Jump to content

Ser Greguh

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ser Greguh

  1. Um, no. This is kind of insane, really. First off the only action that can realistically be laid at Catelyn's doing that helped cause the war was her kidnapping of Tyrion. The degree to which that was a true seminal moment versus an action that sped up the inevitable is debatable. Littlefinger was plotting to cause chaos in any case, and had already set the Starks and Lannisters at each others' throats via the killing of Jon Arryn and the letter sent to Catelyn. Cersei was already plotting against Robert. And Tywin Lannister's reaction to Tyrion's arrest, while possibly predictable, wasn't lawful. His son is accused of an assassination attempt, and so, quite naturally, he launches a fucking invasion of the Riverlands in response. This much I agree with. If R+L=J, Ned's cover story to protect Jon from Robert's wrath is quite flimsy, and only really held in place because nobody has bothered (in-universe) to ask the right questions. Catelyn's enmity lends credance to the story.
  2. Holy fuck. They weren't kidding when they said they went all-out.
  3. D&D have said on more than one occasion that they would love to have more episodes per season from a storytelling standpoint (although 10 episodes was about right for S1, I think), but that they are physically unable to produce more than 10 episodes per year. This is understandable given the rather extreme variety of locations, and the enormous scope of the production (horses, costumes, extras, and at least this season the promise of a rather epic battle sequence).
  4. People really didn't get that Stannis fucked Melisandre in the books? I didn't think it could possibly be more clear. WTF. Seriously.
  5. Quick note: we're considering Varys = Rugen as still just a theory? I rewrote much of the Varys page this morning and was a bit surprised by that (the page had a ton of information, but was pretty inconsistent in tone and focus). I'd thought Varys = Rugen had been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt (Jaime's POV in aFfC if I remember correctly) and was tempted to change it, but left it as it was for the time being. I know it's a constant struggle to put only fact, and not theory, on the wiki pages; has this particular one been discussed?
  6. Okay, thanks, that style guide reinforces what I naturally drift toward, which is that events that take place from the start of the books on should be referred to in the present tense. This appears to be very inconsistently applied. Another thing I would harp on personally is the use of authorial subjective judgment. I was browsing some of my old edits which included raising the Willas Tyrell page up from a stub. I was heartened to see that it had been cleaned up and things like coat-of-arms and full family trees had been added (which I like very much as I'm pretty awful at that sort of thing, and my articles consistently require cleanup of some form), but also bristled considerably that the sentence "Willas despite his twisted leg is a much more capable leader than his father" has been somewhat unnaturally grafted onto his history. Gah! To me this sentence sticks out like a sore thumb. First of all it's (almost certainly unintentionally) offensive; by just saying that "he's a good leader despite being crippled" we are projecting, from our modern enlightened viewpoint, that his being a cripple should affect whether or not he can be a good leader (as opposed to putting it to the Westerosi viewpoint, where we understand that they come from a less enlightened POV and thus accept that they accept Willas "despite" his twisted leg). Second, we don't even actually know that it's true; he's described as kind and intelligent, and in at least one instance he's reported to have given good advice, but we haven't met him yet so this sort of value judgment seems unjustified - he could have some as-yet-unrevealed character flaw that prevents him from being an effective leader despite his agreed-upon strengths (not that I think this is likely). Third, a generic compliment seems redundant since the entire article up to that point is discussing his strengths. Ordinarily I'd just ax the sentence and be done with it but I thought this was a good example of how a seemingly innocuous and generally uncontroversial value judgment (to me, at least) makes the whole article come off as a bit amateurish. We're remiss if we don't bring up subjective things that are generally agreed-upon and relevant facts (Littlefinger is good with money, Cersei is beautiful, Loras is graceful, Bronn is amoral, Sandor is hideous, etc.), but drifting into the territory of this sort of authorial color commentary is IMO a very bad thing. Sorry, just wanted to rant :).
  7. With regard to the TWOW stuff, would it be prudent to have a separate subpage for material from works that are yet to be published? Similar to Jon Snow/Theories, couldn't we have Character X/Unpublished? Anyway, I just rebooted my interest in helping with the wiki and spent a good portion of this morning ironing out Littlefinger's page, which, while full of good information, was also full of sentence fragments and general grammatical errors, including a plethora of inconsistent verb tenses. Sorry for being a little too busy to look it up at this instant but did we ever decide on a verb tense to use for our articles? I know I raised the question a long time ago (and I think I inadvertently caused a bit of a fight) but don't remember an answer. I generally tend to drift into past-tense when discussing items from a character's history ("Petyr was fostered in Riverrun") but find the present tense more natural for book events ("Petyr lies to Catelyn, claiming the dagger belongs to Tyrion Lannister.") It seems that most articles I find are done in past-tense now, which is fine with me too (more than anything I just think it should be consistent), but is that official and should I be correcting it to past tense when I see it? (Including in articles I've written in the past?)
  8. Speaking of Septa Mordane's final scene, a comment on another board that I thought was hilarious: "was I the only person half expecting her to pull out a light saber as she approached those guards?" Now I can't watch the scene without picturing it. She totally has the serene Jedi expression.
  9. Definitely titles, definitely available only in meta. Superimposed titles would be clunky.
  10. So you guys are aware, I've been making some edits, starting with the summary of ACoK, which had some glaring errors (it had Amory Lorch, and not Gregor Clegane, taking Arya to Harrenhal, for instance), and adding a few pages here and there for (mostly) secondary and tertiary characters. It's a bit more challenging than I expected, but also kind of fun. I'll let the people that know the books better than I do (who are many) handle the complicated and intricate stuff such as genealogies and histories, but I should be able to contribute quite a bit in turning links from red to blue for the Dareons and Hot Pies of Westeros and beyond. I can't speak for others, but I think it would be very beneficial to have some stylistic guidelines for things such as character pages. While I have no qualms whatsoever about fixing mistakes or adding details to someone else's page, I don't want to step on others' toes by adjusting otherwise completely acceptable articles for stylistic choices that are basically my own. At the same time, I'd like to see things kept as consistent as possible. Verb tenses are a good example. I've been sticking pretty faithfully to the maxim of past tense for any events that took place prior to the events of AGoT, and present tense for anything that occurs in the timeline of the books. For example, in my Dareon page: "Dareon was an apprentice singer in the Reach, before being caught in bed with a daughter of Lord Matthis Rowan." "He is raised to a man of the Night's Watch at the same time as Jon, named to the Stewards, and sent to Eastwatch-by-the-Sea. " This to me seems to make the most sense, but others are sticking to the past tense for everything, which one could make an argument for as well. Is there any central location where discussion can be hashed out as to a preferred style?
  11. [quote name='Myrddin' post='1610294' date='Dec 5 2008, 10.12']Hmmm... Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever seen her in a non-comedic role (or at least a light hearted one). Also, has she done period pieces? In my head, she's too modern and too American. I'm not opposed to seeing her cast, as I'm sure they wouldn't do it unless she fit the part, but It'd take me a bit to see her as Catelyn, not Peet. As for the husband/wife work thing, it might be good for them too since then they'll both be in England. She won't need to look for UK based productions to be near him. SPOILER: etaI can totally see her getting into the Un-Cat role, though. Then she'll be forever known as Un-Peet. :)[/quote] She had a small role in the underrated [i]Changing Lanes[/i] where she delivered a nearly perfect monologue that Ebert said would have justified for her a supporting actress nomination, IIRC. Other non-comedic roles of hers include [i]Identity[/i] (not a great movie, but she was fine), and the new X-Files movie, where she had 3rd billing. She's an exceptional actress and I've been a fan of hers for a while.
  12. I'd like to take this time to point out that if any of the casting choices I supported are chosen for the roles, and they turn out to suck, I assume no responsibility! You get what you pay for! ;) Seriously, hey, look, it's the exec producers. That's cool. While I think we're all going to be glad for the opportunity to have the people making this show listening to our feedback and chiming in, all of us (okay, well, most of us) will understand that you're going to be focusing your energies into making the show as kick-ass as possible, and would rather have you doing that than addressing our pedantic concerns. You're professionals. Do your thing. If Martin trusts you with his baby, so do we.
  • Create New...