Jump to content

MoreOrLess

Members
  • Content count

    394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About MoreOrLess

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

1,528 profile views
  1. Ned would of course still be Jon's uncle and I think it would be easy for Jon to see why he lied to him due to the threat of Robert coming after him were the truth revealed. As you say I think the setup is much more for Jon NOT to tell Dany, his claim would actually have very little evidence to back it up if made aggressively, very different to LF's trial where those convicting him knew he was guilty personally and trusted Bran. However if we have a situation where Jon has hidden it from Dany and she finds out(maybe from Sam?) then its obviously much easier for her to believe it as he would seemingly not be acting for his own gain. After that point things could I think go two ways, either Jon's background only matters in terms of personal drama and potentially abilities(Dragon control, fire resistance) or his claim is given credibility because Dany herself backs it.
  2. That vision could be argued to have been fulfilled by Dany turning up with Dragons in tow to the meeting. You could argue that makes sense dramatically since there was tension this season about whether Dany would attack Kings Landing directly with the vision hinting she would but the reality obviously being very different. My guess is that Jon is told next season and his decision whether to tell Dany or not becomes a major(possible THE major) dramatic thread of the whole thing. As you say there are many reasons not to tell her, potential for conflict damaging the war effort with her forces being loyal to her personally, also if she is pregnant by Jon then looking to save the child from being labelled as incestuous just as he was labelled bastard both for its benefit and for a potentially more stable dynasty. I think you can see both conflict and resolution from this though, Dany potentially being angered at the deception and perhaps breaking alliance but also her shifting purpose successfully. I would argue that really the defining feature of the character thus far has been less her claim to the throne and more viewing herself in a messianic fashion, even in this season I think you see a clear shift in her priorities towards the end towards dealing with the threat of the dead and her becoming totally defined by this instead would I think make sense dramatically. I wonder whether we might see a dramatic shift as well in terms of Jon and Dany reversing roles somewhat, previously he's been mostly defined by selflessness where as she has been defined by empathic leadship, maybe the two switch and Dany's story is to die selflessly and Jon's is to lead morally.
  3. Again my guess would be that Martin has probably had a firmer grasp of the "end game" for much longer and its more the way in which he moves his pieces into position for that which is more fluid so the show and the books will likely converge again as we get towards the end.
  4. I would point out as well that ASOIAF/GOT already has a very high turnover of characters, there has always been a high degree of "will people carry on watching if there favourite dies?" talk yet they have in ever greater numbers. One big issue for me is that if you make a prequel of something like The Dance of Dragons do you fundamentally change what kind of story your telling? For all the talk about "shades of grey" and for all the complex politics I think the core of ASOIAF is that it is still a moral heroic adventure, characters like Jon and the threat of the walkers cut though the politics and personal ambition/revenge with a higher moral position. You go back to something like the Dance and is the same going to be possible? You have the outline of how the plot might unfold from Martin but you could argue that's all it was ever intended to be, extra detail without the same elements that make ASOIAF what it is. Doesn't mean it cannot be worthwhile I spose just that it would likely be different.
  5. My guess is that the end game on the show will actually be a lot more similar to the books(when/if they ever see the light of day) that what we've seen over the last couple of seasons. It seems very likely that Martin will collapse down his story as well and when he does you'll lose a lot of the need to plot streamlining we've seen recently.
  6. Yeah I'd agree with this, I think the whole point with Roberts Rebellion is that so much of the drama within it remains unresolved and is carried forward to the events were now seeing. In terms of what else they could do I'm not sure following existing characters is a great idea, Martin created characters to tell a specific story and moving beyond that very often presents significant problems plus your potentially undermining the current story and indeed assuming there will be much left to carry on with. Dunk and Egg being short might not be THAT big a negative, especially if the production follows directly on from GoT meaning there aren't the startup costs, half a dozen episodes can still make them a lot of money. For something longer involving the not too distant history thern I think the Dance of Dragons makes a lot more sense that Aegons conquest, the former I think has much more potential for effective drama. One thing they could do I spose is go way back and cover the original long night, especially if the idea that Bran might potentially become Bran the builder himself somehow(maybe Warg into someone elses body)? Of course another alternative for HBO(and maybe D&D) might just be to move onto another story, as mentioned earlier I would love to see Dune given a go and it does seem well placed to tap into the same market.
  7. Honestly I think that's the mind-set that sets you up not to enjoy an adaptation, that any change must somehow be a criticism of the original work. In this case I think the first season/book is definitely the easiest to adapt relatively straight, your dealing with a considerably less complex narrative at that point. Personal opinion as well but I think theres also more of a danger in a TV series outstaying its welcome than there is with a series of books, I think theres likely to be the material there that D&D could have produced 10 seasons or more but would things have remained as fresh during that time? I can think of a lot of exellent show that very clearly peaked well before they actually ended, often for that reason.
  8. Tywins death of course changes the situation as that both removes Roose's direct ally and the most potent military/political leader who could either aid or oppose him. Even prior to that though I think the show plays down the actual aid the Bolton's might expect exactly so that Ramsay marrying Sansa makes more political sense, the Boltons rule more because there the most powerful remaning force in the north. The show definitely tends to put its characters before its politics compared to the books but honestly I think it does a decent job of the latter the vast majority of the time, little stands out to me as distractingly illogical even if its often lacking the same detail or subtlety.
  9. Roose's comments to me always seemed to be played more that they were on their own in terms of holding the north rather than that every house was likely to wise up against them in the near future. The big advantage of Sansa was surely producing a Stark/Bolton heir that could have been looked on more favourably by the north and indeed would be the legitimate heir if Brann/Rickson do not resurface.
  10. This kind of debate where I can see peoples point more, the stuff about show Stannis "burning shireen for no reason" on the other hand simply doesn't match what I saw on screen at all and comes across as having some kind of ulterior motive. Going back to your point yeah this is definitely a shift and I can see why someone who enjoys the more complex politics of the story would consider it a bad adaptation. Again I think the prime motivation in the show was likely to have Stanniis effort to defeat the Boltons and Jon's effort to do so as two more separate plots that could unfold over a couple of seasons where as in the books these two things are I'd imagine more likely to be more interconnected. The show has IMHO always been more interested in Stannis the character than the politics around him. Whilst there simplified I do think the shows northern politics at least make sense. For one thing of course Stannis doesn't need to push THAT hard for support in the short term, he has the Golden Company and is odds on to defeat the Boltons if the weather doesn't strike and spending time trying to get support before attacking makes bad weather that much more likely. His logic would likely be if he does defeat the Boltons and potentially puts a Stark at winterfell then people will flock to his cause. Generally I think the northerners being war weary and cautious makes political sense on both sides. Karstark for example does not come across as brave and whilst as you say Stannis might potentially put a Stark in charge at WF(although it could be Sansa with the chance for someone to marry her) that's not the same as a male Stark directly leading a force. Stannis looks set to win before the weather strikes, Jon on the other hand looks set to lose and ultimately needs unexpected help from the Vale to win, makes sense he would wait on the sidelines for the former but commit to fighting the latter. The umbers as well make it clear there responding to the Wildings coming though the Wall which was not a factor at the point Stannis was asking for their alliance.
  11. 20 men well equipped for the weather is rather different than moving an army of thousands not so well equipped for it though. Again I would have liked to see more of STannis's camp in the snow but I think its sold well enough to take the characters word for it. If you want Stannis to be basically a "good" character then having him become a brainwashed follower of Mel might be preferable but I think the character has much more dramatic depth if he believes in Mels powers/prophecy but retains his own moral judgement.
  12. I think the setup is very clearly that caring for Shireen represents Stannis's personal compassion so if the focus of your story is a tragic tale of a character who destroys himself following "the ends justify the means" then it makes perfect sense that he kills her. Granted I would have liked to see the desperate situation in Stannis's camp highlighted more but still I think where shown and told pretty unequivocally that he's facing defeat, perhaps he personally could escape back northwards but most of his force will die in the snow and any chance at becoming king with them. On a personal level I think its sold very well, Dilane isn't tearing up the scenery acting wise but that's surely very in character ad well as much more effective generally. I think you very much sense get the sense of his extreme disgust when Mel first suggests it but also an acknowledgement of the reality of there situation, Then in the scene just before it happens you get a pretty obvious acknowledgement that he's destroying his own future happiness to follow his ends justify the means path. That Stannis doesn't become a drone like follower of Mel and indeed that personal ambition(although I think this aspect lessens post season 2) is caught up in the story as well for me gives it more weight and realism Just having the character blindly misdirected into killing his daughter would have gotten him off much too easily IMHO.
  13. It makes sense of course, its the denouncement of Stannis's character and whilst there wasn't an redemption there was at least some acknowledgement of what he'd done and a good deal of dignity. In Brienne's case its not the end of her story and I strongly suspect that her rather naïve world view that links honour/duty(and a good bit of revenge) to moral correctness is going to be challenged in the future, maybe caught up in plots involving Sansa and LF? The moral wrongness in killing Renly was that it was kinslaying and that's for Stannis to judge himself on not Brienne, besides that he was not a legitmate king who refused favourable terms to support Stannis and assassinating him avoided greater bloodshed.
  14. If D&D had simply "hated" Stannis that's what would have happened, Ramsay mutilating him or mocking his corpse. I actually felt that in the scene with Brienne he comes off the better of the two, basically acknowledging everything he'd done and accepting/desiring death. He could certainly have shot her position full of holes legally and morally if he'd wanted to and whilst she obviously hasn't committed the acts he has in the past I still think she comes across as a lot less self aware by that point, still rather naïve and pompous. What I think D&D were obviously less keen on is the complex politics and tactics around Stannis, my guess is that the end result for him will be similar but a good deal more complex. I think what they wanted was a story that had more of a clean break for each season, Stannis tries and fails to defeat the Boltons and then Jon builds up a separate effort to do so and succeeds rather than the two being much more interconnected. Stannis's position with Shireen seemed pretty clear to me, snowed in and facing the destruction of his force by the weather.
  15. I think they were in the situation of naturally wanting to have Stannis's plot contained to season 5 but being 1-2 episodes short of what they idealy needed but as you say I think they do a decent enough job of showing that conditions in his camp are poor. I don't think a guerrilla sneak attack on a foreign invading army in terrible weather is very unrealistic, I would have liked to see a bit more of it but again I think both time and budget were an issue. I think the show rightly realised that Hardhome was more important to devote time and money to than action around Stannis as really its the character himself that's most interesting and Dilane is has such a strong screen presence he can sell it. As you say his arc from the very start was setup as a tragic figure although I think the show did exactly the right thing in not making him a blind follower of Mel(although he does obviously believe what she tells him he doesn't lose his own moral judgement entirely) as he wife was, that would IMHO have been too easy on him devoicing him too much from responsibility for his actions. That its mixed in with doubt and ambition I think makes his plot a lot more realistic and impactful, he's basically Dany or Jon if they follow "the end justify the means".
×