Bran17 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I do think that there's something to be said about the trend in some quarters for appreciation of characters being directly related to perception of their being "strong" or "bad ass" or what have you. Namely, it's a bad trend. You can like what you like, absolutely, but when people keep being attracted to affirmative figures and talk down more ambiguous ones, or see in a character of limited power or ability simply "weak" or "uninteresting", they encourage creators to produce homogeneous, "strong" characters. It reduces the discursive possibilities. I agree. And it's even a worst trend when said character is clearly not a badass. Like Arya, Stannis, Victarion, Oberyn, Sandor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christi84 Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 I thought the season was great though I had some problems with the way things played out. I thought they gave away too much of Jon's SOS story in season 3. In the book after Jon escapes from the wildlings and makes it back to the Wall, the battle happens almost immediately. Here season 3 ends with Jon making it back to Castle Black. Leaving just the battle to happen at that point. It took Mance for some reason an entire season to launch his attack, at that point I'm sure that most fans of just the show didn't even remember who he was, when it looked like he was ready to attack in the middle of season 3. D&D didn't seem to really know what to do with Jon in interim until episode 9. The battle at Craster's Keep was a good idea, but Jon spent most of the season just going "Mance is coming" over and over again with no one taking him seriously and getting belittled by Thorne and Slynt. Though the battle was so epic its kind of forgettable in the grand scheme of things though even that wasn't completely perfect... Stannis. They messed up on Stannis in season 4. The worst part is that for some reason they decided not to end episode 9 with him riding in and saving the day and instead opened the next episode with it. Not sure why as I think it would have been a great twist ending. Almost as bad is, like Jon, in season 3 they used up all of Stannis' story and didn't really know what to do with him until the battle at the wall. They've got him burning his brother in law for being an "Infidel" and thats it. Threatening to kill Davos unless he gets him back in the game and then the Iron Bank decides to back Stannis for the throne and its implied that he hires enough sell swords and ships to sail to the wall and take on Mance. In the book Stannis burns his brother in law because he tried to sell her off to Tywin. Stannis doesn't wait on some cash either to sail to the Wall, he takes the small force that he has left and he sails to the Wall on his own and attacks Mance because Davos has convinced him that a King should defend the people. Stannis doesn't go to the Iron Bank with his hand open, they come to him. They see what he is doing in the North and they want to be in the Stannis the Mannis business. Also, season should have ended with Jon being elected Lord Commander. Definitely agreeing with this. I just finished reading SoS and I didnt understand why that of all things would be kept out, especially with how much Jon and the Wall was a focus of the show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Definitely agreeing with this. I just finished reading SoS and I didnt understand why that of all things would be kept out, especially with how much Jon and the Wall was a focus of the show There would be two reasons (the latter is more speculative): 1) They wanted the Battle of the Wall for episode 9, and there was no room for the election afterward. 2) They view Jon being elected and then being assassinated as a good set of bookends for his season 5 arc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTN02 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 About the necklace - someone on Tumblr noticed that it looks like the 8th letter of the Greek alphabet, theta. If they had that in mind, I'm not sure if that's supposed to have some meaning. Theta can also mean number 9, and according to the wiki, in ancient times it symbolized death. However, they don't have Greek letters in-universe... or do they? The Common Tongue seems to be English in both books and show (or how else would the world for cat the animal be the homonym of the nickname Cat, for instance)... and at least in the show, they also seem to have Latin letters :) so I guess they could have the real life Greek letters, too, as something something letters of some language in Essos. Maybe in Braavos? Some of the Braavosi do have vaguely Greek-sounding names, after all, as opposed to the Westerosi with their English-sounding names... in that train of thought, it would be ghiscari. they are the asoiaf equivalent of the acient greeks (valerians being the romans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conchobar Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I wish they made more use of colour with the soldiers. Everybody looks pretty much the same. I get why Roose isn't walking around with a hot pink cloak, but the Arryn guys should have blue, for instance. The knights' outfits could likewise make more use of it. I agree. I wish we saw more metal plate armour as well, we seemed to only get it a bit in season 1 and 2 and then very little after that. I mean, knight's helmets and shields and plate armour are some of the most defining elements of the period this show is based on. And none of them are represented as much as they should be in the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojam Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I love the rugged look of boiled leather, too, but not every character should look like that. Westerosi knights and warriors looking a certain way = yes, great; but some of the Essosi people, especially Daario who is supposed to look flamboyant, should not look interchangeable with them. They don't have to go completely Fifth Element, just something a little bit bolder. Yeah I don't know who does their 'leathers' but it's some of the best I have ever seen. What they have against HELMS is as big a mystery for me as it is for GRRM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Yeah I don't know who does their 'leathers' but it's some of the best I have ever seen.What they have against HELMS is as big a mystery for me as it is for GRRM. Can't cover up the actors' faces. The audience would get confused during a fight because they wouldn't know whom was whom. That's the basic reason. Can you imagine "Watchers on the Wall" if all of the NWmen and the Thenns had been wearing helms? It would have been nonsense. It also keeps us, the viewers, from being able to see the actors' expressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Yeah I don't know who does their 'leathers' but it's some of the best I have ever seen.What they have against HELMS is as big a mystery for me as it is for GRRM.GRRM understands, he just does not like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 GRRM understands, he just does not like it. Yeah, it's just a necessary evil of television. I'm sure they've talked about it to see if it would be viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall Tyrion Lannister! Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Can't cover up the actors' faces. The audience would get confused during a fight because they wouldn't know whom was whom. That's the basic reason. Can you imagine "Watchers on the Wall" if all of the NWmen and the Thenns had been wearing helms? It would have been nonsense. It also keeps us, the viewers, from being able to see the actors' expressions. yeah, it doesn't make much sense from a actual logic standpoint, but makes plenty of sense from a visual standpoint. wanna say the only time we saw helms was during the Tourney of the Hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kn1tt3r Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 The Watchers on the Wall itself was great, but I feel the northern arc of the whole season suffered a lot from the necessity to cramp the whole siege into this one Blackwater-like episode. They had to invent the Crasters thing, which had no real point and (more important) distracted from the actual danger, they needed to squeeze the Stannis arrival into episode 10, and - most importantly - the audience wasn't really interested in the Wall storyline, since nothing really built up to that episode. Their intentions were just, but the result could have been better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojam Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 GRRM understands, he just does not like it. I think because there must be a zillion sword-action films , set in ancient time and in medieval time , both east and west, where helms have been worn , usually open face when needed. Recent examples are the films Gladiator, Alexander and Troy. On GOT people are seldom even seen carring a helm. It's just odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I think because there must be a zillion sword-action films , set in ancient time and in medieval time , both east and west, where helms have been worn , usually open face when needed.Recent examples are the films Gladiator, Alexander and Troy.On GOT people are seldom even seen carring a helm.It's just odd.In the most dramatic moments the actor take their helmets off. George has his preference but is understanding of the medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beric175 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 You want to see the guy's face as an audience member to see what the character is feeling and thinking so yeah...no helmets most of the time is just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lom678 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 t'was bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 You want to see the guy's face as an audience member to see what the character is feeling and thinking so yeah...no helmets most of the time is just fine. It's the same reason that Spider-Man always loses his mask for dramatic scenes in the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Theoden had a nice helmet in third LOTR movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beric175 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 yeah but not everyone is going to wear the same kind of helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Low Sparrow Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Meryn Trant wears a helmet all the time, even to the loo. And the only guy he ever had to fight was wielding a stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisch Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Impression of Season 4: impressive moments, but the padding shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.