Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LordStoneheart

  1. Immaturity kept me away, immaturity brought me back. :)

  2. You won't often hear me say this but I didn't hate it. Plot holes aside, only the battle of Winterfell was disappointing.
  3. Is there another way I can log onto the MUSH?
  4. Not sure if this is the right space to ask, but the MUSH link at the top isn't working. I've tried it on two different computers and I'm getting a 502 bad gateway message. I'm wondering if it's these computers I'm using or maybe I didn't download something?
  5. hmm... I'd like to see that sometime. would be interesting to see what kind of poems GRRM comes up with here. Any chance of this in the future books or show? ;)
  6. Nothing wrong with that. I also enjoyed Pedro as Oberyn. His acting for the part really sold it, and I enjoyed almost all of his scenes. In the end the way they wrote him I disagree with but it's not enraging like it is for other characters. It's just rather questionable, and at the very least I can see why they wanted to attack the audience with his presence. I probably would have made some similar choices had I been a showrunner, but then again if it was me I would've introduced him in "Dark Wings, Dark Words" as a parallel to introducing Olenna.
  7. He was cut, which IMO diminishes Oberyn's rather unique story of keeping a good relationship with a member of a rival family.
  8. It was cute but it can hardly be called fleshing him out more
  9. He writes porn poems now... did the show turn Oberyn into Rhaegar? :D
  10. Really going to have to disagree with the "more fleshed out" part. so much of his backstory and character is dropped in the show.
  11. Not seeing it. Some people are more just visually inclined than written media.
  12. As I said above, the problem fans are finding with him is that the subtly of his character is lost in favor of bombarding the viewer with who Oberyn is. That's how you know he's a wild card. Because the writers are slapping the viewers in the face with just how wild and different the new face is. He might as well have worn cards as his sigil and a sign that says "I am a wild card." The show is not good with subtlety. It's the same with Renly and Loras. They take the one aspect of their characters they need, overload it, and usually forgo all other aspects. Oberyn is the same in the books, he's just more subtle and reserved (as in, not obviously there to threaten the Lannister.) How do you reconcile his wedding talk with Cersei and Tywin in episode two with his later chat with Cersei? Honest question, because it really makes no sense to me. Plus, his brothel talk with Tywin (another straight disregard with who Tywin from the books is) seems to suggest he believes Tywin about not giving Gregor the order, yet when he fights Gregor he shouts "who gave you the order?" and points directly at Tywin. He still blames Tywin, which makes that brothel scene... well, filler. As far as the sex goes, I think the showrunners made it very clear that they wanted Oberyn as a sex character first, and everything else secondary. Their quotes before season four make that clear. I saw no insult there. Visually speaking, Oberyn is a "much more interesting character" because again, the showrunners do not do subtle. He did not mean scene-by-scene everything was in the books, he meant the persona was there, in a much more subtle way that didn't necessarily need to attack the reader to convey. There is a reason the character has achieved that level of popularity in the books even though not being so abrasive and obvious in the show. I don't doubt your reading abilities but to say it's not there is a disservice to the way these characters are written.
  13. I am most positive the problem with showOberyn is that in the books he is honestly not that big of a character. I think fans have built him up to be more than the book gave. He was there for the trial and trial by combat, but really didn't do much else. The show, running with the fan hype, wanted to make him "big" character... but what the hell was he supposed to do? What things did they know about Oberyn besides the two trials? hmm.... it's HBO so.... SEX!!! FUCKING! ORGIES! SEX SEX SEXY SEX!! BONER BONER UTERUS FALLOPIAN!!! If there's one criticism of the show that no one can dispute it's that there is too much superfluous sex, no matter the character, no matter the context. I did enjoy Oberyn on screen, but to say they turned him up to 11 is an understatement. They bombarded us in the face with Oberyn's "spear" before actually showing us his fight. I suppose it would have been a little bit of a spoiler showing him fighting before hand but there were much better ways to give Oberyn screen time.
  14. therein lies the disagreement... I don't find anything wrong with the election after the battle. Plus, it is known that Jon was steward to the last one. Agree to disagree? Plus, WotW was terrible for me. Not visually but story and execution-wise. The whole Wall story in general is, which is a shame because I love it in the books.
  15. How is it not the reason? If he hadn't led the battle he wouldn't have the respect of the others. If he had shown up after the battle (assuming it's won) it would look a lot different to the NW. I think you're undercutting the way the LC election went. It was over a series of chapters, not just "poof! he's Lord Commander!" I do agree that the show can (rarely) do things better (Harrenhal plot discounting Arya/Twin, and Locke/Jaime was better IMO), for that matter. Next season, though, I think they have real potential to do a lot of things better, but if there's no Lady Stoneheart there's no LordStoneheart with the show. :D
  16. sj, about your defense of Craster's Keep this season... Really gonna have to disagree. It's not that I don't like that story. It's obviously a big deviation, but I did enjoy it at face value, and it had the same "they're close, but miss each other barely" feel that the books did when Jon left the wildlings. But I don't think it helps Jon's character become LC better than the book does at all. It was there as filler so they didn't have to do the battle at Castle Black right away, because if you recall, the battle is not that far apart from when Jon returns. The battle is what makes Jon able to be elected, not a filler expedition to kill like ten deserters. to me it just feels like an artificial effort to do what you said, transition his character, because of them deciding to make the battle start so much later than in the books. It really left them stalling for material at the Wall. I guess there's nothing wrong with delaying the battle, but their filler really just feels like too little too late to build up Jon after three seasons of him on the backburner, as you said.
  17. GK, my problem with show defenders is that they don't seem to understand or at the very least admit that not only is the "nitpicking" a legitimate criticism, but that often the deviations change whole character dynamics that are basically completely contradictions of the books that the show is supposedly "based" on. Case in point, Tyrion and Cersei Lannister. They don't exist in the show, at least not the characters from the books. Their show imitations are so far off that they might as well be renamed. This is frustrating because it shows obvious favoritism on part of the showrunners, biased towards these two Lannisters. Similiarly, they are giving extremely mixed signals about Jaime. S1 - make him ultimate dickhead, shoving Bran as if it was a light decision versus book where he was rather frustrated. Cut to S2 where while still arrogant they began to humanize him more. A good thing, and it lead nicely into S3 where at this point in the novels most people begin to like Jaime... all that was done rather well IMO, like the Brienne tub scene.... then cut to S4 where they basically reversed his character back to S1 status, making light of Sansa's situation, raping Cersei, and later giving in to her whereas in the books he does the opposite, refusing her which many fans take to be one of the final stages in his "redemption," not being swayed by his sister anymore. Overall, I like the show. But "overall" honestly doesn't cut it when it comes to vast media entertainment, or anything really. "Overall, I like this meal, except for the moldy pieces, but the good parts were great..." the showrunners chose to make this show, and that comes with taking the criticism that comes their way. There's obviously a problem when the controversies make such a wave in pop culture (as in, Jaime's rape of Cersei made major news outlets and for a while had its own dedicated section on Wikipedia, as does the omission of Lady Stoneheart for now.) I'll say this endless times but it won't get through to show fans who are too sensitive to hear any and all criticisms. I will praise the show and its deviations when they're done well and will lambast it when it makes no sense, is added for shock value, or is obvious bias or lack of understanding from the writers.
  18. :agree: Jaime the Pancake is a good example of that.
  19. Green Knight, I believe I have answered that but I'll repeat myself. I watch to explain the things that don't make sense (because the show is extremely bad at narrative) to my family and just a sliver of false hope that it will get better. It doesn't. The general show-defending sentiment definitely seems to be that the show is perfect, using the guise of "books are a different medium, other people and critics like it!" What I'm sick of is show defenders acting like there aren't legitimate criticisms of the show. here's one guy's take. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/no-right-answer/8994-Is-Game-of-Thrones-Overrated) I don't necessarily agree with him, but it's not just book fans that don't like the show.
  20. A while back sj said everyone agreed Arya and Tywin was a good change.. gonna have to point out that it's actually a really bad change when you consider the depth. It diminishes both characters. Arya's post GoT arc was in a lot of ways about how she could survive by acting as a lowborn. The show's deviation made Arya's standout trait that she was highborn and worthy of Tywin's attention, and it turned Tywin into an idiot by having him very clearly say "you're a highborn northern girl, but whatevs. Bye. take care." The Real Tywin would not have been so idiotic as to ignore the opportunity of capturing a noble born northerner. I mean, look what he did to Jeyne Poole. Not a good change.
  21. If the shoe fits. I will call them good writers when they prove themselves so. You cannot dispute that their major deviations are extreme dumbing down of the books. Bad writer does not mean unintelligent. They can be clever. But much of that is adapting superior writing. Their original takes are much more often than not plain bad writing. Orson Lannister sends his regards.
  22. Are people still pretending that D&D are good writers? Because they're not. Unless people are just plain forgetting the Talisa debacle and Tywin and Arya's dumb plot.
  23. I have praised them where they deserved it (in the post you quoted of mine I used the word "brilliant.") Occasionally in a burst of impassioned typing, I might jab at their intelligence, but I know they're not slackjawed yokels. I know they've read the books. I know they're enthusiastic fans just like us. My problem with them is the liberties they take that seem self-indulgent, and their seemingly poor interpretation of the characters. For example of the latter, in a recent interview they called Tywin a "lawful neutral." I don't take too much stock from the character alignment grid because I find it too limiting, kind of like a Myers-Briggs test... but no one who has read these books with decent understanding should ever call Tywin lawful neutral. If anything fits him, its lawful evil. In that interview they were saying that its only from the Stark perspective he is the villain. I agree to an extent that there were two sides to the war and neither was wholly good or evil, or but that's just plain whitewashing of Tywin's character. Or if they were talking about the Tywin of "their" story, the show, I still do not like it because they had to change him to make him "lawful neutral." Changes are necessary. No book reader will dispute this. We are not opposed to any and all changes. These are changes I like (Locke's reason for cutting off Jaime's hand, Jon's reason to Mance for turning cloak, Gendry for Edric.) But a lot of the time their changes make little sense. Arya and Tywin's screen story. Dany's whole season two arc, and I mean whole season. the characterization of Renly and Loras (if it weren't for Oberyn in S4, I'd insist that the show runners are major homophobes.) The complete drop of Tysha last week. The interpretation of Stannis and the role of Melisandre. The infamous Talisa Maegyr. much and more. When changes happen that are basically the complete opposite of the books, I have a problem with it. Why make an adaption of books when you're going to change the story? I really suspect the answer is because they want credit. They want to change the story just enough so they can get praised other than just bringing the already-praised books to screen. It reeks of self-indulgence and fan-fiction. And I really try to like Bryan Cogman's episodes.. but when Selyse is turned into Mad Woman Bertha with Baby Jars and Asha Yara stages the dumbest attack on the dreadfort but runs away from like three dogs, I lose faith in him too.
  • Create New...