Jump to content

Amris

Members
  • Content count

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Amris

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Berlin
  • Interests
    Role-playing, writing, riding my bike

Recent Profile Visitors

2,244 profile views
  1. Amris

    TWOW in July 2020 seems ever more likely

    I remember getting some angry responses in the forum when I posted in 2014 that I thought it likely that Winds wouldn't get out in 2015 and I rather thought it likely that GRRM would try for a spring 2016 release ...
  2. I need a little distraction from real-world issues so putting down a rant here. Maybe I can get Game of Thrones out of my system finally and not be bothered by it anymore. So here it comes. Feel free to ignore Jon: he used to be one of my book favs. Before the show ruined him. In season 6 the show portrays him as an idiot hothead who starts the Battle of the Bastards with an absurd charge that nearly gets all his army killed unnecessarily (despite knowing full well a charge is what he exactly can not do and despite having extensively prepared for the complete opposite kind of tactics with prepared positions to fight from to whittle Ramsay's army down.) Jon's men trust him with their lives - trust him to make military decisions that will give them the best chance to win the battle and survive. Instead Jon needlessly throws their lives away - on an emotional impulse and despite knowing better - just to make his own hurt about Rickon go away for a second. Never - ever give this kind of guy a military command again. Please! In season 7 Jon proves that militarily he can't even successfully lead a small commando raid. It ends in an utter fiasco. Why oh why can't you leave this originally cool character some redeeming traits, D&D? Ontop of that the whole 'grab a zombie on a commando raid into the north' idea is so completely out there from the start that anyone going along in support of it must be considered brain dead. Yes, Jon at first rightly opposes it - but he comes around and ends up supporting it. As if that weren't bad enough: he comes around really fast. When he should have fought the idea tooth and nail and never ever agree to it. He of all people, knowing the north, should have known better. He was the one person on Dany's council with the expertise to bury Tyrion's totally idiotic idea. Dany - and the realm - depended on Jon standing his ground making sure this idiocy does not happen. And he failed. Even as a council advisor he failed already. Miserably. Then he fails again by single-handedly pushing Dany over the edge into madness. By not communicating with her. In what is obviously a very difficult relationship crisis in season 8 he simply turns away and does not talk. In the 'how do I make a relationship crisis worse' he scores a 10 out of 10. Now if it were just some family matter with no wider consequences this would just be that: lack of communication skills in personal matters and unnecessary bitterness as a result. But it is not just some private family matter. Dany's wellbeing is an issue that the safety of the realm rests on. And Jon simply ignores that inconvenient little fact. Just like with the mad charge at the Battle of the Bastards. Jon feels momentarly bad so he makes the worst possible decisions. No matter that other people's lives hinge on his decisions. It's a pattern. D&D have made him into someone completely unsuited for wider responsibilities. And destroyed a character that I used to like. And why? Just because they want to use him as a plot device to get their story going the idiot way. To top it all off Jon isn't even a real help during the Battle of Winterfell against the White Walkers. Who kills the NK? Arya. Well and good if Jon had another role that he was there for. He hasn't though: He doesn't become king. He doesn't become a good military leader. He doesn't lead a successful commando raid. He doesn't help keep Dany stable. He doesn't prevent Tyrion's idiotic plans. He fails in every way. In the end I have to ask: why has Jon been in the story at all? Just so he can be used as a plot device to have everything go sideways always? That's a little - ah - weak. But to top if off: why have him resurrected? A resurrection isn't some minor random thing to happen in a story after all. It should be a major point. So why have it? Just so the resurrected person can throw some more spanners into the story. Gah. Dany: Don't start me on Dany. If the show has made Jon into a fool it has transformed Dany from a caring human being into an utter madwoman and mass-murderer. And that over the course of what? Four episodes? And the excuse being mostly that she is frustrated in her relationship with Jon and secondly that she has been listening to an advisor who has consistently given her bad advice (Tyrion?)? What kinds of reasons are this? Fire the bad advisor is the obvious solution. Fire the lover too if having him around hurts too much. But burn down entire cities? Just to feel better for a second? Come on. That makes no sense. Especially in someone who always cared. And it didn't even help militarily. There is no rational explanation. This whole plotline ending was badly forced. Cersei was in the Red Keep for the whole time. And we get shown over and over again that the Red keep sits on the edge of KL, on 3 sides surrounded by the sea with just one side connected to the city proper and divided from it by huge walls. Meaning Cersei was nicely isolated from the vast majority of the city population. Dany had 3 powerful flying beasts able to get into the Red Keep and killing Cersei without ever touching the rest of the city. (That was before the script did its utmost to have Tyrion come up with idiotic plans to decimate Dany's dragons and scatter and reduce Dany's army and to stall and give Cersei time to place additional scorpions). It is my suspicion that Lena Headey being such a good actress and doing such a great job as Cersei backfired here. I can't shake the feeling that D&D fell so in love with their (admittedly great) villainess that they felt unwilling to let her part from the story at the point that would have been logical (Dany's arrival with her 3 dragons and overwhelming force) and desperately sought for a reason - any reason - to keep her in the story longer. With the result of making Tyrion into the worst advisor ever and sacrificing all the remaining in-story logic. Tyrion: He starts out supposedly super-clever (so much so that his story is hard for me to read in the books because Martin's desire to make this character appear clever and cool is just too obvious) but then he ends up the most brain dead advisor ever? With giving bad advice after bad advice? All in order to somehow get rid of Dany's dragons and armies. So the season 7 and 8 story can go its idiotic way and Lena Headey gets the chance to shine a little longer? Gah. And does Tyrion at least get fired for the bad job he's been doing? No. He can't of course. Because Peter Dinklage also is a very good actor and seeing him depart from the story is also something D&D could not stand. So despite everything, Cersei and Tyrion had to be kept in the story to the very end. Nevermind the utter mess this makes out of the story logic. I am of the firm opinion that it is only a little exagerated to say: Dany had to lose her mind and burn down KL and kill everyone because Cersei and Tyrion had to be kept in the story all costs. Bran: Bran and his quest in the North are a kind of Frodo analogue to me. The little guy who is no fighter but struggles through a quest of high magic that is supposed to heavily influence the outcome of the whole conflict. Now I have no problem with Bran as a character. But put Frodo on the throne in Gondor? Really? I mean: Really? So in the end the whole 'high magic quest story arc' wasn't to save the realm at all? It was for putting Frodo on the throne of Gondor? What? And what was the Aragorn and Arwen story for then? Why put it in? Why did I have to read it? I feel cheated as a reader. Sansa: Sansa isn't a character I can relate to. She bores me. I find her bland. I would never voluntarily read a book with a Sansa as a main character. Having said that I understand that some readers love her and - in the books at least - I don't hate her. Now the problem is: while I just can't relate to her in the books - I have come to outrightly hate her in the show starting with season 6. D&D have taken a bland character and made her into someone really, really dislikable. The issue is the Battle of Winterfell. Sansa has the reinforcements from the Vale well underway (kudos to her) and just hours away from the Battlefield (at most) - and she never tells Jon? What??? Jon is supposed to general this battle and she withholds this absolutely crucial piece of information from him? The piece of information that would have ensured victory? And with a much - much - lower cost of lives? If Jon had known reinforcements were on their way he could have made a much more sensible battle plan. Hell: just starting the battle 2 hours later would have made a giant difference!! Sansa willingly, needlessly sacrifices the lives of hundreds - thousands - of Jons soldiers? For what? For exactly nothing. No one forces her to withhold the information. It doesn't even give her any personal advantage (petty as that would have been). It makes no sense at all. Yet we are supposed to believe this outrageous behaviour is somehow logical. (The real reason of course being that D&D wanted to surprise us viewers with the sudden Vale arrival and they sacrificed Sansa as a character and thousands of soldiers (who are 'just expandable extras' after all) for their childish wish.) Gah. Double Gah. A story that supposedly is not glamorizing military action treats the footsoldier as a superflouus extra that can be sacrificed needlessly in masses just to satisfy a whim of the showrunners so they can show off by a surprise arrival of a Vale army. I hate it. Hate it. After this absolutely horrible behaviour I never could feel sympathy for show-Sansa again. Sorry. This has nothing to do with Sophie Turner btw. It's the film script I have a massive issue with. The Teleportation: The showrunners want us to just ignore the fact that characters start to teleport all over the place since season 6. As if this was just a minor thing and anyone paying attention to it being overly critical. But it's not a minor thing. The issue is: if you can't make a story work within the framework of its own in-world logic then the story logic goes out of the window. And if the logic goes out of the window then the suspense does too. Because as a viewer you get bumped with your nose on the fact that everything follows the script and thus in reality the in-world characters have exactly zero influence on how the story develops. It's called 'suspension of disbelief'. Showrunners should understand that. Actually I'm sure D&D know it. But it seems they were supremely unwilling to act accordingly. They ignored their better knowledge. And want us to ignore it too. That D&D ignored the suspension of disbelief issue in such a major way is probably connected to the whole seasons 7&8 feeling incredibly rushed issue: Just 13 episodes to take things from 'Dany has not even yet arrived in Westeros' (mid-point of GRRM's originally proposed plotline) to 'Dany arrives, conquers the whole of Westeros, then the war with the White Walkes starts, gets fought and won. And the aftermath plays out and the new powerstructure of Westeros gets settled.') So 60 episodes for the first half of the story, 13 episodes for the second half. A very tilted story structure. Which is a major contributor to producing all these story-loopholes. I remember after season 6 somehow D&D told someone they had 13 episodes left and people were aghast. D&D were very firm about it though. Which means that at the half-way point of the story D&D were already committed to cutting the second half short to just 13 episodes. Which in turn means it was their deliberate decision. Which in turn forced all the above errors into the story and made a mess out of it.
  3. Yes. The show did have a negative effect on how I view the books. It is all well and good to say books and show are two different things. "The show is the show, the books are the books etc." Sounds like whishful thinking. Whistling in the dark if you ask me. That's because it ignores the inconvenient fact that the show is based on the books and that it has been stated by the showrunners (and half confirmed and definitely not denied by Martin) that both end the same way. So the horrible ending we got in the show is what the book series would have given us too it if had ever been finished.
  4. Amris

    Do you like Feast and Dance?

    Melisandre, Areo, Arys, the prologue (and epilogue)-POVs, Barristan kinda (admittedly four chapters not just one, but its the same principle.) Quentyn kinda (four chapters), JonCon kinda (2 chapters), Aeron kinda (2 chapters), Asha kinda (4 chapters), Victarion kinda (4 chapters). As I already stated I don't have that much of a problem with any of them anymore since the time I realized they really are vehicles for exposition (quite cool exposition some of them) and I just read them for their information value. Many of them tell us important things. Also I agree that the prologue- and epilogue POVs give quite interesting info. That said I still think Martin should have skipped over some of that exposition in favour of cutting down on the number of secondary and tertiary viewpoints and to streamline the story and make the whole thing easier to write.
  5. Amris

    Do you like Feast and Dance?

    I had two main problems with Feast at the time it got published: One was the missing main characters from the previous three books, the other was the increase in the number of secondary and tertiary characters and the meandering of some of the secondary character arcs, the reason for which I (back then) didn't get. Since Dance got out and brought back the characters missing in Feast the first problem (missing characters) has been mostly solved for me. Just put both books together and their chapters in the proper order, like mentioned above. The second problem (number of characters and meandering secondary character arcs) took longer for me to come to grips with (and I still haven't completely). Back then (when the books came out) I didn't understand why I was being forced by the author to follow a disagreeable bloke like Victarion or a basically decent but completely humorless and eternally unsucessful Brienne through chapter after chapter of never getting anywhere (or even Tyrion who basically is an interesting char but has been going through so many convolutions on his journey in DWD that I was mentally screaming too much - too much! Less is more!) Not to mention the 'one-off' POVs and the Dorne stuff that (so far) hasn't gotten anywhere either. Only through this forum did I understand that even seemingly random storylines all contain nuggets of information that make sense in the bigger picture of the story. In other words: The chapters I disliked - when you come down to it - really are exposition. But since GRRM has limited his method of storytelling to exclusively and only tell the story through POV - he has no choice but to tell the exposition parts through POV also. Which means new secondary or even 'one-off' POVs have to pop up whenever the author wants to tells us some some important information but can't steer one of the main characters into place to stumble upon it. Once I realized that I had far less problems with these secondary and tertiary characters and that their stories sometimes don't go anywhere. They are not meant to go somewhere. They are vehicles to convey to me some sort of hidden but important information. So now I simply ignore the 'character' parts of these secondary stories and just look for the info that the chapters are secretly containing. And voila the chapters make sense and don't annoy me half as much anymore.
  6. Well I had fallen out of love with the book series before the (edit:) TV series aired. The series rekindled my love for the books - or kindled rather since I had always been sceptical up to that point. Anyway I then (though) I loved the books for some years. And now I am back where I had started out: highly sceptical.
  7. Amris

    The purpose of R+L=J?

    Yes, the show only used it as another wedge in their quest to drive Jon and Dany apart and make Dany go crazy.
  8. Amris

    Is the quality of this season low?

    Heh, I love that. And it's 300.000 now. Aside from that that will never happen: for me it also is too late. The cat is out of the bag. We know how the story ends now. Since D&D claimed show and book have similar endings - only somewhat different ways to get there - it seems GRRM has envisioned his series to end like this too. Which means the whole 'bittersweet like Lord of the Rings' - claim was never in the cards. Instead the series is a pure tragedy. Several tragedies rolled into one story really. Like Romeo & Juliet combined with Apocalypse Now. What I am aiming at: I don't really want to rewatch an improved version of it. Having seen it once was sad enough.
  9. Yes, it would explain things. And give me back at least a little faith in the story. However I'm not sure if we are maybe ascribing to much finesse to D&D; What I've seen out of season 7 and 8 doesn't fill me with a lot of optimism about logic and story consistency. Yes, D&D are definitely using Bran as a means to throw several spanners in our heroes' plans. But in my experience with the show it is unfortunately quite likely they haven't been giving much thought as to Bran's or the CotFs' motives. That would mean there is no real motive and no plan behind Bran's actions. Aside from being a convenient plot device to mess things up. That's why I'm afraid it may turn out Dany did indeed suddenly (over the course of a single episode) convert from a caring individual who kept putting her person behind in order to help the helpless to a mass murderer out for the blood of innocent children. I think that happened for shock value only. Especially since it happens after she had already won and it did not even remotely make military sense anymore. That's even more shocking. So shock was what they were after, logic be damned. And I fear Bran had nothing to do with it (aside from doing his utmost in messing up Jon's and Dany's relationship at the worst possible time. But out of pure plot convenience, not out of some sinister CotF plan.)
  10. What do you mean the nissa nissa prophecy fits? Like Jon stabbing Dany? But where are the first two attempts at 'forging' then? I don't remember Jon stabbing a Lion. Or Bran being the 'last hero' stabbing Dany metaphorically by warging her? When did Bran stab a Lion though? Did he warg Tyrion also and that's the reason for Tyrion's bad advice? I am starting to get confused
  11. Wow! - I didn't think my own chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion. You did. And I must repeat: wow. Yes, that seems possible. Who is Bran nowaday? He is the impersonification of all the greenseers that came before him or so I understand. And as far as we know nearly all those greenseers were CotF, except for Bloodraven. If that's true then that means what Bran is inhabited by nowadays is like 95% CotF greenseers. So it seems logical he would further CotF interests, not human interests.
  12. Oh, right! Thank you for reminding me.
  13. Amris

    Is the quality of this season low?

    The quality of the scripts is low. The other departments (actors, costumes, buildings, cgi, music) are top notch.
  14. When Bran started his training as greenseer I had expected him to play a major (and positive) role in the fight against the dead. We now know he didn't. So what IS his role in the story then? A character with such an extremely strong magical background must be in the story for a reason, right? In order to figure his real role out I started to analyze what would happen to the story if Bran wasn't in it. The result is a little shocking: - Bloodraven would still be alive and the Childrens' cave wouldn't have been overrun by the Army of the Dead - The relationship between Jon and Dany wouldn't have broken down since Jon wouldn't have learned he is related to Dany - Jon and Dany would likely have married and the realm would be united - Varys wouldn't have been forced to go rogue - Dany wouldn't have snapped - half a million inhabitants of King's Landing would have survived Turns out Bran isn't a positive factor in the story after all. His role is to mess everything up. He is a Lucifer-like character.
  15. I am really starting to believe Tyrion has been giving this bad advice for the last 2 seasons because he has been protecting Cersei: It can't be argued away that his hated sister Cersei continues to benefit from Tyrion's bad advice to Dany. One or two pieces of bad advice can happen. But a continous stream of bad advice after bad advice? From someone as bright as Tyrion? Now I just realized the same thing happens in the books actually! - Whose advice is it that split the pro-Targaryen camp in two factions in the book by sending off Young Griff on his premature invasion? Tyrion's. - Who benefits from the Targ armies being split in two, offering the possibility of defeat in detail? Cersei. Now Tyrion's influencing Young Griff is much more circumspect and logical in the books than his obviously extremely bad advice to Dany here in the show. But it's effect is exactly the same. I don't think that's coincidence. I think what we have been experiencing throughout season 7 and now in season 8 is a very bad adaptation of the Aegon plotline from the books. An adaptation ruined by the enormous cuts in material which opens up these gaps that make everything feel forced and unbelievable. But the basic point remains: Tyrion is helping Cersei by doing his level best to split the Targ forces.
×