Jump to content

butterweedstrover

Members
  • Posts

    764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by butterweedstrover

  1. I agree but also I think given his history Condal is kinda of an amateur who got the job because of being a lore expert and not from his merit as a director. Which drives home the point I don't think hardcore fans should be making adaptions. They stick so close to the source material they don't care if the narrative suffers, they just need to hit all the plot beats and insert all the characters even if minor ones take the emotional catharsis from major ones.
  2. It was a lazy characterization justified by the unreliable narrator trope. The show actual did something with her, and then ruined it. And my god Olivia Cooke's acting made it 10 times worse.
  3. The scope of the story is too big. If they wanted a coherent story they’d need to start on the death of King Viserys. But even then they’ve done a terrible job with the time skips leaving viewers with an unbelievable sense of whiplash.
  4. 3/10 The worst episode yet filled with miserable characters and unlit sets impossible to see. Olivia Cooke did a terrible job, destroying everything Emily built and turned Alicent into a straight out villain. All the character development is ignored in favor of time jumps in favor of shallow political discussions that functions as nothing else besides exposition dumps. Bad acting, bad directing, and bad plotting.
  5. The show is obviously trying to get us to hate them so I’m just not going to do that out of spit for butchering two characters.
  6. I honestly hate Olivia Cooke’s acting. Her and Criston are now just straight up villains and I hate it.
  7. Oh wow, another episode that just skips all character development and expects us to just go with it. Who cares about actually showing us how rivalries develop, how people fall in love, or how murder is forgiven and just shrugged away. I mean we don't even get to see a scene of Leanor looking at Criston Cole. I mean there is no dynamic between characters who logically should have beef with each other. Every major event is given no catharsis, no reaction is available nor do we even get to understand the general perception people might have. Olivia is playing it hard on the Cersei angle to the point where the character is insufferable. A lot of poorly lit scenes that lack joy, levity, wit, or humor. The only good part was with Daemon and Laena, everything else was garbage. I've been liking every episode besides the first. This one I downright dislike. 3/10.
  8. And there is a reason they are not pursuing that angle outside of Snow which is a passion project from Harrington. They are focusing on the world and its history because those story arcs are finished, their development has reached a crescendo and detailing their future lives would have the same breadth as an extended epilogue. Story's constructed to have a beginning middle and end are made deliberately so that once the narrative comes to a close the future is left implied for a specific purpose. James Bond's character never had a specific ending in mind as characters such as him where not made to be developed across multiple volumes but to begin with a distinct characterization that acts like a throughline for multiple adventures. People like Arya or Jon Snow change throughout the narrative until their stories reach a specific climax and conclusion. Delving into their futures would be like telling the stories of Frodo after LotR. Comic book characters like Spiderman and Batman can exist in different canons and have multiple endings, multiple childhoods, and multiple deaths. Characters like Jon and Arya can only have one which leave them without the possibility of a do over. Well, supposedly per Martin their is a united canon that all the adaptions are fixed under. Rewriting GOT doesn't seem to be on the table. Well again, I don't see at least going off Martin that they are trying to recapture those stories and characters but rather invent new ones. And continuing the narrative of characters who have a closed arc univariably ruins what came before via retconning the full scope of development for more conflict. As an aside in my humble opinion Corlys is more of a power fantasy like Oberyn Martell or Oakenfist, fascinating people who accomplish incredible feats out of some vague badassery. But regardless, outside of the white hair I don't see what about him has moral complexity unique to GOT (if at all), how the sigil of Seahorse is evocative of this world, or how his character motivations remind you of the original show/books. I guess he is written by Martin so people can analyze similarities in his character traits to other of Martin's creations, but Martin isn't going to be around to write this extended universe so that option won't be on the table. And that's the thing. You can follow any of them given that their universe engenders them with specific traits and aesthetics. ASOIAF has that too, but the universe is patently generic medievalism with a pseudo-realistic vibe. So creating a character for that world would be like creating a real medieval character. They could invent a character named: Ser Robert of the Vale with his steel armor and it's not going to cry "Game of Thrones!" because there is nothing original or specific about the character conceptually. And any supposed grittiness and 'complexity' is a compliment to the author's writing ability, not to an invention specific to his world. My point is that there is no specific reason to set these stories in the world of GOT. The tagline GOT would be irrelevant. If you want to write a fantasy story in medieval china (Xi), or fake India (Qarth), or a magical adventure through some unexplored jungles (Sothoryos) there is no reason to put it in this universe. The locations are like westeros a jumble of stereotypes and some hand waving about foriegn cultures. There is nothing about the setting unique to GOT or the grittiness or realism, etc. that justifies it being part of a shared universe. The culture and politics is just some vague impression of patriarchal medieval society where people swear fealty to lords who inherit there role through bloodline and marriages. There is a reason Martin and the viewers talk about "those times" when discussing Westerosi politics. It is just medieval Europe with misplaced details and a lack of logistical sense. The world has nothing the says "ASOIAF" or "Game of Thrones" because the world is just a copy-paste medieval backdrop for the drama of the main series to take place in. Complexity via scale is not the same thing is identifiable features critical to the narrative framework and style. ASOIAF can have an endless number of details, it doesn't make the world any more unique or memorable. Not only are the animals basic, the concept of medieval houses with sigils involving fish, stags, wolves, dragons, etc. is in every rendition of the medieval times. It's very common, and getting more so. Martin doesn't have an original perspective on grittiness, he relies on gratuity to drive home the point of how awful bad things are. Like watch Squid Game, it does the same thing by leaning into the violence and showing how gritty and cynical the real world is. It's trending, and its everywhere on TV today thanks to streaming. Iconic catchphrases are a thing, but it's not enough. The rest is just not really that special. Their iconic in your mind because of the stories that takes place in those weddings or castles, but they are themselves just backdrops. The red keep is just a red keep. Weirwoods are white trees that bleed red sap. White Walkers are ice zombies. None of them are going to give the franchise a name as stories are written to fulfill a basic medieval template. Medieval europe plus a Weirwood tree in the background drives home the point how little this world has to work with. All of them are minor inclusions that don't influence the general geography or architecture of the world. Direwolves are just wolves and Dragons are cool, but GOT can not seriously claim ownership to them no matter how hard HBO tries. Well, I guess I disagree.
  9. Well they’re going to run out of Martin’s writing fast if that is what they’re counting on to build their cinematic universe. Personally I don’t think the Dance is a great story, but regardless Martin was the one comparing himself to Stan Lee and I just don’t see that happening.
  10. You can start that conversation whenever, or not. That is not for me to do given as I have already stated my opinion on the matter. If you want to provide a counter argument feel free. But since you are intent on focusing on my tone, my intention, and taking pride in acting like a dick and then denying it I question if you are serious person at all.
  11. And then you ended it with: "but stop trying to tell people to believe you instead of their lying eyes." Which yeah, is a false accusation, and not your first. You don't offer anything worth responding to which makes me question why you reply at all. And there cushioned with your substanceless characterizations of my argument leaves me with nothing but a poster trying to antagonize me. But again, you know you are doing this or else you wouldn't keep doing it. Cool, so if my arguments are so worthless that they are not even worth debating why post at all? If you don't want to engage with my argument but think it stupid why waste your time? Yeah, and that's why I think the Walking Dead is a dead horse. It's franchise that does not merit such revivals (similar to how I view GOT). But HBO (and Martin) wants more than the Walking Dead, they want GOT to be the next MCU, an endless cash cow of unending profits. And I imagine it going closer to the former than the latter.
  12. I obviously don't know anything about the TWOIAF and it's sales numbers, but that is curious indeed. But the question is do those numbers correlate in size to the television audiences that HBO wants or are they doing well relative to the book series (which was smaller than GOT)? HBO can write great stories under the heading GOT, but from my perspective HotD is subsiding on the popularity of GOT. It can merit spin offs as any big show does. Pretty much every major television franchise had a tail end of success that proved profitable through merchandising and spinoffs. There is a difference between Karate Kid which was popular for its core movie and allowed some extraneous spin-offs, sequels, and merchandise reliant on that first production and a franchise like James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Star Wars, or Star Trek. The latter are more than just the original story while the former is just living off the memory of it's original rendition. Cobra Kai (the first season at least) had great writing which rejuvenated the brand, but it was just riding off the characters and stories from 1984. There is a difference in scale between that (or something like the X-files) and building an all new Marvel universe (which existed before Feige).
  13. Well I can only speak for myself. It doesn't make me upset that HotD is successful, but given what I see of it I don't see how HBO can keep this franchise at or even near the level of GOT. That was popular due to its specific story and characters. Once you remove those from the equation the GOT "style" or brand just isn't there anymore (outside of some soundtracks). If HBO proves me wrong, cool. I still won't be upset.
  14. The Witcher has it's own selling point for western audiences given as it's based on slavic lore (rather than vague western European medieval stereotypes.) and also has a distinct organization at its core with its own iconography and moral philosophy called "Witchers". The Walking Dead is kind of a dead horse, I agree they've tried to turn it into an endless franchise, but I don't see it being the model HBO wants to replicate. HBO wants a new Star Wars or Marvel verse, not just the Walking Dead. And I think of the two ASOIAF will be much more like that (if my predications come true).
  15. You don't reply to my arguments or provide reasons for your disagreement. You make false assumptions like that I am telling people what to believe. You make it about my intentions and not my arguments, and you do this repeatedly. If you can't stop antagonizing me I don't know what to do. You can dislike me or my posts as much as you want, but I'm at lost for what to tell since you don't provide any material to discuss. And if that is going to be how you continue to engage with me then just help yourself and stop.
  16. I don't see ASOIAF going in that direction for a few reasons. SH and JB don't have a set timeline and are permitted reinvention from time to time. Some characters in westeros can have their backstory further clarified, but all the material for their lifespan is mostly settled and must exist in that framework. Which is part of the reason why these future projects with exception of Snow try to branch out away from the main series. Holmes can solve a thousand different cases with no conception of time or aging, just as Bond might save the world three hundred times whilst starting back at point A with every film/book. Characters like Harley Quinn are first developed based on the cast we know and follow and become part of the psychological drama starting with Batman and going off from there. The characters have a web of rivalries that build up and do themselves have a certain style that is reminiscent of Batman and his rogue's gallery with recognizable outfits and personality disorders. With ASOIAF we have to take characters unrelated (outside of ancestry) to the main cast who lack any specific color or identity apart from being true to a gritty realistic medieval world. What connects them is Martin's writing style, and Martin isn't going to be around to write all these stories in an ever expanding universe. There is history, but a lot of the world is just references to our world with a more stereotypical lens. Exploring Essos and further east is just the same as taking from our own history and then crafting a gritty story with vague magic. Any of which can be great or enthralling depending on the writer, but could work just the same without the subheading "GOT." Old Valyria is an exception, but how much more people want to watch of dragon lords with an ethnic supremacy before it grows old is a big question. GOT had dragons, but they were a small piece to a bigger tapestry. Because either the characters have to be iconic with a brand identity or the setting. In ASOIAF the characters have brand power, the setting (in my opinion) does not given how generic it is conceptually. ASOIAF has more or less told complete character arcs for its main series and now must rely on the world to be the basis of its connective tissue, and I don't see how that will work. I don't think anything about the world or its philosophy are enough. The sigils and family names are too vague and superficial while the gritty cynicism is far too common to stand out as an identifiable trait. Star Wars for example has the Jedi and Sith code with both organizations having identifiable trade marks and styles. The red lightsaber and outfits automatically entail a certain mood and psychology whereas seeing a Stag on someone's sigil might as well fall into a number of fake medieval houses. We'll see. Personally I don't see how it can have much longevity if it just subsists off of a bunch of showrunners who want to write their own medieval fantasy. But that is just my opinion. I didn't see HotD being as popular as it was, and I guess I would reason it has to do with the proximity to GOT which only just came to end three years ago. But again, who knows, I could be wrong.
  17. Twice, since a person asked. And I'll stop now. You seem disinterested in my arguments, which is fine. Perhaps they are silly and weak, and perhaps you should not respond to them at all being as that may be the case and do us all a favor.
  18. Like seriously chill out. I said I don’t understand why HotD is doing so well and explained why I think it’s only a bubble and why I don’t see it having longevity. Im not telling people what to believe, I’m just giving my opinion. Lay off other people once in a while and stop assuming the worse.
  19. Yeah, I wrote this in another reply but I'll give it again. All those property have either iconic characterization, styles, morals, or aesthetics that draw people to the brand and form an interconnective structure regardless of what rendition the media is produced in. Comic books have the same characters reinvent themselves time and time again. There is a sort language to their mannerisms that is identifiable regardless of actor or animator (like James Bond) that allows them to exist in a hundred canonical settings. Spiderman can have a hundred origin stories and a hundred deaths, the character is the brand not a specific narrative. In ASOIAF, take a fan favorite character (say Jaime Lannister). When Jaime Lannister dies his story is over. He can only be adapted once and isn't the basis for new content or more adventures. The media produced thereafter aren't going to be about the characters we loved or hated in the main series, it is going to be about random people in a generic world. Which brings us to the philosophical basis for the universe. Star Wars even without Anakin or Luke has a specific moral code given to the Jedi, the Sith, and the republic which alongside their specific fashion allows for a breadth of stories within the expansive galaxy to be told in a breadth of time periods. If you read about the old republic, or play games set in that era, it is distinct but it is still star wars with the same organizations like the Jedi Order, the Bounty Hunters, the Sith, and the Republic fighting with more or less the same motivations that can be exploited by the narrative in similar ways. ASOIAF doesn't have lightsabers, it has swords. It's moral façade is heavily plot driven, with the shocking deaths driven less by a coherent sort of nihilism but by a will to surprise. The generic European style of Westeros has nothing that is not the standard for all of Tolkienesque fantasy besides its grimness, and grimness is everywhere in television today. The question is, if you subtract Martin from the writing (which if it were a cinematic universe is a prerequisite) what about his world outside of the story being told in ASOIAF merits the cultivation of singular identity across multiple productions? You can have the brand "Game of Thrones" but that will only play up to nostalgia for so long especially as the characters and stories will have nothing to do with Game of Thrones outside of a few name drops and familiar sigils. It has dragons I guess. But are dragons enough to sustain a global brand that can produce hundreds of stories with little to no underlining basis for connecting them outside of the heading or subheading "GOT"? I don't know, but I find it very hard to believe.
  20. My point isn't to argue the merit of Martin's story, but the longevity of the world as a cinematic universe. Say ASOIAF had the best story ever and the best characters ever. It wouldn't change the fact that those characters have had their entire narrative written and the specific story structure of the books has already been adapted. For HBO to continue, they can't just fall back onto the same people so they have to invent or adapt new stories unrelated to the main one. And the actual world is not something with the same iconic classification as it is more just a generic medieval backdrop with some oriental elements. With Star Wars for example even without Luke or Anakin, you have a specific moral philosophy behind the jedi, the sith, the republic, etc. that can be built upon into an interconnective web of media. With comic books the characters reinvent themselves. You can writer a hundred origin stories to Spiderman, a hundred deaths, and have a similar number of canonical universes. In ASOIAF you only have one so once Jaime's story is told there is nothing else to do with him. All they have is writing new stories with new characters which really amounts to the same as writing new medieval fantasy. There would be hints and easter eggs as to the main series with banners, sigils, and familiar surnames, but in the end that is all superficial, and the only thing keeping hardcore fans connected is Martin's writing, and a cinematic universe would have to exist beyond his lifespan. Take the Gates of Xi animated film. The location is just handwaving about ancient china. So you have a medieval story about ancient china with maybe some fantastical elements. How does it feed into a collective universe or at least into an identifiable world that can fit the brand "Game of Thrones"? Game of Thrones does not have a tone or message that is very specific to its show. It is dark and gritty but many write dark and gritty shows. Its claim to fame is killing off main characters but that is running off the memory of the red wedding with nothing to compare of since.
  21. I mean the longevity. Game of Thrones worked at the time because it was coming off of fantasy like Harry Potter and LotR as an adult version with a gripping story. Now it’s assets are a world without much to differentiate itself, the standard dark self serious tone, and stories separate from the main series
  22. The fact that Martin’s world is still pulling such numbers is befuddling to me. This has to be a bubble. The books are good but his world isn’t very original or unique. And the concept of grimdak is nothing new. Actually if we’re using the definition of Martin I guess Euphoria is grimdark as well as every other television drama. This pseudo-medieval society has nothing that can make it survive as a cinematic universe and the I iconic characters are already dead.
  23. Lol, I remember when GOT was called “culturally British but financially American.”
  24. I don't know, but looking at these pics it's kinda of like whiplash. Laena in episode 2 was a little girl and Daemon was a man. Now Daemon in episode 6 has a child with Leana who is that same age while he hasn't aged a day.
  25. I'm moving to New York in a few months and this is making me second guess that decision.
×
×
  • Create New...