Jump to content

Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]


Little Scribe of Naath

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

GRRM often says this is what ASOIAF is about:

"Stories of the human heart in conflict with itself transcend time, place, and setting. So long as love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice are present..."

And all those things are present in the books and show - but no one ever said anything about them coming with rewards every single time ;)

What if honor demands something of you that conflicts with your pity? What if pride and love pull you in opposite directions? What if pride prevents you from following your honor? DECISIONS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

If we're talking about proof of GOT's tryhard cynicism and ASOIAF romance, look no further than what "The North Remembers" means in the books and show.

In the books it's the rallying cry for Northmen who reject the Boltons and everything they stand for.

In the show it's a taunt Ramsay uses on his rape victim, whilst the Northmen couldn't give a shit.

Yes, and in the books the BwB devolves into a gang of psychopaths, while in the show they're still the good guys from S2.


But remember, with the North it's the show replacing noble Romanticism with "tryhard cynicism" (like those immature teenagers putting on black costumes and being all cynical you know? how stupid of those teenagers).

But with the Brotherhood, the book is intelligent and gritty by showing you how fragile human nobility is, and the show just sanitizes it into a Hollywood good guys fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

I don't really understand what the show was going for in this regard. His plan seemed callous and manipulative in season 5, but then he switches to looking genuinely contrite in season 6. Either way, the plan makes no sense, because what he stands to gain is vastly outdone by what he stands to lose. The most likely scenario of placing Sansa in Winterfell and then double crossing the Boltons is that Sansa ends up with a slit throat, and LF gets nothing. He didn't know she would escape - he could only assume the Boltons would keep her in Winterfell for the duration, even when he betrays them and tries to kill them. So Sansa would be getting her throat cut out of spite and LF would get diddly. It's not callous at all - it's idiotic. 

Cersei promised to make him warden of the north if he defeats the treachorous Boltons.

His "contrite" reactions could either be completely faked and acted, or his conscience can be switched on and off depending on whether it serves his goals - whatever type of manipulative sociopath he is, I think so far it's pretty obvious that that's what he is.


 

So, yeah, I don't think there's a problem with LF at that core level - the basic plot point is that he concocted a plan that would make him the winner in either case.

However, I'm as lost on the actual details of that as anyone else here, so far: for instance he had to rely on Sansa really being completely impressionable and malleable even after all that time, and not be too likely to just tell Brienne to kill him on the spot.
Or, I don't know, could she have done that without pissing off the Vale? She was saying he could just have him killed, so.... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Yes, and in the books the BwB devolves into a gang of psychopaths, while in the show they're still the good guys from S2.


But remember, with the North it's the show replacing noble Romanticism with "tryhard cynicism" (like those immature teenagers putting on black costumes and being all cynical you know? how stupid of those teenagers).

But with the Brotherhood, the book is intelligent and gritty by showing you how fragile human nobility is, and the show just sanitizes it into a Hollywood good guys fantasy.

In the books the brotherhood is a cautionary tale - they wanted to do good and raise themselves above others who killed and stole. They appeal to a source of authority - the old King - as a means of legitimizing what they are doing, but this is a polite fiction and they know it. It's a deconstruction of the Robin Hood mythos and it's fascinating to me. Ultimately that lifestyle is no way to live your life and they become consumed by a literal figure of vengeance, which robs them of their morality.

In the show the brotherhood show up after a lengthy disappearance to trade chicken jokes with the hound and help him get his (violent) groove back after dabbling with that pussy pacifism. 

 

The problem with using examples from the show is that almost none of it is given much thought beyond how it will look on a surface level. And this ties back into what I think is the show's idea of political theory, which comes from a teenager's mindset. It's that kind of cynicism which serves to insulate someone from having to think or care because "everyone is corrupt and nothing has meaning" which massages the viewers ego for disconnecting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Cersei promised to make him warden of the north if he defeats the treachorous Boltons.

His "contrite" reactions could either be completely faked and acted, or his conscience can be switched on and off depending on whether it serves his goals - whatever type of manipulative sociopath he is, I think so far it's pretty obvious that that's what he is.


 

So, yeah, I don't think there's a problem with LF at that core level - the basic plot point is that he concocted a plan that would make him the winner in either case.

However, I'm as lost on the actual details of that as anyone else here, so far: for instance he had to rely on Sansa really being completely impressionable and malleable even after all that time, and not be too likely to just tell Brienne to kill him on the spot.
Or, I don't know, could she have done that without pissing off the Vale? She was saying he could just have him killed, so.... ?

Technically the offer is conditional on him sending her Sansa's head. If he doesn't then Cersei can just take his authority away. I assumed that the whole thing was bullshit - he can't kill Sansa for his own gain - he may well love her after all and both Northern Lords and Vale lords will turn against him, leaving him in a hostile North with only Cersei's name on a piece of paper telling everyone he is in charge. That would be a disaster.

I just don't see what the winning conditions were meant to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

In the books the brotherhood is a cautionary tale - they wanted to do good and raise themselves above others who killed and stole. They appeal to a source of authority - the old King - as a means of legitimizing what they are doing, but this is a polite fiction and they know it. It's a deconstruction of the Robin Hood mythos and it's fascinating to me. Ultimately that lifestyle is no way to live your life and they become consumed by a literal figure of vengeance, which robs them of their morality.

Yes, but if the scenarios were swapped, you'd be complaining about the show ruining the noble Robyn Hood gang with "tryhard cynicism".

Because it's in the book, you think it's a "fascinating cautionary tale".

4 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

In the show the brotherhood show up after a lengthy disappearance to trade chicken jokes with the hound and help him get his (violent) groove back after dabbling with that pussy pacifism.

They don't "help" him with his violence, they prevent him from gutting Lem and the other assholes.

They helped him BACK ON TRACK of pussy pacificism - not at the level of Ray, but they're still noble, honorable outlaw heroes who execute their own bad apples and even insist on doing it humanely (granted they also do that in the books, but without the whole pesky justice thing).

And then they encourage him to join the good cause in the north, which he does.


"Chicken jokes" were like 0.2 seconds of the scene. What show were you watching?

4 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

The problem with using examples from the show is that almost none of it is given much thought beyond how it will look on a surface level. And this ties back into what I think is the show's idea of political theory, which comes from a teenager's mindset. It's that kind of cynicism which serves to insulate someone from having to think or care because "everyone is corrupt and nothing has meaning" which massages the viewers ego for disconnecting. 

Yeah except the BwB isn't corrupt unlike in the books (where you consider that a "great cautionary tale").

But I see you might've missed that because you were too busy focusing on the blink and you miss it chicken reference :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

Technically the offer is conditional on him sending her Sansa's head. If he doesn't then Cersei can just take his authority away. I assumed that the whole thing was bullshit - he can't kill Sansa for his own gain - he may well love her after all and both Northern Lords and Vale lords will turn against him, leaving him in a hostile North with only Cersei's name on a piece of paper telling everyone he is in charge. That would be a disaster.

I just don't see what the winning conditions were meant to be. 

You know what I'll have to rewatch it again :o

:headaches:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Yes, but if the scenarios were swapped, you'd be complaining about the show ruining the noble Robyn Hood gang with "tryhard cynicism".

Because it's in the book, you think it's a "fascinating cautionary tale".

They don't "help" him with his violence, they prevent him from gutting Lem and the other assholes.

They helped him BACK ON TRACK of pussy pacificism - not at the level of Ray, but they're still noble, honorable outlaw heroes who execute their own bad apples and even insist on doing it humanely (granted they also do that in the books, but without the whole pesky justice thing).

And then they encourage him to join the good cause in the north, which he does.


"Chicken jokes" were like 0.2 seconds of the scene. What show were you watching?

Yeah except the BwB isn't corrupt unlike in the books (where you consider that a "great cautionary tale").

But I see you might've missed that because you were too busy focusing on the blink and you miss it chicken reference :rolleyes:

Your mileage may vary but the plot of the book deconstructs a trope. Ultimately it critiques the idea of the roving band of do gooders who try to break the law and do morally questionable things for the greater good, but it unravels and they are drawn closer to the people they tried to hold themselves above. The point is that violence feeds on itself - that's ultimately a positive message.

But what's the point in bringing the brotherhood from the show up here? Not septon Meribald gives a speech about how violence is wrong, then gets killed, for the express purpose of getting the Hound back in the game. He goes from a guy calmly chopping wood to a guy negotiating with people about how to chop someone up. The brotherhood are there to get the hound back in the killing game. There is no greater point or purpose to the scene or the hound's plot in general.

One has a purpose and meaning, the other has none. This isn't complicated.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Well, tell that to Le Cygne, they were the one to say that in earnest *shrug*
 

Well, I'm not sure what comment of Le Cygne's you're refering to, no doubt you've mis-interpreted that as well. Either way, unlike with you, I am quite familiar with the excellent analysis put forth by her in the past, and greatly respect her comments and views regarding both the show and books.

You, you're not so clever as you give yourself credit for, and you're attempts to agitate others on this thread are quite transparent. Obviously, you've received enough warnings that you must change your tactics, and not be so blatantly obvious about it, however your intent is still quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

Your mileage may vary but the plot of the book deconstructs a trope.

Oh, and the "always loyal always noble Celtic Underdogs" isn't a trope that could be deconstructed?

2 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

Ultimately it critiques the idea of the roving band of do gooders who try to break the law and do morally questionable things for the greater good, but it unravels and they are drawn closer to the people they tried to hold themselves above. The point is that violence feeds on itself - that's ultimately a positive message.

Uh, no, it's not a positive message in the slightest.

However, I think the "message" there is more about how things CAN unravel, rather than how they are necessary bound to - for starters, the BwB wouldn't anywhere as ruthless with Beric still in charge.

Unless of course they'd otherwise Jeor Mormont him and LS is the only reason there hasn't been a mutiny yet? Possibilities exist.

2 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

But what's the point in bringing the brotherhood from the show up here? Not septon Meribald gives a speech about how violence is wrong, then gets killed,

He takes it too far, even refusing self-defense - which, I'm not even sure right now, was that a retarded plot point or acceptable?

You'd have to be pretty mad to shun self-defense in an environment like Westeros during and shortly after the war.

2 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

for the express purpose of getting the Hound back in the game.

No, the rogue brothers around Lem get him "back in the game" - the actual brotherhood around Beric prevents him from going too far with the violence.

2 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

He goes from a guy calmly chopping wood to a guy negotiating with people about how to chop someone up.

Yeah, and it ends with him agreeing not to chop them up - thanks to Beric's influence.

2 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

The brotherhood are there to get the hound back in the killing game. There is no greater point or purpose to the scene or the hound's plot in general.

One has a purpose and meaning, the other has none. This isn't complicated.  

Does the BwB returning without any developent or changes have a purpose in the show? Not really, because the fact that they've stayed uncorrupted isn't really emphasized all that much.

However, even though it doesn't emphasize it, the show STILL depicts an idealistic version of its cynical book counterpart, which means you complaining how the show makes all that "Asoiaf romanticism" cynical doesn't make any sense at all.


But I constantly keep forgetting that nonsensical criticisms of the show aren't supposed to be refuted on this thread and this is starting to go in circles anyway, so yeah I think that'd be it so far :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:


They helped him BACK ON TRACK of pussy pacificism - not at the level of Ray, but they're still noble, honorable outlaw heroes who execute their own bad apples and even insist on doing it humanely (granted they also do that in the books, but without the whole pesky justice thing).

And then they encourage him to join the good cause in the north, which he does.


"Chicken jokes" were like 0.2 seconds of the scene. What show were you watching?

 

Seriously? Do you think the BwB in the show helped Sandor in some way?

It was Sandor who decided to kill who he wanted to kill (revenge) and they just decided to go North. No salvation of "pussy pacifism".

and the jokes...much more than 0.2 seconds, let's not forget the "super ass" moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they don't know is the North means hunting wights for Cersei!! but this is "cool" isn't it?

The "best" plot of s7.

hunting wights for Cersei!!!!!!!!!

I suppose Jon will tell them he needs their help:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

You've got BAWLS, after how that debate turned out for you - you misread Beric's lines and I proved it to you.

Are you kidding me??? LOL!!! That debate was one big embarrassment for you. Just remember what you were saying about the chapter, and then compare it to the chapter itself, and anyone can easily see you managed to get it completely wrong. I stopped debating you because there is no point to it, because you don't care to accept even the most obvious facts. There is no reasoning with you on any level. And because debating you is not even fun, I just stopped.

This debate here only assured me that it was the right decision, because hey, you managed to completely misunderstand both Le Cygne and that video.

1 hour ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

That video wasn't just about "authoritarian violence", I specifically focused on Arya's revenge and Dany's dragons and how the video blatantly misrepresented those plot points in the show, or how they compare to the books.

Sorry but no, the video didn't misrepresent anything, it was you who managed to misunderstand what the video was saying about LOTR and ASOIAF. You obviously misunderstood Arya's revenge and Dany's dragons too, in both mediums. I didn't want to bother and prove how wrong all of your "points" are, because that'd be futile and wouldn't lead to anything constructive, you being you. So I just tried to show how wrong your conclusion actually is. Sadly, even that was too much for you apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheCasualObserver said:

The problem with using examples from the show is that almost none of it is given much thought beyond how it will look on a surface level. And this ties back into what I think is the show's idea of political theory, which comes from a teenager's mindset. It's that kind of cynicism which serves to insulate someone from having to think or care because "everyone is corrupt and nothing has meaning" which massages the viewers ego for disconnecting. 

Did you seriously expect him to understand this? There's too much hard truth in there for an average show lover to understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Oh, and the "always loyal always noble Celtic Underdogs" isn't a trope that could be deconstructed?

Uh, no, it's not a positive message in the slightest.

However, I think the "message" there is more about how things CAN unravel, rather than how they are necessary bound to - for starters, the BwB wouldn't anywhere as ruthless with Beric still in charge.

Unless of course they'd otherwise Jeor Mormont him and LS is the only reason there hasn't been a mutiny yet? Possibilities exist.

He takes it too far, even refusing self-defense - which, I'm not even sure right now, was that a retarded plot point or acceptable?

You'd have to be pretty mad to shun self-defense in an environment like Westeros during and shortly after the war.

No, the rogue brothers around Lem get him "back in the game" - the actual brotherhood around Beric prevents him from going too far with the violence.

Yeah, and it ends with him agreeing not to chop them up - thanks to Beric's influence.

Does the BwB returning without any developent or changes have a purpose in the show? Not really, because the fact that they've stayed uncorrupted isn't really emphasized all that much.

However, even though it doesn't emphasize it, the show STILL depicts an idealistic version of its cynical book counterpart, which means you complaining how the show makes all that "Asoiaf romanticism" cynical doesn't make any sense at all.


But I constantly keep forgetting that nonsensical criticisms of the show aren't supposed to be refuted on this thread and this is starting to go in circles anyway, so yeah I think that'd be it so far :o

Can you honestly say that the takeaway from the brotherhood scene was supposed to have a moralizing message? I#ll bet that every single person who watched the notMeribald scene knew he was doomed, because this is game of thrones. If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't bee paying attention. It's a throwaway scene to involve the hound back into the plot. It is not there to deconstruct. It is not there to represent a force for good thriving in the world. The scene is there to move a passive Hound back into his usual self, who acts badass and kills people.

But getting back to my original point, a conspiracy created with the express purpose to reject the unjust rule of the Botons in memory of Ned Stark is a message which has no place on the show.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Are you kidding me??? LOL!!! That debate was one big embarrassment for you. Just remember what you were saying about the chapter, and then compare it to the chapter itself, and anyone can easily see you managed to get it completely wrong. I stopped debating you because there is no point to it, because you don't care to accept even the most obvious facts. There is no reasoning with you on any level. And because debating you is not even fun, I just stopped.

Ha!!! It sounds like you are describing the exact same experience I had to endure with this guy. Apparently his tactics are to annoy the seven hells out of whoever he is debating with, causing them to walk away, and then he claims victory. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Seriously? Do you think the BwB in the show helped Sandor in some way?

It was Sandor who decided to kill who he wanted to kill (revenge) and they just decided to go North. No salvation of "pussy pacifism".

It's not really implied that Hound would go back all the way to his old ways had he not run into Beric and Thoros - but, you know, joining a group with firm morals tends to have a stabilizing effect in that regard.

Also - they persuaded him to abstain from butchering and make do with hanging, and he grudgingly relented; so if they had any influence on him, it was a slightly moderating one.

14 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

and the jokes...much more than 0.2 seconds, let's not forget the "super ass" moment.

No it was 0.2 seconds, and what "super ass"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

What they don't know is the North means hunting wights for Cersei!! but this is "cool" isn't it?

The "best" plot of s7.

hunting wights for Cersei!!!!!!!!!

I suppose Jon will tell them he needs their help:lol:

Yeah they do it out of devotion for Cersei, and not because presenting evidence to the current ruler is just something that makes sense - just like when Jeor sent Alliser with that thing's hand to Joffrey.

TO JOFFREY.

Jeor sent a wight hand TO JOFFREY can you believe it!!!!!!!???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...