Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

teemo

[BOOK SPOILERS] Nitpick Without Repercussion

Recommended Posts

Nitpick: I agree about the token Ghost in this episode. Would (the book) Jon go beyond the wall without Ghost, without even a touch?

I think I mentioned previously that my Ghost nitpick was.......eat first victim later, kill more bad guys now, LOL I agree with you, too, though, a little silly to leave both the sword and Ghost behind. Then again, that just leads me to super nitpick about how the show has portrayed Jon and all his losing of Longclaw. Insert eyeroll here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O

M

G

!!

:lol:

Thanks for the link, Veltigar! I can't believe I missed the 'special 50th' Honest Trailers episode ... wtf! xD

Tsss, you're losing your grip Wolfox6 :P As punishment for missing their 50th installment, you have to watch 300 and take a shot everytime a male nipple is visible on screen :P

The homoerotic undertones at least have something do to with history. Probably about the only thing in the entire movie that does.

Unless you ask the director, of course.

"the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." Zack Snyder

:drunk:

:eek: Are you telling me that Persian Goat People aren't a real thing? :P I'm geniunely shocked :P

BHAHAHAHAHA Honesty and nipple ratios?? This does lead me to a question that has been on my mind, though (not questioning if a documentary is better than 300, an actual show and nitpick question, LOL) is the super duper nitpicking of battle scenes.........a guy thing?? Just curious, not trying to offend anyone.

Our above poster Wolfox6 mentioning her and the hubby's varying tastes, as well as 300, has helped lead me to this question?

Depends on what you are looking at really. Like, I would never question the battle scenes in Spartacus (the series that is) and 300. Those fight scenes are supposed to be over the top and unrealistic. They never claim they want to make a realistic version of the Spartacus revolt or the battle of Thermopylae. It's all about kickass ninja spins, double beheadings and over the top visuals.

GoT on the other hand, is different. This is the show that claims it's a serious drama, that it's gritty, realistic and unpredictable. So, they open themselves up to a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to their battle sequences. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't expect them to be 100% realistic (GRRM isn't either btw). Most viewers would probably be shocked if they did that, because actual sword fighting is nothing like what we see in Hollywood.

What I do want to get is a sense of danger from the fights and a sense of strategy from the battles. An observant poster in this very thread has pointed out all the flaws in the Thenn's attack on CB (namely the fact that they had no plan, e.g. they didn't try to take the elevator out or lay claim on the tunnel). And the flaws off the actual fights have been discussed at length as well.

How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief if Jon, Tormund, Styr, Ygritte and Alliser are all unstopable killing machines? Bosses, who can only lose when fighting against other bosses? What's even worse is the way they take out all their opponents. When Jon get's out of that lift the Wildlings attacks them and he kills them all with one slash of his sword. Not only is the one hit = one kill thing a terrible cliche, it's also unrealistic. They never seem to wound anybody, it's always slash and they're dead. We never see them really exchange blows with nameless opponents, it's always just "random enemy comes at them screaming" and Jon/Styr/... cut them down in one swoop.

Furthermore, they are also terribly inconsistent with their skills. Like Jon kills all those redshirts and he goes up against Styr and he get's his ass handed to him. They aren't even, they don't really exchange blows, Styr just whales on him. And then he throws Jon in that fire and walks over there to give him a good beat down... while he has this huge knife on his belt, ready to use. And then it get's even worse, because Styr goes down because of one smash with the hammer in the side. Now, that would hurt in real life... but 5 seconds ago Jon got his head smacked against an anvil without even breaking a sweat. Just takes me out of the moment.

In this entire episode there were only two good fight scenes. One involved supercook and his giant meat cleaver. That was realistic (the way he threw that boiling stew in the guys face) and funny (that giant meat cleaver is a marvel). The other was Alliser vs. Tormund. It's totally unrealistic of course, even without a shield Alliser should make short work of Tormund's little blade and then there's some terrible choreography with the stab around the pole and Tormund rolling away from him (if you do that in a real fight you'll be dead as a dodo). But when they actually engaged with each other, Tormunds acting was convincing enough to forget about all that and make it fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right that this fandom is really different from other fandoms, and I think there's a damn good reason for it: ASOIAF is way different from other stories that have fandoms. Fanaticism/obsession over it isn't inspired by cool stuff a la light sabers or time travels or secret castles. No, it's inspired by human characters and their tragic fates and themes those fates and those characters emphasize/deliver. All that brings a whole new level and nature of investment in the story. Of course there are no discussion between Gimli fans and Legolas fans about who's more or less moral between the two of them. What debate about Harry Potter or Star Wars or Star Trek can possibly resemble debates about the Red Wedding or Dany's war on slavery or Tyrion killing Shae and Tywin? I dare to say - none. Nothing against fans of those stories, but this is just a different kind of story. ASOIAF has much more in common with stories that are usually considered high literature. Faulkner is someone who Martin continually cites as an influence, and you can clearly see why. Gatsby is who Martin modeled Littlefinger on, and Littlefinger is who kinda sets everything in motion. Arya made a Faustian deal (and the best part is: she doesn't even know it). Lannisters are, in a way, as Corleones would've been if Vito was not a family-centered man but ego-maniac obsessed with personal power. And so on. You don't find characters like those and developments like those in typical genre stories, regardless of the genre. ASOIAF is not designed for geeks and nerds. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure there even is a geek/nerd culture outside USA and other English-speaking countries. Don't get me wrong, we have our own crazy obsessions, mainly about sports (The World Cup will be my religion for the coming month, even though my nation's team didn't even qualify for the tournament), but, as far as I know, there no fan conventions and similar events (certainly not on the US level). And yet, ASOIAF has a fanatical following throughout the world.

And it was like that even before the show. It wasn't nearly as big as it is today, but the popularity that came with the show is a two-edged sword. I usually speak about D&D, because they are the showrunners after all, but in essence this is way beyond them. The pop-culture just doesn't know what to do with ASOIAF. It had to do something, because pop-culture couldn't just ignore a story that is as popular as ASOIAF. Too much money in that potentially. But it just doesn't know what to deal with it. And you'll see what I'm talking about if you remember the original script for GoT's pilot episode that was leaked last year. That script was much more faithful to the source material than the actual pilot. The first version of the pilot was much more faithful. But something went wrong. Someone was dissatisfied with it. I can't possibly know if it was the focus group or some HBO executive, but the decision was made to change much of the pilot. The director was replaced, and the script was altered, and it was almost completely re-shot. Then and there one can find the root of this debate and every other debate of this kind. Before that, it looked like D&D were what you might call book-purists. After that, they started deviating from the source material whenever they wanted. Now, we'll probably never know what did the first pilot look like, but I'm positive that, if something was wrong with it, it wasn't because of the script. And honestly, I'm not even sure there was anything wrong with it. That wouldn't be the first time ever TV executives made a wrong decision. If HBO was afraid it'd loose money with a more faithful adaptation, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. And the popularity of the book series kinda testifies to that.

The irony is that ASOIAF is a product of the pop-culture, partially at least. In that aspect, it's a lot like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction: it belongs to the pop-culture and it elevates the pop-culture to a whole new level. Some works, very rare works, are a cross between pop-culture and classics. And, five books in, ASOIAF does look like that kind of story. I'd dare to say it's the best story of that kind. And it's a shame HBO didn't recognize that. The Wire and The Sopranos are usually credited as the best TV shows of all time. For a good reason, because both are truly masterpieces. But, all due respect for them, they have nothing on ASOIAF. Thematically, characterization-wise, plot-wise, ASOIAF is just more complex and rewarding. Thanks to Martin's skill in creating various cultures (which societies are always rooted in), ASOIAF even resonates with our world not a bit less than contemporary dramas like The Wire and The Sopranos do. The Wire is brilliant in depicting institutions in our society, but ASOIAF goes even further and shows how institutions work in any society and why is it so.

Debates about that kind of story are inevitably going to be passionate. And debates about an adaptation that failed to capture much of that richness - and replaced it with cliches and/or simplifications - are definitely going to be passionate. Of course, it doesn't mean the venom is welcomed. But what creates venom is a basic disrespect for different opinions. Not impressions, but opinions. And that disrespect is present in various forms. When someone tells me: "Changes are necessary because of a different medium", it's offensive, because it implies I don't understand TV is a separate medium than the books (which I really do, thank you very much), but also because it prevents any reasonable discussion, because "medium dictates changes" is a highly theoretical assumption that doesn't have to do anything with a very practical examples pointed at on these boards. Yeah, in theory, some changes may be justified because of the difference between a visual medium and a textual one. But until you bring up a particular change like that, you're only ruining a discussion if you keep repeating that "medium dictates changes". And that may be offensive, because I was perhaps looking forward to the discussion you just ruined. And, basically, by repeating a standard, theoretical excuse, that doesn't have any significance for a particular discussion, perhaps in effect you're showing it is you who don't understand the natures of different mediums.

Not to mention that the significant portion of complaints here deals exactly with he medium of television and with GoT as a separate entity. One man striking another against an anvil doesn't have to be ridiculous, especially if it's depicted by a short textual line and left for our imagination to picture the scene it in our heads. But the way it was actually filmed, it's all kinds of ridiculous. (New nitpick in that regard: why didn't Styr just continue striking Jon's head against the anvil?) The essence is lost here: television, like any other medium, is not a breathing entity that follows its own logic. TV is what they put on screen and what we watch. As with any other medium, it's about humans. Humans film it, and humans watch it. There are conventional wisdoms and guidelines created out of practice, but theorizing about "necessary changes" is disregarding the human aspect. And it's strange, to say the least, to find that notion delivered by readers of ASOIAF.

How does ASOIAF delve deeper into institutions than The Wire? I don't see that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think the show is massively over criticised.

I sit and watch, and yeah, when Sansa saved Littlefingner I was thinking "erm... As if Littlefinger hasn't got a plan" and "This Hound is too nice" etc

Loads of "this wasn't how it went down in the books..."

But I still enjoy the show massively.

It doesn't use the books as a screen play, but it's still, even now, pretty damn close to the source material IMO.

I 100% agree with the notion that a lot of the changes have no consequence for the characters involved. Like Arya/Tywin... No change for either character. Scenes night as well have not happened from a narrative point of view.

Tbf Jon learned to spit in people's faces at Crasters Keep (I enjoyed those scenes. Karl Fooking Tanner should be a POV in TWOW).

The show is overly focuses in Tyrion and Dany as well I think. Mainly Tyrion this season as well.

Littlefinger isn't as devious etc.

It's still very entertaining and a lot of the times, they do pull it off really well.

I love how it allows some of my mates who would never read the novels to experience the story... Even if it isn't 100% exact.

Karl Tanner is easily the best new character the show has come up with. He carried that filler arc by himself pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tsss, you're losing your grip Wolfox6 :P As punishment for missing their 50th installment, you have to watch 300 and take a shot everytime a male nipple is visible on screen :P

:eek: Are you telling me that Persian Goat People aren't a real thing? :P I'm geniunely shocked :P

Depends on what you are looking at really. Like, I would never question the battle scenes in Spartacus (the series that is) and 300. Those fight scenes are supposed to be over the top and unrealistic. They never claim they want to make a realistic version of the Spartacus revolt or the battle of Thermopylae. It's all about kickass ninja spins, double beheadings and over the top visuals.

GoT on the other hand, is different. This is the show that claims it's a serious drama, that it's gritty, realistic and unpredictable. So, they open themselves up to a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to their battle sequences. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't expect them to be 100% realistic (GRRM isn't either btw). Most viewers would probably be shocked if they did that, because actual sword fighting is nothing like what we see in Hollywood.

What I do want to get is a sense of danger from the fights and a sense of strategy from the battles. An observant poster in this very thread has pointed out all the flaws in the Thenn's attack on CB (namely the fact that they had no plan, e.g. they didn't try to take the elevator out or lay claim on the tunnel). And the flaws off the actual fights have been discussed at length as well.

How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief if Jon, Tormund, Styr, Ygritte and Alliser are all unstopable killing machines? Bosses, who can only lose when fighting against other bosses? What's even worse is the way they take out all their opponents. When Jon get's out of that lift the Wildlings attacks them and he kills them all with one slash of his sword. Not only is the one hit = one kill thing a terrible cliche, it's also unrealistic. They never seem to wound anybody, it's always slash and they're dead. We never see them really exchange blows with nameless opponents, it's always just "random enemy comes at them screaming" and Jon/Styr/... cut them down in one swoop.

Furthermore, they are also terribly inconsistent with their skills. Like Jon kills all those redshirts and he goes up against Styr and he get's his ass handed to him. They aren't even, they don't really exchange blows, Styr just whales on him. And then he throws Jon in that fire and walks over there to give him a good beat down... while he has this huge knife on his belt, ready to use. And then it get's even worse, because Styr goes down because of one smash with the hammer in the side. Now, that would hurt in real life... but 5 seconds ago Jon got his head smacked against an anvil without even breaking a sweat. Just takes me out of the moment.

In this entire episode there were only two good fight scenes. One involved supercook and his giant meat cleaver. That was realistic (the way he threw that boiling stew in the guys face) and funny (that giant meat cleaver is a marvel). The other was Alliser vs. Tormund. It's totally unrealistic of course, even without a shield Alliser should make short work of Tormund's little blade and then there's some terrible choreography with the stab around the pole and Tormund rolling away from him (if you do that in a real fight you'll be dead as a dodo). But when they actually engaged with each other, Tormunds acting was convincing enough to forget about all that and make it fun to watch.

There AREN'T really Persian Goat People? I'll be crying over that off in a corner soon, but still grateful that I've only seen bits of the movie 300 on cable. I have seen enough to know that lack of Goat doesn't just apply to Sapphires and GOT, LOL

I did just want to thank you for your answer. This question about battle analysis has been on my mind since episode 8 and the thread that was more specific to the Duel itself. The more I read it, the more I wondered if some of it was a 'guy thing' for want of a better phrase. I do agree that the show seems to be going more and more Hollywood with the fights and the big battles, too. Being interested in history and yes, the battles that go with them inspite of being a 'girl,' LOL, I do know that it's a messy, up close and in the face personal bit of bloody business face to face for those that are involved in it. It most likely wouldn't be something, real world version past and present, that Hollywood choreographers would be interested in.

This subject has been on my mind since that Duel thread, and I thank you for taking the time to answer me. I remember noticing even the analysis about cuts in the scenes, comparisons to Rob Roy (which, hit me with a wet noodle, I still haven't seen. As a Liam Neeson fan, I should be ashamed), etc. I just wondered if some of the interest in these type of scenes, both content and technical detail, was a 'guy thing.' I like guys, LOL, just curious and again, thank you for the answer.

PS........LOVED the cook and the boiling water and the cleaver. I do wonder if ole Three Finger Hobb was there in the mess, aka, kitchen. He has been mentioned. I guess I should be grateful he wasn't killed. After all, D&D have left The Wall quite understaffed, and it's already cost us a Pyp and Spectacular Grenn. That is STILL one of my big, big nitpicks. If around The Wall had been fleshed out better these past four seasons (seems like plenty of time to me) there might be men left besides Jon, Sam, Thorne, and Slynt. :bang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl Tanner is easily the best new character the show has come up with. He carried that filler arc by himself pretty much.

He was a hell of a lot of fun and made a lot of fans love him for his over the top behavior. Plus he had an awesome death, and taught Jon about fighting dirty. I liked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't enjoy wallowing in negativity either, hell......sometimes, it can be done for fun, for love of something, or just for the realization that nothing is perfect. Loved the story of you and hubs and 300. Can't say it's made me prefer it over a documentary, though, LOL

Oh, I enjoy watching docs and drama when at home, but my theatre interests are pretty simple. "Gah! Did you see that tiger in the trailer? MUST GO SEE MOVIE!" or "Look, look, look! A WOLF/DRAGON/DINOSAUR! RAWR!" or "GARY OLDMAN/KARL URBAN! MARK IT ON THE CALENDER!" See a pattern here? xD Hubs is much more discerning in his movie watching, to be honest. :D

Tsss, you're losing your grip Wolfox6 :P As punishment for missing their 50th installment, you have to watch 300 and take a shot everytime a male nipple is visible on screen :P

GoT on the other hand, is different. This is the show that claims it's a serious drama, that it's gritty, realistic and unpredictable. So, they open themselves up to a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to their battle sequences. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't expect them to be 100% realistic (GRRM isn't either btw). Most viewers would probably be shocked if they did that, because actual sword fighting is nothing like what we see in Hollywood.

Furthermore, they are also terribly inconsistent with their skills. Like Jon kills all those redshirts and he goes up against Styr and he get's his ass handed to him. They aren't even, they don't really exchange blows, Styr just whales on him. And then he throws Jon in that fire and walks over there to give him a good beat down... while he has this huge knife on his belt, ready to use. And then it get's even worse, because Styr goes down because of one smash with the hammer in the side. Now, that would hurt in real life... but 5 seconds ago Jon got his head smacked against an anvil without even breaking a sweat. Just takes me out of the moment.

In this entire episode there were only two good fight scenes. One involved supercook and his giant meat cleaver. That was realistic (the way he threw that boiling stew in the guys face) and funny (that giant meat cleaver is a marvel). The other was Alliser vs. Tormund. It's totally unrealistic of course, even without a shield Alliser should make short work of Tormund's little blade and then there's some terrible choreography with the stab around the pole and Tormund rolling away from him (if you do that in a real fight you'll be dead as a dodo). But when they actually engaged with each other, Tormunds acting was convincing enough to forget about all that and make it fun to watch.

100,000 brains cells just keeled over when I considered (for a fleeting moment) the amount of alcohol I'd have to buy were we to do a 'shot per nipple' rewatch of 300. I'm feeling rather light-headed right now .... I'm hoping I didn't frighten them to death with the mere thought. :(

As to the battle/duel discussion. I'm of two minds about the 'realism' necessary for me to be entertained. I've never fought in a war, or trained for one, so I can't judge on the reality of the experience. I was raised by a military family, who have generations of wartime vets, so I have heard the stories ... but the ones who refused to ever speak of their experience on the battlefields were the ones who impressed me the most. That maybe why I have no interest in watching a realistic battle. Over-the-top, action-packed, CGI battles though? No prob!

And simply because we are discussing a fantasy series here, I couldn't help but think of Morrowind when reading your words concerning Jon's skill. I started off the game getting slaughtered by caterpillar-worms and rats, and by the end of the game I was taking down Gods (3 of them, dammit! Woot!). Nothing realistic at all about those battles, but they were f'ing fun! Who's to say Jon won't be a God-killer by the end of the story?

But, then again, I'm a gal who spends most of her days making sure our cat and cockatiel don't kill each other. Those are the only realistic battles I do get to watch. :dunno:

I remember noticing even the analysis about cuts in the scenes, comparisons to Rob Roy (which, hit me with a wet noodle, I still haven't seen. As a Liam Neeson fan, I should be ashamed), etc. I just wondered if some of the interest in these type of scenes, both content and technical detail, was a 'guy thing.' I like guys, LOL, just curious and again, thank you for the answer.

PS........LOVED the cook and the boiling water and the cleaver. I do wonder if ole Three Finger Hobb was there in the mess, aka, kitchen. He has been mentioned. I guess I should be grateful he wasn't killed.

Rob Roy! I looked for a version of that movie for years wanting to see what the fuss was about ... hubs is a big fan of his, as well.

I didn't notice the cook and that cleaver until my second watch, and boy was I scared. That guy was terrifying! Either that or my Dark Souls nightmares came back to haunt me the moment I saw the goddamn size of that goddamn cleaver! :stillsick:

**edited for clarification now that 100,000 brains cells have been resuscitated and are back on duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does ASOIAF delve deeper into institutions than The Wire? I don't see that at all.

The Wire depicts, rather brilliantly, what’s wrong with the institutions of today: that they are constantly used for the benefits of a few, while interests of the public are almost completely disregarded, even though institutions are meant to serve the public first and foremost. That theme is the main one in the show and it’s analyzed through five seasons, with multitude of angles covered – but mostly, perhaps exclusively even, from the perspective of the so-called middle management. We never see who’s at the very top of the food chain. In ASOIAF, we do. Institutions, even those most powerful and therefore most distant, are just humans, even at the very top. There’s always some Tywin, or Aerys, or Drogo, or Doran, or whoever, pulling the strings. Their fears and frustrations and secrets are also depicted and calculated in. The closest thing we get in The Wire in that regard are The Greek and Avon and Marlo. Hypothetically, if they were somehow created by GRRM, we’d probably know their entire family trees, their childhood secrets, their sexual prerogatives, and so on.

Hope you realize I’m not criticizing The Wire. They chose their theme and explored it thoroughly. But, as David Simon said, in the universe of The Wire institutions are like gods in Greek tragedies: entities that are above influence. And for the middle management, which was the focus of the show, it is true. But for the main players it isn’t. And ASOIAF does bring their perspective, too. And we often see them in dramatic circumstances, when they’re facing tough choices, and where their weaknesses, as well as their strengths, are at full display.

Also, the perspective of the common people is somewhat in the back in The Wire. There are Sobotkas in season two, and there’s Cutty, and that’s it, as far as I can remember. Basically, the question why do we obey institutions in the first place if we all know how corrupted they are, is never asked. In ASOIAF it is. Not only asked theoretically (Varys’ riddle), but there are also practical examples of people accepting institutions for the first time in their lives (wildlings in ADWD, freed slaves from Slaver’s Bay), and we also have institutions that went through significant changes and are therefore forced to fight for legitimacy in the eyes of the public/their subjects (Robert’s Rebellion as a crucial event from the past that is frequently visited through various recollections, and each of the Five Kings in the present). And I’d say individuals like Barristan also belong in this category.

Thanks to its scope and scale, ASOIAF deals with various forms of institutions, some of which are missing from The Wire: family as the basic institution of any society (in The Wire, we get a closer look only at the Barksdales), state governments, religious authorities, military orders, even financial superpowers a la Iron Bank. There are some institutions present in The Wire that are missing from ASOIAF – education and the media – but I guess they wouldn’t fit well into a medieval-like world.

Because of all that, ASOIAF probably has a wider appeal. The Wire depicts very specific institutions in a very specific era: modern urban environments, as Herc says. Of course it resonates with me, because I live in a city. (One more testament to the brilliance of The Wire: I’m a journalist, and I met quite a few politicians and other public officers in my career – and they’re perfect images of Carceti and Rawls and Clay Davis and Valchek; not to mention the media themselves, which are depicted extremely faithfully.) But, people from small towns or villages or other not so urban areas don’t have to feel the same connection I do. And, from my experience, they rarely do. Not that they dislike the show. It’s written masterfully and easy to like, even if it doesn’t resonate with one’s life too much. But ASOIAF, similar to The Sopranos for example, deals with things like families, which practically everyone can relate to.

One more thing. In ASOIAF, we see some institutions being challenged to their very limits (NW most of all). Speaking from a country that had more than its fair share of political and social disturbances in my lifetime, I find that perspective brilliantly explored in ASOIAF.

Once more, I adore and greatly respect The Wire. I just love and respect ASOIAF even more, and its take on institutions is one of the reasons why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There AREN'T really Persian Goat People? I'll be crying over that off in a corner soon, but still grateful that I've only seen bits of the movie 300 on cable. I have seen enough to know that lack of Goat doesn't just apply to Sapphires and GOT, LOL

I would still recommend 300. It's a dumb movie, but a dumb awesome movie imo :) Don't let the lack of goat people stop you ;)

I did just want to thank you for your answer. This question about battle analysis has been on my mind since episode 8 and the thread that was more specific to the Duel itself. The more I read it, the more I wondered if some of it was a 'guy thing' for want of a better phrase. I do agree that the show seems to be going more and more Hollywood with the fights and the big battles, too. Being interested in history and yes, the battles that go with them inspite of being a 'girl,' LOL, I do know that it's a messy, up close and in the face personal bit of bloody business face to face for those that are involved in it. It most likely wouldn't be something, real world version past and present, that Hollywood choreographers would be interested in.

This subject has been on my mind since that Duel thread, and I thank you for taking the time to answer me. I remember noticing even the analysis about cuts in the scenes, comparisons to Rob Roy (which, hit me with a wet noodle, I still haven't seen. As a Liam Neeson fan, I should be ashamed), etc. I just wondered if some of the interest in these type of scenes, both content and technical detail, was a 'guy thing.' I like guys, LOL, just curious and again, thank you for the answer.

It probably is more of a guy thing, since most students of WMA and military history seem to be men. But I'm sure there are plenty of women who are interested in this. Just like plenty of men are interested in the clothes and hairstyles of the characters for instance.

And great that you bring up the editing in Oberyn vs. the Mountain. I was one of the people that complained about that. And we were right to, Ran did an analysis of the length of each shot and it was ridiculously short compared to what is usually shown in film. The thing that bothered me about that duel is that Wushu is of course complete ballony in a fight like this (Oberyn was just tiring himself out), but also that they didn't use Pedro. I didn't feel emotionally invested becasue the guy who was doing those spins didn't even look like Pedro (he was more slender and his hair much darker). Pedro did such a good job, with so little material to work with, and they refused to let him act in the scene. There were a lot of other things wrong with the fight (Mountain holding that sword in one hand), but those were two of my main gripes.

Oh, and as a Liam Neeson fan, you seriously have to sit down and watch Rob Roy. It's a great movie, much better than Braveheart (which came out in the same year). And the final duel scene is really a thing of beauty. It's phenomenally shot, choreographed, acted (Tim Roth is deliciously evil throughout) and it has been built-up throughout the entire movie. All things that sadly weren't true for Oberyn vs. Gregor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS........LOVED the cook and the boiling water and the cleaver. I do wonder if ole Three Finger Hobb was there in the mess, aka, kitchen. He has been mentioned. I guess I should be grateful he wasn't killed. After all, D&D have left The Wall quite understaffed, and it's already cost us a Pyp and Spectacular Grenn. That is STILL one of my big, big nitpicks. If around The Wall had been fleshed out better these past four seasons (seems like plenty of time to me) there might be men left besides Jon, Sam, Thorne, and Slynt. :bang:

I hope meat cleaver guy turns out to be Three Finger Hobb :D This could be one of the rare times when D&D made a small improvement, if they keep Stannis line ("everyone... even the cook") in the show it would be much more epic :D

True, there were like 43 confirmed dead NW members. And that's without counting the arrows Ygritte shoots that we don't see hitting someone. That's one of the setbacks of letting your heroes kill huge numbers of redshirts. Things just start to lose sense. If they made fightscenes a bit more realistic, they wouldn't need to resort to such ridiculously high kill counts.

And Slynt will be gone soon. And I dread what they'll do with Alliser. They had been doing such a good job with him, he was easily a better character than he was in the books (more relatable imo, certainly in season one). But now that they have killed Pyp and Grenn and gave Alliser a wound, I'm sure they'll make Thorne into Bowen Marsh. So stupid and cliche.

And it's not really hard to do better imo. I would have approached the season 3 storyline of the Wall like this:

They should have made use of Locke better. Instead of doing that stupid CK's plot and the inane Gilly in moles town, they should have had Locke take refuge at CB in fear of reprisals from Tywin (which made a lot more sense). Perhaps have him take his family (wife, a son to replace Olly) with him and installing them in Moles town.

Keep the early Jon-Locke scene in the courtyard. And keep Ygritte's attack on the other village (but postpone the introduction of the Thenns and cut the kid). Then, introduce a plotline where Jon pleeds to evacuate the villagers from other towns. He get's his volunteers and they ride out. They save Molestown and Locke get's newfound respect for Jon, eventhough he still hates nobles. At this point, Jon puts Ghost away because the villagers are affraid of him. Especially, Locke's son should be frightened (invent something about how the boy got bit by Ramsay's dogs once).

Introduce the Thenns and let them please not be superevil cannibals. In fact they should have emphasised the Thenns society. Let the Magnar be the Godlike figure he is in the books, a father to his people. Make the Thenn warriors old (like Styr only took the men of his generation with him, so that the young warriors could stay with their faimilies). Take time for a scene where Tormund and Styr make plans for battle (instead of that idiotic "sshhht" scene between Ygritte and Gilly) and then give Styr a speech in the Old Tongue. Something about how their families would have to die no more after today, and that they would be safe in the south. You know give them a heart ;-)

Then attack CB. Since the Thenns weren't there at Molestown, the attack is unexpected (because they though Tormunds band was to small to pose a threat). And we have a reason why the NW hadn't properly prepared. They get inside the, slaughter follows. Thorne goes downstairs, gives Jon the wall and takes Slynt with him (who disappears after that, until Sam finds him). When he steps out the lift, let him give his speech. The fight rekindles (have the cook scenes here) and eventually Alliser is killed by Tormund.

Then we have the Wildlings trying to break through the gate. Locke goes downstairs (armed with spears!!!) and he takes some men (including Grenn with him). The giant smashes through the gate (no ridiculous gate lifting) and he's accompanied by a couple of Wildlings (3-4 max) that survived the initial downpour of hot oil and arrows. Let Locke and company recite the NW vows (that was a good addition), while the giant charges forwards.

Meanwhile, Sam and Pyp are somewhere in the CB, trying to reach the lift. Pyp get's shot by Ygritte, but he doesn't die. Sam goes up and tells Jon what happens. Jon leaves the wall to Dolorous Edd (intro a funny Edd line). And he takes as many men as possible, because they are about to storm the barricade and take the tunnel.

In the lift, have Locke's son stand next to him. And then let Jon give him the old "you can only be brave when you're affraid line" (callback to Ned + shows how much Jon has grown and at the same time stayed the same). Jon hands Sam the key. They get out of the lift and Sam is immediately held back to help the wounded (you spend so much time reading, you ought to know a bit about patching them up). He hands the key to Locke's boy, Jon attacks.

Locke's boy hurries to get to the shed. Ygritte spots him and shoots at him, he shoots back. They exchange several arrows until he ducks and manages to release Ghost, who storms out. Ygritte's distracted (by the first clash between Styr and Jon) and the boy then picks up his bow and climbs on the roof. In the mean time Jon meets Styr. He and Ghost fight together and barely manage to overcome the Magnar (ideally, Jon would employ a dirty trick, like sending Ghost to attack a wounded man, to kill Styr).

The battle is running on it's last legs. Keep the scene where Jon shoots Tormund. Then Samwell comes and calls for Jon. They go behind the building and there they find Ygritte. Barely clinging to live, Jon kneels besides her. He sees the arrow (clearly recognizable as one of Locke's boy's arrows. Who would have a different color than the others since he made them himself) and they exchange last words. End episode nine.

Begin episode 10 with Sam and Jon going through the tunnel. They find Locke inside the tunnel, like they found Donal Nooye. All the others are death, except for maybe Grenn who's severly injured. Jon gives Longclaw to Sam, and hides a dagger. He sets out and then we have Stannis! Stannis! Stannis!

Next season. We have Slynt left to behead, Alliser and Locke are dead. Grenn's out of the picture and Edd and the boy provide back up to Jon. The role of Bowen Marsh is taken over by Pyp. He was always scared of the Wildlings and after his wound, he started to hate them even more. Add to that that it was Ygritte who shot him, and you get a personal motive for his attack on Jon.

EDIT: oh, and how I'd handle Bran's storyline in this case:

1) They get caught by the deserters.
2) Burn Gorman speech, with the addition that others tried to challenge him for leadership of the mutineers before, and that he killed them all (fights over wine and women). And you have an explanation for why there are just four or five of them.

3) Gorman interrogates them and makes his desire for Meera known.

4) Next episode: Gorman comes in their hut in the mids of night. Accompanying him is one of the scared daughter of Craster's. Gorman tries to rape Meera. Bran uses the Hodor force to kill him. Craster's daughter is frightened by Hodor, but Bran calms him down and they leave her be while they get out.

5) Bran frees Summer and they walk by the hut. They see a dead guard on the ground. Craster's women bar the exits and then they set fire to the place. You see Bran and company walking away and then it slowly fades to black with the sounds of screams and a roaring fire in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl Tanner is easily the best new character the show has come up with. He carried that filler arc by himself pretty much.

That's "Karl Fookin' Tanner, Legend of Fookin' Fleabottom!" to you, Mister :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope meat cleaver guy turns out to be Three Finger Hobb :D This could be one of the rare times when D&D made a small improvement, if they keep Stannis line ("everyone... even the cook") in the show it would be much more epic :D

5) Bran frees Summer and they walk by the hut. They see a dead guard on the ground. Craster's women bar the exits and then they set fire to the place. You see Bran and company walking away and then it slowly fades to black with the sounds of screams and a roaring fire in the background.

Oh, yeah! Stannis' nod to the cook would be fantastic to hear after that particular scene!

Craster's women trapping the deserters inside then burning the Keep ... I'd watch that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's "Karl Fookin' Tanner, Legend of Fookin' Fleabottom!" to you, Mister :P

Exactly. He is no longer a mere mortal, he is a fooking legend and must be accorded all titles as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. He is no longer a mere mortal, he is a fooking legend and must be accorded all titles as such.

Yes. Chuck Norris nor Randyl Tarly have anything on Karl Fookin' Tanner! I would have given a great deal to hear Karl Fookin' Tanner say something along the lines of "Winter's Fookin' Comin'!" or "Fook! It's cold up here! I think Winter's Fookin' Comin'!" That would have been even more awesome than Karl Fookin' Tanner already was :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Veltigar



I will answer better later, but I felt I should at least give you an acknowledgement for now, I appreciate the time and typing and effort you took to answer me.



As a female, I can assure that women are interested in such things. I can honestly say that watching a good break down of Hannibal's double envelopment at Cannae does things to me, sexually, LOL Then again, it could also be in relation to a certain documentary actor, my love of history and the battles that go with them, and well.......appreciation of the battle and Hannibal being described correctly. I actually do critique documentaries on such things, LOL So, yes, women can and do have interest in these type of things, I had just been curious if the combo of battle accuracy and technical film workings was more of a male thing.



Funny that you mention how Rob Roy came out around the time of Braveheart, I do believe that is why I didn't see the film at the time. I remember thinking that as much as I love Liam Neeson that I should probably wait til later to see that film......having done Scotland and history and BATTLE already that year. It is strange that now nothing ruins an old Mel Gibson movie like the fact of......trying to get past the fact it IS Mel Gibson in it. Ughhhhhhhhh.



I would answer better but the hubs is home today, and I'm trying to convince him that I don't spend all of my time on the computer, HA!! Having been a cold war warrior in the Navy for 8 years, he has visited Scotland a few times, and I am now selling him on how we have to watch Rob Roy. His interest in naval history had us rewatching Master and Commander this morning. I think I'm going to try and sell him on us viewing Rob Roy sometime this weekend. I love the hell out of shifty Tim Roth as much as towering, heroic, badass Liam Neeson. One of my favorite movies of his is Michael Collins, loved the hell out that movie. I always would seem to find MC on in the middle of the night, and YES, stay up til the wee hours of the morning watching it.



Appreciated all the answers, and will answer better later. Hubs and Rob Roy might both be calling to me soon. :cheers: :cool4:



ETA: I will definately give all the ideas you posted on The Wall and such a more thorough reading and much thought. I don't have to tell you that it's already better written than some of D&D's dreck, but I will tell you anyway.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are referring to checking with the "unsullied" maybe I missed the memo but are the "unsullied" supposed to be show lovers who are not fans of the books? Or maybe I miss interpreted the context in which it was used

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Chuck Norris nor Randyl Tarly have anything on Karl Fookin' Tanner! I would have given a great deal to hear Karl Fookin' Tanner say something along the lines of "Winter's Fookin' Comin'!" or "Fook! It's cold up here! I think Winter's Fookin' Comin'!" That would have been even more awesome than Karl Fookin' Tanner already was :P

LMAO, love your title XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are referring to checking with the "unsullied" maybe I missed the memo but are the "unsullied" supposed to be show lovers who are not fans of the books? Or maybe I miss interpreted the context in which it was used

The term 'Unsullied' on this site means 'unspoiled' or non-book-readers: people who haven't read the book for one reason or another. Some of my friends don't read unfinished stories, so they are waiting until the series of novels is done before reading. Others haven't the time, and one is dyslexic, making reading a story the length of ASoIaF intimidating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His interest in naval history had us rewatching Master and Commander this morning.

I know you're trying to sell him on Rob Roy, but I have to say that your husband has good tastes ;)

/love historical naval fiction

//master and commander series is wonderful

///Rob Roy is cool, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×