 

Regarding Emila: I don't think she's as bad as some people say. She's not on the same level as some of the other actors on the show like Peter, Alfie or Lena, but she's not a terrible actress. The problem is that they rarely allow her to portray any emotions and let her do the same "badass" speeches over and over again. 

While we are talking about costumes...

Am I the only one around here who really liked Cersei's coronation dress? 

Edited by Lady of Whisperers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.