Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

I can't believe none of you realizes how stupid it would have been for them to cram Stannis into the end of this episode. Everybody would have rolled their eyes and called bullshit if this battle ended the exact same way Blackwater did. I can see it now:

"Really show? You show two battles in 4 seasons, and both are directed by the same exact guy, and both end the same exact way?? Seriously? Real fucking original, Game of Thrones."

We absolutely needed an episode break before Stannis' charge, because it's going to be balls-to-the-wall epic when he shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Stan didn't show up, this was the Nights watch's moment, don't need Stannis coming in at the last second and taking all the glory.

While I don't entirely agree or disagree with your post, as a fan who bleeds green I feel obligated to say Go Eagles!

Edited by Tyrion Hand of the King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope they surprise me and have an ending with Stannis' offer.

Wait, Stannis can't arrive next episode because it's too crammed already, but in the next breath you hope it gets as far as the offer of Winterfell?

Do you just enjoy complaining so much that you can't be bothered by reason or sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really agree with you, but in any case, that's not my point. Craster's is just an example; the point is that "filler" is a concept that applies to the book and the TV show in very different ways. There's no time- or page-limit on a book.

But that's the hang-up...what's really 'filler'? I see people throw around the word to mean 'anything that wasn't in the books'...but I don't think that's a fair definition, because to me, filler is something that has no point and is there to take up time, whether it's from the books or not. CK is something that I found very necessary for Jon Snow and Bran Stark because we needed to see more of their characters' journeys, and we needed to see them grow into the roles their roles- Jon as a leader, and Bran as an incredibly powerful seer. It wasn't pointless, especially now that we have seen the Battle for the Wall and how the CK mission essentially made Jon into a leader that the men trusted when his time came to take control. Take away CK, and then you just have Jon Snow fighting the entire season with Thorne and Slynt...he has no way to prove himself as a capable leader without it, and the books didn't provide any alternatives because the book throws Jon straight into fighting as soon as he gets back to Castle Black. Take CK away from Bran, and we have...nothing. Basically, nothing. Nothing until he gets to the CotF. You could put Coldhands back in there, but still, that doesn't nothing for Bran's character...it just makes him look that more incompetent because he needs supernatural help to get there. To me, Locke's mission to kill Bran was "filler"...he literally didn't have a point. His only purpose was to make Bran warg Hodor to kill him, and they didn't need Locke to make that happen- of course, that could be important in the future, but it wasn't here. But other than that, the rest of it was needed.

Edited by sj4iy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the hang-up...what's really 'filler'? I see people throw around the word to mean 'anything that wasn't in the books'...but I don't think that's a fair definition, because to me, filler is something that has no point and is there to take up time, whether it's from the books or not. CK is something that I found very necessary for Jon Snow and Bran Stark because we needed to see more of their characters' journeys, and we needed to see them grow into the roles their roles- Jon as a leader, and Bran as an incredibly powerful seer. It wasn't pointless, especially now that we have seen the Battle for the Wall and how the CK mission essentially made Jon into a leader that the men trusted when his time came to take control. Take away CK, and then you just have Jon Snow fighting the entire season with Thorne and Slynt...he has no way to prove himself as a capable leader without it, and the books didn't provide any alternatives because the book throws Jon straight into fighting as soon as he gets back to Castle Black. Take CK away from Bran, and we have...nothing. Basically, nothing. Nothing until he gets to the CotF. You could put Coldhands back in there, but still, that doesn't nothing for Bran's character...it just makes him look that more incompetent because he needs supernatural help to get there. To me, Locke's mission to kill Bran was "filler"...he literally didn't have a point. His only purpose was to make Bran warg Hodor to kill him, and they didn't need Locke to make that happen- of course, that could be important in the future, but it wasn't here. But other than that, the rest of it was needed.

Well yeah, I certainly agree that "anything that's not in the books" is a horrible definition of filler. I'm such a huge fan of the books that my obsession kind of scares me, but I am by no means a book purist when it comes to the TV show. Generally, I think the creators are doing a great job of putting out a good TV show, and rigid conformance to the book story would probably ruin that.

A lot of people would say that filler is any new material that doesn't advance the plot. I wouldn't even agree with that, so long as it's sufficiently entertaining. For example, I really liked the Grey Worm/Missandei stuff because it tangles with some really complicated emotional/physical/sexual/psychological material that really makes you think--although it goes nowhere (at least so far as is readily apparent) in terms of advancing the structure of the plot. I wouldn't even begin to call that "filler."

I would say that new material that isn't very entertaining and doesn't advance the plot very much is probably what qualifies as "filler." Obviously, we can disagree over whether the Craster's sub-plot meets that, but I call Craster's "filler" because (1) it wasn't very entertaining (in fact, a lot of people hated it as just another addition to the surfeit of sexual violence and human degradation), (2) it didn't add a tremendous amount to characterization, and (3) it didn't advance the plot.

I think they could've advanced the plot better by things like showing Mance in his camp plotting the destruction of the North, or having Jon and Sam talk about why it's so important to defend the wall against the wildlings. Those things could've set up this past episode a lot better than it actually got set up, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, I certainly agree that "anything that's not in the books" is a horrible definition of filler. I'm such a huge fan of the books that my obsession kind of scares me, but I am by no means a book purist when it comes to the TV show. Generally, I think the creators are doing a great job of putting out a good TV show, and rigid conformance to the book story would probably ruin that.

A lot of people would say that filler is any new material that doesn't advance the plot. I wouldn't even agree with that, so long as it's sufficiently entertaining. For example, I really liked the Grey Worm/Missandei stuff because it tangles with some really complicated emotional/physical/sexual/psychological material that really makes you think--although it goes nowhere (at least so far as is readily apparent) in terms of advancing the structure of the plot. I wouldn't even begin to call that "filler."

I would say that new material that isn't very entertaining and doesn't advance the plot very much is probably what qualifies as "filler." Obviously, we can disagree over whether the Craster's sub-plot meets that, but I call Craster's "filler" because (1) it wasn't very entertaining (in fact, a lot of people hated it as just another addition to the surfeit of sexual violence and human degradation), (2) it didn't add a tremendous amount to characterization, and (3) it didn't advance the plot.

I think they could've advanced the plot better by things like showing Mance in his camp plotting the destruction of the North, or having Jon and Sam talk about why it's so important to defend the wall against the wildlings. Those things could've set up this past episode a lot better than it actually got set up, IMO.

It's hard not to look at the overkill of sexual violence and human degradation that is the Craster's Keep subplot nonsense without noticing that even the gods awful rapists looked bored with the rape scenes. They looked more bored and fed up with it than I did.

I'm not sure that it was even needed for Bran warging Hodor, that's already happened in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I am a lurker here - I have read books 1-4, and started 5, but stopped. I am now reading book 4 over again, and will attempt to finish book 5 this time around :read:



I thouroughly enjoy reading everyone's thoughts here after the episodes air!



I have a question - I read a lot of the pages here, and haven't seen it mentioned, so forgive me if it has been!



Eli Roth tweeted about the lastest episode yesterday, and he mentioned a 'cameo'... WHO HAD A CAMEO?? (sorry if this is the wrong place for this question).


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, I certainly agree that "anything that's not in the books" is a horrible definition of filler. I'm such a huge fan of the books that my obsession kind of scares me, but I am by no means a book purist when it comes to the TV show. Generally, I think the creators are doing a great job of putting out a good TV show, and rigid conformance to the book story would probably ruin that.

A lot of people would say that filler is any new material that doesn't advance the plot. I wouldn't even agree with that, so long as it's sufficiently entertaining. For example, I really liked the Grey Worm/Missandei stuff because it tangles with some really complicated emotional/physical/sexual/psychological material that really makes you think--although it goes nowhere (at least so far as is readily apparent) in terms of advancing the structure of the plot. I wouldn't even begin to call that "filler."

I would say that new material that isn't very entertaining and doesn't advance the plot very much is probably what qualifies as "filler." Obviously, we can disagree over whether the Craster's sub-plot meets that, but I call Craster's "filler" because (1) it wasn't very entertaining (in fact, a lot of people hated it as just another addition to the surfeit of sexual violence and human degradation), (2) it didn't add a tremendous amount to characterization, and (3) it didn't advance the plot.

I think they could've advanced the plot better by things like showing Mance in his camp plotting the destruction of the North, or having Jon and Sam talk about why it's so important to defend the wall against the wildlings. Those things could've set up this past episode a lot better than it actually got set up, IMO.

...but that's what was happening there, even if the books didn't explicitly talk about it. I don't like rape, but it was completely obvious to me that those men would be using Craster's wives like that. And we never see it in the books because we basically don't get to see anything of the mutineers other than Coldhands' having killed them. I don't think anyone would have cared about the rape at if it hadn't aired so soon after the episode with Jaime and Cersei, tbh. If the show was going to show Craster's Keep, then it makes sense that they would show what the mutineers are doing to them. And I would have to disagree that everyone 'hated' it...Karl "The Fooking Legend" Tanner went up in popularity dramatically after that, and many people loved his death scene...especially since one of the abused women helped to kill him.

I've already said why it added to their characterization, so I completely disagree with you there. And there are MANY things in this show that don't advance the plot that isn't filler. All of the interaction between Tyrion and Cersei, for example - it's not technically necessary to see him talk with his sister (something that isn't in the books but was added to the show), but it was absolutely great characterization for both Tyrion and Cersei. I think most people claim 'filler' to be something they don't care for, more than something that really is filler and doesn't belong in the show. I would say that CK belonged in the show, just like Tyrion and Cersei's talks belonged in the show. I would say that some of Theon's torture scenes didn't belong in the show because dwelling on absolutely everything they did to him wasn't necessary in order to drive the point home.

Edited by sj4iy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmaoooo

Ah ha, I see we both made it back in good time for the fun and for the bitchin'!! :cheers:

This all does remind me, it is time to get serious on the fun and funny video hunts for the week. :cool4:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I am a lurker here - I have read books 1-4, and started 5, but stopped. I am now reading book 4 over again, and will attempt to finish book 5 this time around :read:

I thouroughly enjoy reading everyone's thoughts here after the episodes air!

I have a question - I read a lot of the pages here, and haven't seen it mentioned, so forgive me if it has been!

Eli Roth tweeted about the lastest episode yesterday, and he mentioned a 'cameo'... WHO HAD A CAMEO?? (sorry if this is the wrong place for this question).

Hi and Welcome and hope you enjoy the rest of the books and show. :cheers:

I can't say as I know if there was a cameo, I'm not one who follows casting and cameos religiously. Good luck finding out, I'm sure someone around here will know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like some of us are overestimating the dramatic power of Stannis' sneak attack. Yes, defeating the wildling army is a hugely important event for both Stannis and Westeros as a whole, but from a TV drama perspective, it's not terribly interesting. Consider:


1) Stannis is not under any threat. He may be outnumbered, but he has superior resources and the element of surprise.


2) His attack of the wildlings doesn't represent anything meaningful about him as a character. Sure, he's going through the trouble because he's decided that that's what kings do, but there's no personal element to it. He's not, say, choosing to save a former enemy, or reversing a character trait (e.g., Han Solo at the end of New Hope).


Compare that to the battle of Castle Black, where everyone on the NW thinks they're going to die, but still manage to succeed against all odds by believing in their cause and because certain characters manage to change and grow.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwwww, I found this on twitter yesterday, but it was posted again and I thought I would bring it. It illustrates why I'll miss Grenn, and even Pyp, even though.......he wasn't all the Pypish to me.



http://pic.twitter.com/AaGcLRt0Us


Edited by Lady Fevre Dream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like some of us are overestimating the dramatic power of Stannis' sneak attack. Yes, defeating the wildling army is a hugely important event for both Stannis and Westeros as a whole, but from a TV drama perspective, it's not terribly interesting. Consider:

1) Stannis is not under any threat. He may be outnumbered, but he has superior resources and the element of surprise.

2) His attack of the wildlings doesn't represent anything meaningful about him as a character. Sure, he's going through the trouble because he's decided that that's what kings do, but there's no personal element to it. He's not, say, choosing to save a former enemy, or reversing a character trait (e.g., Han Solo at the end of New Hope).

Compare that to the battle of Castle Black, where everyone on the NW thinks they're going to die, but still manage to succeed against all odds by believing in their cause and because certain characters manage to change and grow.

plus, it wasn't even Stannis or Castle Black's denouement in the book. I'm actually glad they seem to be saving the LC election for next season, and thus giving Stannis' save a higher place of honor - in the season finale. For 3 seasons, episode 9 has been THE episode. How obvious do they have to make it that they're doing something different this season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I am a lurker here - I have read books 1-4, and started 5, but stopped. I am now reading book 4 over again, and will attempt to finish book 5 this time around :read:

I thouroughly enjoy reading everyone's thoughts here after the episodes air!

I have a question - I read a lot of the pages here, and haven't seen it mentioned, so forgive me if it has been!

Eli Roth tweeted about the lastest episode yesterday, and he mentioned a 'cameo'... WHO HAD A CAMEO?? (sorry if this is the wrong place for this question).

Welcome! Enjoy your time on the boards. :)

:cheers:

Regarding your question, I'm at a loss ... if it were Eli Roth himself, he's most likely one of the guys covered in blood in the background. :P

Awwwww, I found this on twitter yesterday, but it was posted again and I thought I would bring it. It illustrates why I'll miss Grenn, and even Pyp, even though.......he wasn't all the Pypish to me.

http://pic.twitter.com/AaGcLRt0Us

:bawl:

Mind you, that grin on Edd's (Ben Crompton's) face just seems wrong somehow ... :eek:

Edited by Wolfox6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...