Grover Bluejoy

Question for show watchers and book readers.

158 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

If it was it would've been ironic though - maybe should've been content with the walk of atonement and stopped poking the lion with her scary necromancer mage?

Could've staid alive then. But I think that wasn't her doing, I think Lancel told HS about Gregor and then they talked to Tommen.

All plays into my theory - the evidence is piling up...

yeah i think it was obvious that cersei's display of gregor's power definitely made the high sparrow rethink his whole "trial by combat" thing lol. Cersei has an amazing habit of screwing herself over. 

Edited by dsug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2017 at 1:36 AM, RhaenysB said:

Yes, yes, agreed. Lena always has this sour expression on her, it's unattractive and boring. It doesn't channel seductress Cersei or schemer Cersei either it's just sour depressed Hollywood housewife Cersei. In fact Lena's Cersei reminds me of this passage from Harry Potter:

You know your mother, Malfoy? [...] that expression she's got, like she's got dung under her nose? Has she always looked like that, or was it just because you were with her?

Yes! She's totally like Narcissa, you're right. 

On 4/11/2017 at 6:03 PM, Prof. Cecily said:

Because the actor, Peter Vaughan, was simply and utterly superb and his performances are in a style that I particularly admire.

Do you remember him in The Remains of the Day, as Anthony Hopkin's dad?

Omg, that was him?! Poor Stevens' dad, that character always gets to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

Omg, that was him?! Poor Stevens' dad, that character always gets to me. 

Yes. And he did that with barely a line to speak. 

By the time of the filming of GoT, mr Vaughan was partially blind, so every gesture, every movement we see was an interpretation of his own reality.

 

Comparing the two versions (TV and book) is a thankless task.

The book versions are pure inventions of GRRM and how we see these characters is a refection of how we interpret them according to our own experiences. That is to say, our vision of each character is a highly individual sensation.The show versions are an entirely different kettle of fish. Between the demands of public expectation, the pressures of the budget, and so and on, each character on the show is a corporate rendering of an idea.

Plus, movie gossip!

Did you know Natalie Dormer wanted to be written out of the series far before the end of season 6?

Or that the filming of Lena Headley in the first season was conditioned by by the actress' pregnancy?

 

I include these useless nuggets of info because they influenced how I saw the performances of the two particular artists.

At the end of the day, I try to appreciate both book and show on their own individual merits.

That said, I can't decide whether I loathed/was bored by the Sand Snakes more in the books or in the TV series.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

 

Did you know Natalie Dormer wanted to be written out of the series far before the end of season 6?

I'm assuming Dormer wanted to go on to do more movies? I know that's why the original Daario left.

9 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

 

At the end of the day, I try to appreciate both book and show on their own individual merits.

That said, I can't decide whether I loathed/was bored by the Sand Snakes more in the books or in the TV series.

 

 

True. I think there are too many book purists that get a little too upset over every deviation, but with a different medium, changes are necessary sometimes. Although I'm not entirely unsympathetic, as I had problems with some of the changes Snyder did with Watchmen.

Anyways, AFFC is probably my least favorite, and some of the Sand Snake chapters just really dragged. I just started my re-read of the series, so I might feel different the second time around.

I'm not sure I hated them as much on the show as others did, but their acting and dialogue were a little too cartooney/hollywoody/over the top for me as their storyline progressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Grover Bluejoy said:

I think there are too many book purists that get a little too upset over every deviation, but with a different medium, changes are necessary sometimes. Although I'm not entirely unsympathetic, as I had problems with some of the changes Snyder did with Watchmen.

Anyways, AFFC is probably my least favorite, and some of the Sand Snake chapters just really dragged. I just started my re-read of the series, so I might feel different the second time around.

I'm not sure I hated them as much on the show as others did, but their acting and dialogue were a little too cartooney/hollywoody/over the top for me as their storyline progressed.

I'm only on my second rereading of the books, halfway through ASOS. 

I must say that following along the book clubs on Youtube (Practical Folks, Smokescreen and Secrets of the Citadel)  have helped  me appreciate GRRM's world-building, depth of character portrayal and that many-layered foreshadowing which makes ASOIAF such a rewarding experience. 

Even at this point, there some show series decisions which bother a newbie like me.

I can't begin to imagine how they must irritate people who ASOIAF since the mid nineties.

One of the things I most like about this forum is that there's room for people of all tastes and opinions to express themselves freely, to share and compare theories and predictions and generally collectively bite our nails as we await the publication of TWOW and the airing of the seventh season.

I've gotten to the point where I wonder not "if" but "when" my favourite characters will die.

 

Edited by Prof. Cecily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I'm only on my second rereading of the books, halfway through ASOS. 

I must say that following along the book clubs on Youtube (Practical Folks, Smokescreen and Secrets of the Citadel)  have helped  me appreciate GRRM's world-building, depth of character portrayal and that many-layered foreshadowing which makes ASOIAF such a rewarding experience. 

That's what I love about this piece of work. I'm only 200 or so pages into AGOT, and so far I've encountered three different lines that would seemingly mean nothing on the first read, but once you go back through after knowing what happens, those sentences take on a different meaning. I don't have the book in front of me now, but in Ned's second or third chapter, Robert makes a comment to him about sparsely populated the North is, and Ned tells him that "Kings are rarely seen in the north". Then Robert responds with "More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!"

During one of Arya's chapter's, she's run off to her room (this is in King's Landing) and Ned comes up to talk to her. Arya was venting about Sansa and Joffrey lying about the incident with Mycah and Nymeria. Ned tells Arya that he knew she lied about her direwolf running away, and then tells her that "We all lie" and how there was something noble in her lie, because she was doing it to protect Nymeria.

There we see Ned justifying his lie about Jon, and if Arthur Dayne dies the same in the book as in the show, he's also validating that cover up as well.

6 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Even at this point, there some show series decisions which bother a newbie like me.

 

6 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I can't begin to imagine how they must irritate people who ASOIAF since the mid nineties.

Yeah, for sure. Me too. I only read the books after watching the first three seasons. But ultimately, I have to let it go because it's not my creation. Who knows if Martin has made peace with that or not; he more than likely regrets optioning it off before he finished it though, which I can't blame him if he does feel that way. Although, if he never had, we wouldn't have the cast we do now. Obviously we wouldn't know what we were missing had he waited.

6 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

One of the things I most like about this forum is that there's room for people of all tastes and opinions to express themselves freely, to share and compare theories and predictions and generally collectively bite our nails as we await the publication of TWOW and the airing of the seventh season.

It's quite refreshing how civil people are on this forum; that's quite rare in the internet world.

6 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I've gotten to the point where I wonder not "if" but "when" my favourite characters will die.

 

My wife had already read through the first three books when we started watching the series, so she knew about Ned's fate. I however did not, and that was when I realized it's cold blooded up in Westeros!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Grover Bluejoy said:

But ultimately, I have to let it go because it's not my creation.

So true, so true.

The clip was fun! Do you know the one about Jon Snow at a dinner party?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prof. Cecily said:

So true, so true.

The clip was fun! Do you know the one about Jon Snow at a dinner party?

 

Ha! That was hilarious. I had heard about it, just hadn't seen it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find fantastic is that we can laugh at the parody and then go straight into a season 2 (for example) marathon.

Anything, anything to help pass the waiting for the publishing of TWOW.

I've found some lovely needlework designs based on Various Great House themes...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 8:04 AM, Prof. Cecily said:

The book versions are pure inventions of GRRM and how we see these characters is a refection of how we interpret them according to our own experiences. That is to say, our vision of each character is a highly individual sensation.

No, that is not true for the most part. Characters in the books are so deeply and meticulously written that there really isn't much room for interpretation. You can sympathize with them or not, and agree with their actions and motives or not, but that's not the same as interpretation. Just for example, there is nothing to interpret about Tyrion murdering Tywin because everything is explained in details: why did he decide to go to Tywin's room, what answers was he looking for, what triggered him to kill Shae, what triggered him to kill Tywin. Everything is there in the text. And then you as a reader can go and analyze the situation and Tyrion's motives and decisions, because you have all the necessary information that are needed for complex analysis.

In the show that is not the case. It's not clear why Tyrion went to Tywin's room in the first place and that forces viewers to speculate instead of to analyze. Some people think that it's interpreting, but actually it isn't, it's just speculating, or guessing if you will, which is what you're forced to do when the writing is as bad as it is in the show.

And the same can be said for virtually any other example where books and the show differ. This is not directed to you: but some people viewers seem to be blinded by the sheer screen presence of some characters and think that more screen time makes those characters improved. But actually those characters aren't improved because their actions in the show are either under-explained or completely illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, StepStark said:

No, that is not true for the most part. Characters in the books are so deeply and meticulously written that there really isn't much room for interpretation. You can sympathize with them or not, and agree with their actions and motives or not, but that's not the same as interpretation. Just for example, there is nothing to interpret about Tyrion murdering Tywin because everything is explained in details: why did he decide to go to Tywin's room, what answers was he looking for, what triggered him to kill Shae, what triggered him to kill Tywin. Everything is there in the text. And then you as a reader can go and analyze the situation and Tyrion's motives and decisions, because you have all the necessary information that are needed for complex analysis.

In the show that is not the case. It's not clear why Tyrion went to Tywin's room in the first place and that forces viewers to speculate instead of to analyze. Some people think that it's interpreting, but actually it isn't, it's just speculating, or guessing if you will, which is what you're forced to do when the writing is as bad as it is in the show.

And the same can be said for virtually any other example where books and the show differ. This is not directed to you: but some people viewers seem to be blinded by the sheer screen presence of some characters and think that more screen time makes those characters improved. But actually those characters aren't improved because their actions in the show are either under-explained or completely illogical.

Actually, I think you should have quoted my complete thought, rather only the half of it

Quote

The book versions are pure inventions of GRRM and how we see these characters is a refection of how we interpret them according to our own experiences. That is to say, our vision of each character is a highly individual sensation.The show versions are an entirely different kettle of fish. Between the demands of public expectation, the pressures of the budget, and so and on, each character on the show is a corporate rendering of an idea.

I do very much like your distinction between analysing and speculating.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Actually, I think you should have quoted my complete thought, rather only the half of it

I do very much like your distinction between analysing and speculating.

Yeah, I didn't quote the other part of your thought because I agree with it. Characters in the show truly are corporate renderings of certain ideas rather than realistic characters. I was just trying to address something about interpretations that always rubbed me the wrong way, not so much in your post but in other posts. I honestly can't see how can anyone think that any of the characters in the show is "better" than their book namesakes. If someone thinks that Tywin in the show is better written as a character then Tywin in the books, I can only conclude that he didn't pick on all the details that reveal Tywin's complexity in the books, which is far far deeper than in the show. Not to mention that I'd find Tywin in the show to be an absurdly written character even without the comparison with the books. Without his background story that was never given in the show Tywin must look like a madman who arbitrarily switches between outright psychopath like Ramsay and a strategic genius that keeps the entire realm under his control. For example, in season one first he effectively tries to get Tyrion killed by sending him to the vanguard and then in the next episode he's trusting him with the most important position in the realm. D&D never bothered to give any explanation or at least a hint at explanation for any of those actions, so I really don't know how viewers can even begin to comprehend the true complexity of the character. And in season two it only became worse.

But what am I talking about: in the show, even a cardboard psychopath like Ramsay is someone who occasionally shows strategic genius, when it suits D&D of course, when they don't know what to do with Stannis any more! And not that they ever knew what to do with Stannis, who is laughably shallow and one-note in the show. And still, there are people who think that is an improvement on the books!

So once again, sorry, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you. Actually, we agree on many things. I just wanted to focus on this entire "interpretation" myth that is largely abused to no end in discussions all around the web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Yeah, I didn't quote the other part of your thought because I agree with it. Characters in the show truly are corporate renderings of certain ideas rather than realistic characters. I was just trying to address something about interpretations that always rubbed me the wrong way, not so much in your post but in other posts. I honestly can't see how can anyone think that any of the characters in the show is "better" than their book namesakes. If someone thinks that Tywin in the show is better written as a character then Tywin in the books, I can only conclude that he didn't pick on all the details that reveal Tywin's complexity in the books, which is far far deeper than in the show. Not to mention that I'd find Tywin in the show to be an absurdly written character even without the comparison with the books. Without his background story that was never given in the show Tywin must look like a madman who arbitrarily switches between outright psychopath like Ramsay and a strategic genius that keeps the entire realm under his control. For example, in season one first he effectively tries to get Tyrion killed by sending him to the vanguard and then in the next episode he's trusting him with the most important position in the realm. D&D never bothered to give any explanation or at least a hint at explanation for any of those actions, so I really don't know how viewers can even begin to comprehend the true complexity of the character. And in season two it only became worse.

But what am I talking about: in the show, even a cardboard psychopath like Ramsay is someone who occasionally shows strategic genius, when it suits D&D of course, when they don't know what to do with Stannis any more! And not that they ever knew what to do with Stannis, who is laughably shallow and one-note in the show. And still, there are people who think that is an improvement on the books!

So once again, sorry, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you. Actually, we agree on many things. I just wanted to focus on this entire "interpretation" myth that is largely abused to no end in discussions all around the web.

Never fight, do I, only discuss. And I've found your comments most interesting. I'm always glad to see what more knowledgeable people think. 

Speaking of cardboard psychopaths, have you seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgESW5m7Pcw

The caricature of Ramsay is arguably better than the show's version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, StepStark said:

No, that is not true for the most part. Characters in the books are so deeply and meticulously written that there really isn't much room for interpretation. You can sympathize with them or not, and agree with their actions and motives or not, but that's not the same as interpretation.

I just reread the Arya with the BwB parts, and still don't quite get why she ran off "wanting to get to Riverrun", right after Beric started insisting they... went for Riverrun.

In the show she got angry when they wanted to first raid some Lannister party before continuing on their way to get her to her family - which I also didn't quite get, since it's just mere diversion and she hated the Lannisters?


Also I'm still pretty sure Thoros never tried his trick on anyone else, right? Like, even that couple Beric was hanged with, he didn't try revive those 2 and then fail, right?

Seems like something I'd ask him if I were in her place, but I'm not sure.

12 hours ago, StepStark said:

Just for example, there is nothing to interpret about Tyrion murdering Tywin because everything is explained in details: why did he decide to go to Tywin's room, what answers was he looking for, what triggered him to kill Shae, what triggered him to kill Tywin. Everything is there in the text. And then you as a reader can go and analyze the situation and Tyrion's motives and decisions, because you have all the necessary information that are needed for complex analysis.

In the show that is not the case. It's not clear why Tyrion went to Tywin's room in the first place and that forces viewers to speculate instead of to analyze. Some people think that it's interpreting, but actually it isn't, it's just speculating, or guessing if you will, which is what you're forced to do when the writing is as bad as it is in the show.

He was angry at them both, I've no idea how you could've possible concluded this was ambiguous to any degree.

What doesn't quite make as much sense, is how in the dialogue both Ty's apparently forget the Castle Black deal from a few days ago - and that Tyrion himself fucked it up. Tywin should've mentioned it.

12 hours ago, StepStark said:

And the same can be said for virtually any other example where books and the show differ. This is not directed to you: but some people viewers seem to be blinded by the sheer screen presence of some characters and think that more screen time makes those characters improved. But actually those characters aren't improved because their actions in the show are either under-explained or completely illogical.

If you yourself are a rational arbiter :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StepStark said:

Yeah, I didn't quote the other part of your thought because I agree with it. Characters in the show truly are corporate renderings of certain ideas rather than realistic characters.

Any evidence that HBO or whoever is tampering with DD's scripts? They seemed unable to convince them to make more episodes...

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

I was just trying to address something about interpretations that always rubbed me the wrong way, not so much in your post but in other posts. I honestly can't see how can anyone think that any of the characters in the show is "better" than their book namesakes. If someone thinks that Tywin in the show is better written as a character then Tywin in the books, I can only conclude that he didn't pick on all the details that reveal Tywin's complexity in the books, which is far far deeper than in the show. Not to mention that I'd find Tywin in the show to be an absurdly written character even without the comparison with the books. Without his background story that was never given in the show Tywin must look like a madman who arbitrarily switches between outright psychopath like Ramsay and a strategic genius that keeps the entire realm under his control. For example, in season one first he effectively tries to get Tyrion killed by sending him to the vanguard

Well that's what Tyrion thought at least.

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

and then in the next episode he's trusting him with the most important position in the realm.

Well he does say "I thought you were useless, but I was wrong" after he told everyone to leave the room, seems like something you should've acknowledged ;)

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

D&D never bothered to give any explanation or at least a hint at explanation for any of those actions, so I really don't know how viewers can even begin to comprehend the true complexity of the character. And in season two it only became worse.

But what am I talking about: in the show, even a cardboard psychopath like Ramsay is someone who occasionally shows strategic genius, when it suits D&D of course, when they don't know what to do with Stannis any more! And not that they ever knew what to do with Stannis, who is laughably shallow and one-note in the show. And still, there are people who think that is an improvement on the books!

So once again, sorry, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you. Actually, we agree on many things. I just wanted to focus on this entire "interpretation" myth that is largely abused to no end in discussions all around the web.

Why shouldn't Ramsay show strategic "genius"? It's consistent with his character introduction, he wasn't introduced as an oaf you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

I just reread the Arya with the BwB parts, and still don't quite get why she ran off "wanting to get to Riverrun", right after Beric started insisting they... went for Riverrun.

Maybe I'm remembering it wrongly, but I think they had second thoughts about going to Riverrun after Thoros saw Riverrun's demise in the flames, and Arya got mad because she (understandably) wanted to go there ASAP.

15 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

He was angry at them both, I've no idea how you could've possible concluded this was ambiguous to any degree.

Who said ambiguous? I don't think it's ambiguous, I think it's outright stupid. If someone saves you in the literally last minute, as Jaime saved Tyrion, you're not going to abandon escape just because you're angry at someone. In the book his motive is much stronger because he just found out the truth about Tysha. Tyrion's irrational decision to abandon the escape and go to Tywin's room therefore makes sense in the book. In the show not so much, because "being angry" doesn't even begin to explain his motives for such a risky decision.

20 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

If you yourself are a rational arbiter :)

Well, I'm just giving examples that I think prove my point: that the show doesn't make sense whenever it deviates from the source material. Feel free to prove me wrong.

17 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Any evidence that HBO or whoever is tampering with DD's scripts? They seemed unable to convince them to make more episodes...

HBO's influence was never a secret, not even at the beginning, when they ordered the pilot to be shot again almost entirely. Whether they're changing D&D's scripts, or just demanding of D&D to meet the company's expectations, is not really important because the result is pretty much the same.

22 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Well he does say "I thought you were useless, but I was wrong" after he told everyone to leave the room, seems like something you should've acknowledged ;)

What is there to acknowledge? One decently reasonable remark from Tyrion made Tywin look him in a new light? Really??? LOL!

23 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Why shouldn't Ramsay show strategic "genius"? It's consistent with his character introduction, he wasn't introduced as an oaf you know

Ramsay was introduced as a strategic genius? Really? I must've missed that! Can you refresh my memory, how did Ramsay show his strategic genius in the character's introduction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem w/Ramsay's "strategic genius" is that it's here today, gone tomorrow.  Just like Stannis being a great, notable, battle commander......until he isn't.  Whatever the plot demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Maybe I'm remembering it wrongly, but I think they had second thoughts about going to Riverrun after Thoros saw Riverrun's demise in the flames, and Arya got mad because she (understandably) wanted to go there ASAP.

Nah, some argued against it but Beric insisted on Riverrun - he just said they shouldn't go there blindly and first gather information on where the Lannister armies are etc. by going to the other places.

And Arya's like "fuck the other places I want Riverrun" - okay...

 

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Who said ambiguous? I don't think it's ambiguous, I think it's outright stupid. If someone saves you in the literally last minute, as Jaime saved Tyrion, you're not going to abandon escape just because you're angry at someone.

He didn't abandon escape, he continued on with the escape right afterwards ;)

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

In the book his motive is much stronger because he just found out the truth about Tysha. Tyrion's irrational decision to abandon the escape and go to Tywin's room therefore makes sense in the book. In the show not so much, because "being angry" doesn't even begin to explain his motives for such a risky decision.

Actually it totally does - however what doesn't make sense is that Tysha gets dropped out of the narrative after having been introduced in the tent.

Also being angry at Tywin even though he was gonna agree to send him to the Wall - but, as I said, that should've been brought up by Tywin at least.

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

HBO's influence was never a secret, not even at the beginning, when they ordered the pilot to be shot again almost entirely. Whether they're changing D&D's scripts, or just demanding of D&D to meet the company's expectations, is not really important because the result is pretty much the same.

Well by that logic, whether it's "corporate" or not doesn't really matter since the result is what it is.

Pilots don't count, those are what determines whether a show gets greenlit or not.

D&D said they've stopped reading criticisms online because they have a particular outline for the later seasons that they're already planning to do, so that makes it very plausible that the scripts are simply their (tunnel?) vision put on paper +/- practical restrictions.

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

What is there to acknowledge? One decently reasonable remark from Tyrion made Tywin look him in a new light? Really??? LOL!

Eh, I'll rewatch it then, whether that's all that happens inbetween the two

6 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Ramsay was introduced as a strategic genius? Really? I must've missed that! Can you refresh my memory, how did Ramsay show his strategic genius in the character's introduction?

It's not literally battle "strategy", but he's pulling that whole troll ruse with Theon and pulls it off perfectly - and then during the torture he's pretty great too.

You only start seeing cracks in him when Roose returns and starts criticizing him etc.


Same in the book though differently - he's pretty great at pulling off that ruse there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The problem w/Ramsay's "strategic genius" is that it's here today, gone tomorrow.  Just like Stannis being a great, notable, battle commander......until he isn't.  Whatever the plot demands.

Him being a dumb strategist would be the "inconsistent" part, not the other way around.

Same with his fighting ability - getting destroyed by Jon is inconsistent with what he pulled off without his shirt on the first time he was ever shown physically fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Nah, some argued against it but Beric insisted on Riverrun - he just said they shouldn't go there blindly and first gather information on where the Lannister armies are etc. by going to the other places.

And Arya's like "fuck the other places I want Riverrun" - okay...

And what is your problem with that?

2 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

He didn't abandon escape, he continued on with the escape right afterwards ;)

Sorry, maybe you're just ironic, but I'll take your comment seriously. The fact that he continued with the escape AFTERWARDS isn't relevant for the fact that he abandoned his escape and put his life in grave danger BEFORE he had any reason to expect to find Shae in Tywin's room. What did he want to do with Tywin once in his room? To have a chat with him??? LOL!

7 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Actually it totally does - however what doesn't make sense is that Tysha gets dropped out of the narrative after having been introduced in the tent.

Isn't that the same as what I'm saying - that cutting out the Tysha revelation creates unrealistic scenario?

7 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Also being angry at Tywin even though he was gonna agree to send him to the Wall - but, as I said, that should've been brought up by Tywin at least.

I think you're contradicting yourself here.

11 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Well by that logic, whether it's "corporate" or not doesn't really matter since the result is what it is.

Pilots don't count, those are what determines whether a show gets greenlit or not.

D&D said they've stopped reading criticisms online because they have a particular outline for the later seasons that they're already planning to do, so that makes it very plausible that the scripts are simply their (tunnel?) vision put on paper +/- practical restrictions.

Needless to say, I don't have concrete evidence that HBO is influencing D&D more than it's healthy. But I also don't have the will to debate it. If you don't see their influence, you don't see their influence.

13 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

It's not literally battle "strategy", but he's pulling that whole troll ruse with Theon and pulls it off perfectly - and then during the torture he's pretty great too.

Little too perfectly, right? Theon confesses everything to him only seconds before the ruse is revealed to him. You don't find that convoluted? I think it's ridiculous, to be honest. Because what was Ramsay's initial idea? For days and days he was acting as Theon's helper... for what reason? For what aim? Just to mess with Theon's mind? And you find that... interesting???

17 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Same in the book though differently - he's pretty great at pulling off that ruse there, too.

Sorry but no, it's not even close. In the books Ramsay shows his natural intelligence when he saves himself by pretending to be Reek. He is intelligent person. But he's also a sadist and unstable and prone to rushed reactions. All of that makes him not really a strategic genius. People that are prone to sadistic or any other outbursts are not wise strategists.

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