Jump to content

Humble AK

Members
  • Content count

    311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Humble AK

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

634 profile views
  1. Humble AK

    why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    Yeah, sorry, that's really reaching. And certainly doesn't make me think that bringing Cat back would be good.
  2. Humble AK

    WHEEL OF TIME officially optioned for television

    Well, considering in this thread alone fans are already talking excitedly about what material should be cut/condensed, I think having too much of Wheel of Time would be disappointing to most book fans. Hey, we all like our Wheel of Time, but despite all the good stuff it had to offer it was a deeply flawed series. I see one of two things happening in the most ideal circumstance where the network that broadcasts it goes all the way and the show isn't prematurely cancelled. 1) It gets the serious adaptation, and the show runners try to be as faithful as they can to the material. In this case it will not exceed 100 episodes, and almost certainly will be in the range of 70-90 episodes. 2) It goes to a channel that embraces the "more is more" philosophy, and it gets like 22-26 episodes a season. These channels don't give a shit about quality programming and there's basically no chance that they'll be faithful to the material. It will get the Legend of the Seeker treatment, where you have more episodes, but they basically have nothing to do with the books. No chance at all, however successful the show turns out to be, that it's faithful and manages to be more than 100 episodes. If you're pinning your hopes on 150 episodes or more, then I think you might as well let yourself accept that the show will disappoint you.
  3. Humble AK

    WHEEL OF TIME officially optioned for television

    They could certainly make the show as long as they want to, for sure. They don't need to spin their wheels and add filler because they can take as much of the filler from the books as they desire. Although they would probably opt to put in their own filler instead. Anyway, this turning out to be anything more than a loose adaptation would be shocking, and it's almost assured not to get the kind of reception GoT has, just based on the type of story it is. People have complained about Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones taking too many deviations, but I'm pretty sure those have been the most faithful to the source material by far. Look at what happened to Legend of the Seeker and Shannara Chronicles, for instance. If Wheel of Time gets the sort of faithfulness that Game of Thrones has it will be a small miracle. At any rate, the novels are remarkable in the way things fit together so well, and the painstaking plotting that RJ did, but no one can accuse the story of WoT of transcending the generic fantasy story. All the stuff that gives Game of Thrones acclaim - multidimensional characters, a deep plot of intrigue, the white-knuckled uncertainty of where things are headed, the exploration of the nature of power - none of these things apply to Wheel of Time. It's a straightfoward story that we've essentially already seen in the likes of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Still, I do hope for the best, despite how stacked the odds are against this show seeing more than two seasons and actually being decent.
  4. Humble AK

    WHEEL OF TIME officially optioned for television

    They wouldn't need to have at least 200 episodes. They could probably get away with 80-90 episodes. Maybe less. The books are long and numerous, but quite a bit of it involves characters pointlessly dilly-dallying around. They could probably cut Crossroads of Twilight out entirely and not miss a beat. A Song of Ice and Fire may have a smaller word count, but it has much more substance in the writing. That's not to say Martin doesn't put in a good amount of filler in his books; but it's nowhere near to the extent Robert Jordan did.
  5. Humble AK

    why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    Zombie Catelyn, a victim of the injustice of the Red Wedding, scoring points against those who wronged her is what lessens the impact. She shouldn't be the agent of any kind of "payback", or that lessens the impact. A character restored from death and exacting revenge is a character no longer dead. The death was part of the impact, and that death was lessened. Is she in the happiest of states? Certainly not. But I think based on how many people are outraged by the notion of there being no "payback" to the Freys by Zombie Catelyn, it's a clear indication that this revenge generates some sense of satisfaction of an injustice being corrected. So the greater injustice to Catelyn, it seems, is to deny her the revenge. She and Robb were betrayed and murdered by the Freys; she and Robb are dead and can do nothing about it - this is something that many people don't like because it's unfair. But life is unfair - if someone is brutally and unjustly slaughter, they don't get the chance to revive and take their revenge. The existence of Catelyn feels like a take-back, and that's a big deal because the Red Wedding did have a profound impact, and so anything that diminishes that seems rather glaring. Tywin mentions in the book and the show the point of, to paraphrase, "Explain to me why it's worse to kill a dozen people at dinner instead of letting thousands die in battle." I did not say the Red Wedding was the right thing - I can't say that dropping two nukes on Japan was the right thing. These are morally complex issues and there really is no right or wrong, just morality predicated on opinion. But it can be justified because it works. Tywin is not evil - he commits atrocities, but for the most part he commits atrocities for a reason. He gave peace and plenty to Westeros for something like 20 years, and even mitigated a lot of the damage inflicted by the Mad King. In a society so underdeveloped they don't really have the luxury to cultivate a sophisticated sense of humanity, Tywin's way probably has provided the most net good to everyone that any alternative style of ruling has given. This is what was the highlight of Feast/Dance: exploring the nature of power, and those who hold it and their varied way of dealing with that power. It's a mercurial thing, and even those with good intentions can fail (see Jon, Dany), or totally short-sighted and malicious intentions (see Cercei). The show runners aren't perfect, but you don't write the preponderance of material of, and produce, the single most popular and acclaimed series on now by being an idiot. I know you are infatuated with your own opinion, but I can pretty much guarantee you that D&D are smarter than you are, regardless of how much they differ in their interpretation of Martin's work, or how they are able to execute their interpretation. I'm not saying you're stupid, mind you. I'm saying that they're smarter than you think you are. You're very optimistic to think we'll ever be able to read that story, but you are right that we can only know by reading it. Yeah, I agree that that was a stupid scene. So were some scenes in Dorne, so was Yara running from dogs. But why add to them? The point of putting something in the show should be because it makes things good, not because it's something you're attached to from the books and it won't be quite as stupid as some other scenes (although I think hissing LSH would probably give hand-grenade kid a run for their money).
  6. Humble AK

    why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    No doubt. It's so silly in life when some injustice is committed and there's no act of recompense or restoration to the imbalanced equilibrium. Why, I was watching Making of a Murder, and I say that they need to rewrite events where all the prosecutors and police and those involved in that horrible miscarriage of justice are one by one brought down by some vengeful specter. It's not like there's substance to a story exploring that bad things can happen to good people and life goes on, with those who committed the misdeeds not receiving 'fair' punishment. Catelyn taking her revenge doesn't seem like a tragic case of her not resting in peace. The tragedy is from the innocent people who are caught in her web of revenge. I do not feel the least bit sad for sociopathic zombie Catelyn who is on a rampage. Maybe in an abstract 'it's a pity someone is like that' sort of way, but I feel no worse for Catelyn than I do for the Boston Strangler. Yeah, it's too bad that events and who they are and all the important variables aligned in such a way that they behave as they do, but one could say that about any perpetrator of horror. It doesn't make me sympathize with the actual perpetrator though. I feel boundless sympathy for the Catelyn who was betrayed and saw her entire world destroyed before her eyes before she herself was killed. Catelyn the victim was a huge tragedy. Vengeful Catelyn is only tragic in the harm she does to others, regardless of what brought her to that point. A serial killer could be a serial killer because they were beaten as a child, and that child abuse is very sad, but the serial killer themselves do not strike me as tragic or sympathetic characters. And you can have that misplaced revenge without her leading the group exacting the vengeance. The Red Wedding was a strong, important event. It was ruthlessly practical and effective. It seemed wrong because it was such a violent, shocking betrayal, even though one can easily justify the reason for it coming about. That one of the victims of the Red Wedding comes back to exact vengeance against those who wronged her and her family is pure revenge fantasy that is at odds with what you see in real life. I know people are trying to make it seem like a mournful extension of Catelyn's desecration (all she cares about is revenge, look at what an empty, sad figure she is), but this is in fact a very common trope in storytelling. It happened to the most famous character of revenge, the Count of Monte Cristo. He became merely a hollow vessel of revenge that 'lost his soul' in the pursuit of taking down those who had wronged him. It's a story told over and over, and it's not especially interesting to me as represented in zombie Catelyn form. This is particularly true through visual representation. I don't want to see Michelle Fairly in zombie make-up hissing and glaring her way through a path of revenge. That seems like it would be really, really dumb. Oh yes, the condescending tone of someone who thinks they are smarter than they actually are. Obviously someone who doesn't share your infallibly good taste must only do so through ignorance. I really don't want to see an actual victim of the Red Wedding leading the vengeance - that I feel is something that would rob it of its impact. As for Brienne's conflict of loyalty - considering that she already has recovered one of the daughters she swore to protect, I think the show is taking a different direction anyway (or perhaps a different route in how they explore the idea of loyalty). Regardless, it's all much better without Catelyn around. For those interested in the harmony of themes, events turning against the Freys, as they likely will anyway through the BWB, holds to that. You don't need it to be through the direct action of a hissing zombie; it could be as a consequence of a betrayed family.
  7. Humble AK

    why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    The show runners had considered cutting Dorne because it didn't fit with the show, but unfortunately they managed to shoe-horn it in, and now it is a permanent black eye to an otherwise remarkable series. I think the really stupid zombie Cat would have been black eye number two. Sure, you'd get your initial cheap shock when she first makes her appearance, but then it's non-stop silliness after that. And it robs the Red Wedding of its impact, just for that cheap thrill and ensuing silliness. You are focused on book Blackfish and book Sansa. I don't agree with your assertion about book Blackfish - I could see him growing to condone increasingly unjust acts - but I do agree about book Sansa - she's a soft girl who is easily manipulated (just like the show), but she hasn't experience the kind of trauma that would make someone crazy with hate for the world, regardless of who else is affected. I can see show Sansa having just that mindset. And there's nothing about show Blackfish that makes me think that he would be appalled by a BWB rampage. BWB may not perceive themselves to be honorless. One can be on a crusade of righteousness and commit many unrighteous acts in the process (see: the Sparrows). This is not an argument that the Ramsay treatment of Sansa empowered her - quite the opposite. It's an argument that it totally would have fucked up her mind, and thereby made her capable of depredations that she would not otherwise have been capable of. Although I'm sure some will argue that acts of revenge are acts of empowerment, but I don't see it that way.
  8. Haha, well anyway, good luck with your writing if you don't understand the audience you are writing for. You can be obdurately insistent that people must behave one way when all you have to do is take a look at any consumer report for evidence that they behave another way. But success will be hard won if you go "No, no - this is what you're supposed to like, so I command you to like it!" And you'll just continue to be like this at the response.
  9. As done in romance novels I do. They're not realistic, that's the point. Just as the sex in the male-focused porn is not remotely realistic, and I know many females who find that hilarious - in fact, it's often made fun of. The romance in romance novels is not realistic it's all idealized and silly. It's funny to read stuff like: “When the day shall come that we do part," he said softly, and turned to look at me, "if my last words are not 'I love you'-ye'll ken it was because I didna have time.” because no one says these things. It's pretty much the analog to "play with her ass". It's just really funny.
  10. I don't know if it's that mystifying. For female erotica, take the Outlander approach. For the male erotica, take the Game of Thrones approach. Although I'll grant you that either audience it seems embraces one approach and is turned off by the other approach, so they are kind of mutually exclusive. I don't think I've ever read any male-focused erotica - if I want porn, I'm going to watch it, not read it - but I have read female-focused erotica because I find it hilarious. The advantage of the written word is that you can focus on the thoughts and emotional aspects of the situation, whereas the advantage of pictures/movies is that you can focus on the physical, so it's no surprise why consumer behavior for genders is as it is. Still, I'd say that if you go heavy on the sex and light on schmaltzy feelings you'll get your male audience. If you go heavy on the emotions and how special the guy makes the girl feel, you'll get your female audience. Find a way to do both without going overboard one way or the other and maybe you'll find male and females want to read your stuff.
  11. Humble AK

    why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    I would be profoundly disappointed if LSH makes an appearance in the show. I can't say that I actually hate any element in the books (some things I find less interesting than others, some I find somewhat silly), but I come close to it with LSH. The BWB turning to a hypocritical band was already indicated in the show, and their misplaced path of revenge (killing innocents in the process) would be far more interesting without an annoying zombie leader. So I would very much like to see the Riverland plot and the North plot come to a close, but please, please, no LSH.
  12. Fair enough. I agree with points one and two, to the extent that I was thinking of giving this show a second chance, and maybe those two point will allow me to somehow stomach point three. Reading about the second season, it seems like they've done a lot of things right. Hahaha. Also for the record, I've yet to become aroused by Game of Thrones. Intent of content to titillate does not equate to effectiveness of content's titillation factor for everyone.
  13. Humble AK

    The Kingkiller Chronicles Finds Its Writer

    Yeah, it would be extremely surprising if this turned out even remotely okay. I feel bad for those who find GoT disappointing, because they're left with no watchable fantasy tv shows, unless you like things very light and campy. What's available out there? Shannara Chronicles, Xena and Hercules, Legend of the Seeker, Dresden Files, Shadowhunter, Sleepy Hallow, The Magicians, Camelot...and Buffy and Angel (yes, these two are very campy dumb shows, and no, they are not deep because occasionally that campiness gets serious and addresses "real" issues. Though I will grant that they are the cream of the crop of the dumb campy fantasy tv shows). These shows are all pretty bad, conventional, and networky. I can think of a couple of good miniseries - Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel...nevermind, that's the only one I can think of. Anyway, from the looks of it, Kingkiller is going to join the ranks of fantasy done wrong. It's too bad that fantasy is so tricky to pull off on tv.
  14. Zorral You didn't, you made a generalized statement about those who are advocating a point of view that differs from your own. You said that their position was indicative of anxiety of their sexual orientation (indicating that they must view homosexuality as a bad thing, ergo homophobia) and that there must be a latent attraciton (homosexual tendencies). Well, a condition for dismantlement is initially disagreeing (or 'defying') with the original assertion, and proceeding from there. You have been arguing an impossible position anyway. All I and others have been saying is that while Outlander is a valid approach to handling gender dynamics, it's not the only way to go about things, and its proficiency of handling these ideas is subjective, particularly in comparison to other shows. Also, sex for titillation is fine, and all shows are welcome to their own approach. You have to argue that your opinion is fact, that Outlander objectively is better at handling male-female dynamics, that it doesn't use sex exploitatively (counter to evidence of what appeals to female audiences) or for titillation (counter to the showrunners' own comments), or that its version of exploitative/titillating sex is good whereas other versions of exploitative/titillating sex are bad. This isn't a tenable position, but you tried valiantly. Going back a bit, here's a comment you made: And this was taken apart easily. You have an arbitrary opinion on what exploitative nudity is, and what is demeaning. By showing that Outlander uses sex for titillation indicates that, as far as the definition of exploitative goes, it applies to Outlander. Some people disputed that Game of Thrones used sex exploitatively, but I think it has been properly demonstrated that both narratives use it in a prurient manner. The degree of difference is pretty arbitrary, and so no one can convince you that one show handles exploitation better than the other, but I think it's been clearly shown that this relies on personal perception, and so the statement that one exploits and demeans and the other does not was hamstrung. Also, to reiterate (time number 102), Jamie is not a real male character, he's the fantasy male character (in other words, an objectification). This emotional investment provides the necessary ingredient to titillate the female audience. And in this post you made the important question denoting a misunderstanding prevalent in this thread: It's hard to understand because we disagree with what the definition of exploitation is. As I commented earlier, in this thread guy porn is considered exploitative and demeaning, and women porn is considered progressive entertainment. This isn't a statement that is part of dismantling your points, but it is an observation on the double standards held in this thread and is pretty much at the crux of the disagreement that people are having here. This is part of the repetition that has been ensuing for many posts. You (and others) ask, why is emotion in sex pornographic. I, and others respond, that as used in Outlander, it's a fantasy relationship specifically designed to hit all the key points that harlequin novels hit to arouse the female audience. It's emotional, but very fake emotion, because again, the relationship between Claire and Jamie is an idealized fantasy, and Jamie himself is an idealized fantasy (to repeat, and objectification of the male character). Consumer behavior shows what a female audience wants. As has been noted before, pornography for men is very direct and physical. Pornography for women is typically very focused on the emotion, as you see in the trashy romance novels...and Outlander, which shares many of the relationship developments of those trashy romance novels. As had been stated before, emotion is not needed to validate something, or make it less exploitative. The definition of exploitation is not "graphic material without emotion". This is what you think exploitation should mean, in other words, your opinion which you think other people should regard as fact. I forgot to address this specific point, but I have in a general sense in other comments. One of the most forceful ideas that GoT obsesses about is exploitation of others by those in power. It shouldn't be terribly shocking that it happens to everyone, even those involved in a romance. It's impersonal because that's the entire point. It's humiliating to men and women. No one is left unscathed in GoT. Everyone is demeaned because that's a huge part of what the show is about. And it is a salient observation of human interaction in the quest for power and control. Politics demeans pretty much everyone involved, it degrades integrity, it's a horrible machine, but no one knows a good way out of it. Here's the repetitive question, that has been answered over and over again, and is answered shortly after yet again. I'm not going to give explanation 103, so I'll just point to explanation 102 or any of the others. And of course, your confusion that people were somehow offended by Outlander's approach. Straw man argument. And then you linked to an article that didn't really add much to the conversation, other than substantiating the position that Outlander was smut by saying that Outlander was smut. Theda Haha, well, this is a thread for people to express their opinions about a show. There's a fundemantal difference of opinion about a popularized aspect of the show, so of course that's going to be a heavily discussed issue. Happens with all tv show threads. I think it's more emotional than usual, because for a while some had this idea that their view of feminism, etc, was progressive and extremely enlightened, and that so many shows failed their standards of what a show should do regarding sex and violence and feminism. And then when a show arrives that does meet their criteria, they declare "See everyone, this is obviously how things should be done." And when others come along and say, "Nope, that's not an enlightened view; and while that's a valid approach of a show, it's not the only or even best approach to a show" these people, so convinced that their opinion has to be not just an opinion, but objective fact, get rather passionate.
  15. Hahaha, okay. Have it your way.
×