Jump to content
Sophia Wilson17@yahoo.ca

why was Ladystoneheart cut out

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

It's not just the Stark children though. Jaime's plot in AFFC is nice character development, but it doesn't move the plot at all. Sam's, Brienne's, and Tyrion's travelogues are all nice character moments, but don't really move the plot. Jon's time at the Wall was all about his struggling to rule, which was nice reading, but his plot didn't really advance until his final chapter. The Battle of the North and the Battle of Meereen were all build up, no pay off. Dorne has been a waste of time so far. We really didn't need the Queen maker plot at all, and tying them to Dany's plot was clumsily handled and only made Doran look foolish. The plot that advanced the most was Cersei's, but it was handle in such a way that the ending was totally predicable. 

I won't go into all of your points, it would take too much time. Just two. First, Jaime. Ever since he became POV, his entire arc is about character development, because his entire arc is about soul searching. In ASOS he also didn't "move the plot" in any way. In fact, he "moved the plot" in AFFC more than in ADWD, because he at least effectively ended the siege of Riverrun. So when you say that Jaime's chapters in AFFC didn't move the plot, you're telling a half-truth at best, because his arc has always been that way. That's why I don't understand people who like his ASOS chapters but criticize his AFFC chapters.

Second, Jon as LC made something that nobody before him would even think about: he let the wildlings through the Wall. And before that, he crucially helped Stannis by giving him vital information for his campaign. So I'm really not sure what do you mean when you say that only his last chapter advanced the plot.

In fact, I'm not really sure what do you mean by `plot`. If you think only of the struggle for the Iron Throne, well, that is the most common mistake among people who weren't lucky enough to read the books before they watched the show. ASOIAF is much more than just the fight for the Iron Throne. The plot is much more than that. So yes, in AFFC and ADWD not much happened in terms of who holds the Iron Throne, but that's not the same as plot. Not by a long shot. I don't know why would anybody expect such a simplistic plot in a story as complex as ASOIAF, but I guess that's the damage inflicted by D&D and their banal incompetence.

2 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Whether or not you like Quentyn is not the argument I'm making. If you like Quentyn as a character and you enjoyed reading his chapters, that's perfectly ok. I'm not saying you're wrong for liking his arc. It's just that I don't see the importance of his character or why it was necessary to give him four chapters. It didn't ruin the book for me, but I can't help but think that removing his chapters would have made room to include better pay offs for some of the other storylines. 

Well, whether or not you dislike Quentyn is not the argument I'm making. FYI, I don't particularly like Quentyn and I wasn't too invested in his arc, but I can't deny that his death can have serious ramifications for both Westeros and Essoss, and if it eventually does, then George made the right decision in delivering a closer look at the poor guy. But either way, my main point is that authors must have the right to add parts that make them happy for some reason, even though readers aren't sure what that reason might be. If those parts ruin the rest of the story, then it becomes the problem. But when they don't, and Quentyn's arc really didn't ruin anything, then there's really nothing wrong in having certain storylines that aren't totally 'necessary' for the overall plot. Literature isn't science and I strongly dislike when people confuse the two. Epic stories shouldn't be made only of super-important plot points. There must be a room for parts that aren't super-important. Once ASOIAF is completed, those four Quentyn chapters won't be a problem at all, and they shouldn't be seen as a problem even now.

2 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Yes, it does. Game of Thrones has once again received the most emmy nominations out of every other show. It has garnered critical acclaim and is the most watched show in HBO history. Right now, it's an unstoppable beast. A handful of internet posts isn't going to bring it down.

Then why are you having this discussion with me? If Emmy nominations and wins are the only thing that matters then why are you wasting your time on a handful of internet posts?

I don't get it, really. Is that your best argument? What your saying comes down to this: "A lot of other people like the show, so it must be good". Well guess what, it doesn't mean it's good. Emmy nominations and critical acclaim and viewing numbers don't mean anything, if you can't logically explain crucial developments. For example, please try to explain why Umber surrendered Rickon to Ramsay? What, he'd rather not bend the knee but give away his biggest asset, than bend the knee and keep Rickon just in case? And just to remember, that is the crucial point for the entire Northern storyline in season six, because Jon's actions are entirely determined by the fact that Ramsay has Rickon. And what about Davos and Mel? Please explain why would two of them risk their lives for a dead body of a lad they barely knew? And what about previous seasons, for example, please explain why did Stannis burn Shireen? Or why did Littlefinger gave Sansa to the Boltons? Or why did Sansa agree to marry Ramsay? Or why was Tyrion trusted with the ruling of Meereen?

What good are all those Emmys for, when none of the storylines make any sense at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StepStark said:

I won't go into all of your points, it would take too much time. Just two. First, Jaime. Ever since he became POV, his entire arc is about character development, because his entire arc is about soul searching. In ASOS he also didn't "move the plot" in any way. In fact, he "moved the plot" in AFFC more than in ADWD, because he at least effectively ended the siege of Riverrun. So when you say that Jaime's chapters in AFFC didn't move the plot, you're telling a half-truth at best, because his arc has always been that way. That's why I don't understand people who like his ASOS chapters but criticize his AFFC chapters.

Second, Jon as LC made something that nobody before him would even think about: he let the wildlings through the Wall. And before that, he crucially helped Stannis by giving him vital information for his campaign. So I'm really not sure what do you mean when you say that only his last chapter advanced the plot.

In fact, I'm not really sure what do you mean by `plot`. If you think only of the struggle for the Iron Throne, well, that is the most common mistake among people who weren't lucky enough to read the books before they watched the show. ASOIAF is much more than just the fight for the Iron Throne. The plot is much more than that. So yes, in AFFC and ADWD not much happened in terms of who holds the Iron Throne, but that's not the same as plot. Not by a long shot. I don't know why would anybody expect such a simplistic plot in a story as complex as ASOIAF, but I guess that's the damage inflicted by D&D and their banal incompetence.

The main plot of the story involves the struggle for the Iron Throne and, to a lesser extent, the threat of the White Walkers. In the first three books, every action the main characters take are in service to the main plot. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the latter two books. The latter two books deal more with themes and character development than it does with the actual plot. I'm not saying that themes and character development are necessarily a bad thing, but when they come at the expense of plot, it's bad storytelling.

How did Jaime ending the siege of Riverrun service the main plot? Riverrun wasn't a threat to the Iron Throne. In fact, Jaime didn't need to be there at all. 

I agree with some of your assessment on Jon. Him letting the wildlings through the Wall was a big moment. However, I can't agree with Jon helping Stannis in his Northern campaign for the simple truth that it doesn't lead anywhere. In the end of ADWD, the Boltons are still in power and Stannis is still struggling through the snow. Martin did the northern story a huge disservice by leaving out the climax.

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Well, whether or not you dislike Quentyn is not the argument I'm making. FYI, I don't particularly like Quentyn and I wasn't too invested in his arc, but I can't deny that his death can have serious ramifications for both Westeros and Essoss, and if it eventually does, then George made the right decision in delivering a closer look at the poor guy. But either way, my main point is that authors must have the right to add parts that make them happy for some reason, even though readers aren't sure what that reason might be. If those parts ruin the rest of the story, then it becomes the problem. But when they don't, and Quentyn's arc really didn't ruin anything, then there's really nothing wrong in having certain storylines that aren't totally 'necessary' for the overall plot. Literature isn't science and I strongly dislike when people confuse the two. Epic stories shouldn't be made only of super-important plot points. There must be a room for parts that aren't super-important. Once ASOIAF is completed, those four Quentyn chapters won't be a problem at all, and they shouldn't be seen as a problem even now.

 

You're kind of all over the place with your argument. I'm only arguing that Quentyn serves no purpose. I'm not arguing that people can't enjoy him. I'm not arguing that Martin didn't have the right to include him. I'm only arguing that the character is pointless. The only ramification his death can have is if it causes Doran to switch sides to Aegon, which, as I said, he had plenty of reason to do so anyway.

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Then why are you having this discussion with me? If Emmy nominations and wins are the only thing that matters then why are you wasting your time on a handful of internet posts?

I don't get it, really. Is that your best argument? What your saying comes down to this: "A lot of other people like the show, so it must be good". Well guess what, it doesn't mean it's good. Emmy nominations and critical acclaim and viewing numbers don't mean anything, if you can't logically explain crucial developments. For example, please try to explain why Umber surrendered Rickon to Ramsay? What, he'd rather not bend the knee but give away his biggest asset, than bend the knee and keep Rickon just in case? And just to remember, that is the crucial point for the entire Northern storyline in season six, because Jon's actions are entirely determined by the fact that Ramsay has Rickon. And what about Davos and Mel? Please explain why would two of them risk their lives for a dead body of a lad they barely knew? And what about previous seasons, for example, please explain why did Stannis burn Shireen? Or why did Littlefinger gave Sansa to the Boltons? Or why did Sansa agree to marry Ramsay? Or why was Tyrion trusted with the ruling of Meereen?

What good are all those Emmys for, when none of the storylines make any sense at all?

I think you're confused by the expression "stands on its own two feet." Quality is subjective, so no, emmy nominations and critical acclaim don't automatically makes it good. That all depends on the individual. I only meant that the show is secure in its position due to all the reasons I've provided and that I don't need to put down the books to raise up the show. The show's future is already secured. 

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

For example, please try to explain why Umber surrendered Rickon to Ramsay? What, he'd rather not bend the knee but give away his biggest asset, than bend the knee and keep Rickon just in case? And just to remember, that is the crucial point for the entire Northern storyline in season six, because Jon's actions are entirely determined by the fact that Ramsay has Rickon.

This was explained in the show. The Umbers were desperate because Jon Snow just let thousands of wildlings, their sworn enemies, through the Wall. The Boltons had the most powerful army and the Umbers needed their help to deal with the threat.

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

And what about Davos and Mel? Please explain why would two of them risk their lives for a dead body of a lad they barely knew?

Well, only Davos really risked his life for Jon. And it was in his character to do so. What had happened to Jon was an injustice that Davos couldn't tolerate. And they weren't protecting a dead body. They were all hiding from Thorne.

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

And what about previous seasons, for example, please explain why did Stannis burn Shireen? Or why did Littlefinger gave Sansa to the Boltons? Or why did Sansa agree to marry Ramsay? Or why was Tyrion trusted with the ruling of Meereen?

Again, all of these are explained in the show. Stannis burned Shireen because his army was stuck in a storm, thus making him vulnerable to guerrilla warfare tactics. Littlefinger gave Sansa to the Boltons to feign an alliance with them and to get Cersei's permission to marshall the Vale forces. Sansa agreed to marry Ramsay because Littlefinger played on her guilt and made her think she may actually be able to avenge her family. Tyron was left with the ruling of Mereen because he's the only one with the experience to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 12, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Think it makes perfect sense to give most of the LSH plot to Arya, fits perfectly with her character and gives her FM training a purpose.

Because Arya witnessed her firstborn son brutally murdered in cold blood before her eyes by her own bannerman?

Because Arya was herself murdered in violation of guest right at her father’s bannerman’s place, and her body desecrated afterwards?

Because Arya was resurrected three days after her death by a man carrying out her husband’s orders?

You’re right: it makes complete sense. Same is same!

Not.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 14, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Kelly Koehorst said:

She is not a zombie... why does everyone keep calling her that. Was Beric a zombie?

Sure, she isn't very talkative and she has a really bad hair day, but maybe there is more to her? There is so much anger that she hasn't really had the opportunity to show us what humanity is left.

You are of course correct.

The reason people keep mistakenly referring to LCS as a zombie is because they are mindlessly obsequious devotees of the trash zombie craze currently putrefying pop culture like some petri dish gone terribly wrong.  

It’s the same as in S6E7 when after the new sept is destroyed, SC meets up with TBWB and berates TOM calling LBD a zombie who won't stay dead.

Or when right before he’s hanged in S6E3, LAT makes the same accusation of ZFJ (Zombie Fake Jon).

Or in S6E6 when BS and MR are saved from the shambling wights by his uncle ZBS and his magically flaming morningstar, a light bringer in the dark when all lights go out.

When you see the world through zombie-colored glasses, everyone is a zombie. Just look at the would-be queen CL’s latest KG addition down in KL from S5E10. ZGC is most definitely a zombie, although that isn’t going to save SU from rape.

Remember in S6E2 when on the bridge he would plunge to his death from, the long-time king of those isles BG asked his brother EG why he was still so young? It should by now be obvious to all that it’s because his brother is really ZEG and has been since he was actually as young as he looks.

After S6E9, I sure hope that ZFJ remembers to burn 11’s body before he has to deal with a Z11-class emergency.

Game of Thrones:
All Zombies, All the Time!

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was basically just kidding around, trying to add some humor. Sometimes when you're dealing with text only (a forum) it is hard to read others and can come across as bickering. I meant no offense.

Edited by Travis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Travis said:

I was basically just kidding around, trying to add some humor. Sometimes when you're dealing with text only (a forum) it is hard to read others and can come across as bickering. I meant no offense.

That's ok. It's just that the conversation normally escalates much farther than that before other members get involved and tell both parties to chill. No offense taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

The main plot of the story involves the struggle for the Iron Throne and, to a lesser extent, the threat of the White Walkers. In the first three books, every action the main characters take are in service to the main plot. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the latter two books. The latter two books deal more with themes and character development than it does with the actual plot. I'm not saying that themes and character development are necessarily a bad thing, but when they come at the expense of plot, it's bad storytelling.

How did Jaime ending the siege of Riverrun service the main plot? Riverrun wasn't a threat to the Iron Throne. In fact, Jaime didn't need to be there at all. 

I agree with some of your assessment on Jon. Him letting the wildlings through the Wall was a big moment. However, I can't agree with Jon helping Stannis in his Northern campaign for the simple truth that it doesn't lead anywhere. In the end of ADWD, the Boltons are still in power and Stannis is still struggling through the snow. Martin did the northern story a huge disservice by leaving out the climax.

The struggle for the Iron Throne is of course important part of the story, but it isn't the main plot. In the show it is, as D&D foolishly keep repeating from the very start that their show is about POWER, but the books are way more complex and complicated. Arya's entire storyline has nothing to do with the Iron Throne, for example. Sansa often happens to be at the center of political machinations, but her story is also not about the Iron Throne. Jaime's storyline too, just like Jon, Sam and Bran. Brienne is therefore not an exception as some make her out to be. Her no-connection to Iron Throne is nothing new in ASOIAF.

AFFC was of course somewhat different than the previous three books, because it focused more on individuals and their personal issues, while large-scale events were somewhat in the background. But there's nothing objectively wrong with that. It's not 180, it was just a small shift authors often do in big narratives, and in this case it's dramatically logical, because the devastating war is ending and the new storm is approaching. And also, it's not that there aren't big events. Sparrows are arguably one of the most important developments in the entire story. They managed to remove Cersei from power, which nobody could do before them. Their ascent was in the background, but it was there.

ADWD is full of large scale events in Essoss and the North, so I don't see what's the problem there, unless again you only want things that are related to the struggle for the Iron Throne.

As for disservice, it's a big overstatement, not only because George said that it was publisher's decision to remove two battles from ADWD, but even more because it won't matter at all once TWOW is out. What is a disservice, and a huge one at that, is the way D&D "solved" it in the show. Stannis' downfall in the show is comically bad. From 20 good men to Shireen's death, everything was absurdly written and illogical to the point that not a single thing makes any sense whatsoever. It's quite telling that out of all the military campaigns in actual history not a single one ended in such a manner, not by a long shot. It was so ridiculous that I still have a hard time believing adults wrote something like that. Now that is a disservice to the story!

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

You're kind of all over the place with your argument. I'm only arguing that Quentyn serves no purpose. I'm not arguing that people can't enjoy him. I'm not arguing that Martin didn't have the right to include him. I'm only arguing that the character is pointless. The only ramification his death can have is if it causes Doran to switch sides to Aegon, which, as I said, he had plenty of reason to do so anyway.

 

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I think you're confused by the expression "stands on its own two feet." Quality is subjective, so no, emmy nominations and critical acclaim don't automatically makes it good. That all depends on the individual. I only meant that the show is secure in its position due to all the reasons I've provided and that I don't need to put down the books to raise up the show. The show's future is already secured. 

Come on now, that is not what we were talking about. I don't care about the future of this stupid show and I'd never argue about it. I assumed we were discussing the merit of the show and D&D's competence, and not how secured is the position of the show. I think you're just trying to cop-out here.

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

This was explained in the show. The Umbers were desperate because Jon Snow just let thousands of wildlings, their sworn enemies, through the Wall. The Boltons had the most powerful army and the Umbers needed their help to deal with the threat.

Ramsay says: Swear loyalty to me, or bend your knee, and you'll have my protection from the wildlings. Umber says: Fuck you, you are a cunt, just like your father was a cunt before you murdered him (and I know you're lying about his death), and I'm never going to bend the knee or anything because you Boltons ruined the very concept with your treacheries, but guess what, I'm going to give you something that values much more than what you asked - Rickon Stark!

Does that make sense to you???

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Well, only Davos really risked his life for Jon. And it was in his character to do so. What had happened to Jon was an injustice that Davos couldn't tolerate. And they weren't protecting a dead body. They were all hiding from Thorne.

Davos willing to die for an injustice that has nothing to do with him or his cause? How can that be in anybody's character? And how does Davos even know that it was injustice? And why is he hiding Jon's body from Thorne? If he wants to correct the injustice, why doesn't he get the hell out of there and warns the entire realm about the mutiny? Instead, he's protecting Jon's dead body with his life! How is that logical, please??? Who would act like that?

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Again, all of these are explained in the show.

Only if "explained" means "offered some unbelievable explanation that makes no sense in any level".

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Stannis burned Shireen because his army was stuck in a storm, thus making him vulnerable to guerrilla warfare tactics.

Who burns their daughter because they're stuck in the snow??? And on a walking distance of their target??? And what guerrilla tactics? Please find even one example in actual history in which an army's campaign was shattered because their supplies were destroyed by enemy's commandos! There is not even a shred of logic there!

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Littlefinger gave Sansa to the Boltons to feign an alliance with them and to get Cersei's permission to marshall the Vale forces.

But he told Roose that Cersei is weak and Roose believed him, which is why he accepted to marry his son to an enemy of the crown Sansa Stark. So is Cersei weak or not? If she is, as Roose agrees, then why would Littlefinger risk his most important asset (Sansa) in order to get the permission of a weak ruler? If she isn't, and Littlefinger does need her permission, then why is Roose marrying his son to the enemy of the crown? And please, go back and watch again this season's scene in Mole's Town between Sansa and Littlefinger and you'll see that the show actually knows that this entire plot didn't make any sense at all.

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Sansa agreed to marry Ramsay because Littlefinger played on her guilt and made her think she may actually be able to avenge her family.

What guilt? And why would she ever think she may avenge her family by marrying to Ramsay The Usurper Bolton? Who does that???

15 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Tyron was left with the ruling of Mereen because he's the only one with the experience to do so.

But why would anyone in Meereen care about Tyrion's experience from the opposite side of the world? Who appoints their rulers like that? In both reality and ASOIAF It's completely ridiculous! But not a bit less ridiculous than Dany's decision to appoint him as an adviser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StepStark said:

<>

What guilt? And why would she ever think she may avenge her family by marrying to Ramsay The Usurper Bolton? Who does that???

<>

All good stuff, StepStark. :cheers:

I especially want to laugh some more at: "Avenge your family by marrying into the family that killed yours and legitimising their theft of your family home and titles and by giving them a part-Stark heir in the future to consolidate their hold on that!"

Genius, really. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Quork said:

All good stuff, StepStark. :cheers:

I especially want to laugh some more at: "Avenge your family by marrying into the family that killed yours and legitimising their theft of your family home and titles and by giving them a part-Stark heir in the future to consolidate their hold on that!"

Genius, really. :rofl:

And to add to the insanity of the situation, she is so pissed at the Boltons but seems to have forgotten the Lannisters and half of what LF did to her even before he pimped her to the Boltons. To top that, as we last left it, that same smirking jerk is free to carry on conversations and is walking freely in and around Winterfell where "his" troops just proclaimed, Jon as the King of the North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this "stimulating"  discussion of the plot book vs, hbo aside, I'm amazed that some are searching diligently for "clues" that LSH may still appear.

Obviously Beric is still here - so there goes that vehicle.  And how much of her do you think is left after 2 years in the river?

Edited by Lord Krok
sp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, StepStark said:

The struggle for the Iron Throne is of course important part of the story, but it isn't the main plot. In the show it is, as D&D foolishly keep repeating from the very start that their show is about POWER, but the books are way more complex and complicated. Arya's entire storyline has nothing to do with the Iron Throne, for example. Sansa often happens to be at the center of political machinations, but her story is also not about the Iron Throne. Jaime's storyline too, just like Jon, Sam and Bran. Brienne is therefore not an exception as some make her out to be. Her no-connection to Iron Throne is nothing new in ASOIAF.

I disagree and believe that the struggle for the Iron Throne and the White Walkers are the two main plots of the story.  Can you explain what you believe to be the main plot then?

 

10 hours ago, StepStark said:

As for disservice, it's a big overstatement, not only because George said that it was publisher's decision to remove two battles from ADWD, but even more because it won't matter at all once TWOW is out. What is a disservice, and a huge one at that, is the way D&D "solved" it in the show. Stannis' downfall in the show is comically bad. From 20 good men to Shireen's death, everything was absurdly written and illogical to the point that not a single thing makes any sense whatsoever. It's quite telling that out of all the military campaigns in actual history not a single one ended in such a manner, not by a long shot. It was so ridiculous that I still have a hard time believing adults wrote something like that. Now that is a disservice to the story!

It absolutely does matter because ADWD doesn't have a proper climax and, therefore, doesn't have a proper ending. George is ultimately in charge of his own story. If he wanted to include the two big battles he could have. He just needed to trim the fat and make room for them. As for the show, I actually liked Stannis better as a character than his book counterpart. His constant struggle between family and duty was fascinating to watch, and Stephen Dillane quickly became one of my favorite actors. I'm just glad D&D gave Stannis a full arc in season 5, rather than split it up like Martin is doing in his book.

 

10 hours ago, StepStark said:

Come on now, that is not what we were talking about. I don't care about the future of this stupid show and I'd never argue about it. I assumed we were discussing the merit of the show and D&D's competence, and not how secured is the position of the show. I think you're just trying to cop-out here.

That was what I was talking about, so no, not a cop-out. You simply misunderstood what I was trying to say.

 

10 hours ago, StepStark said:

Ramsay says: Swear loyalty to me, or bend your knee, and you'll have my protection from the wildlings. Umber says: Fuck you, you are a cunt, just like your father was a cunt before you murdered him (and I know you're lying about his death), and I'm never going to bend the knee or anything because you Boltons ruined the very concept with your treacheries, but guess what, I'm going to give you something that values much more than what you asked - Rickon Stark!

The Umbers didn't come to the Boltons out of loyalty but because they needed their help. In exchange, the Umbers will support the Boltons claim to the North against the Starks. It was an exchange in which both sides benefit.

 

10 hours ago, StepStark said:

Davos willing to die for an injustice that has nothing to do with him or his cause? How can that be in anybody's character? And how does Davos even know that it was injustice? And why is he hiding Jon's body from Thorne? If he wants to correct the injustice, why doesn't he get the hell out of there and warns the entire realm about the mutiny? Instead, he's protecting Jon's dead body with his life! How is that logical, please??? Who would act like that?

Davos knew enough about Jon to know that he was an honorable man. Jon being stabbed by his own men in the middle of the night, his corpse being left to rot in the snow was enough for Davos to know that it was an injustice. He could have ran, but instead he came up with a smarter plan which worked.

 

11 hours ago, StepStark said:

Who burns their daughter because they're stuck in the snow??? And on a walking distance of their target??? And what guerrilla tactics? Please find even one example in actual history in which an army's campaign was shattered because their supplies were destroyed by enemy's commandos! There is not even a shred of logic there!

Stannis loved Shireen, but he had a duty to the rest of the world, or so he thought. Stannis believed himself to be the messiah who would lead the entire realm to victory against the White Walkers. In order to do that, he needed to survive this battle. The snow had trapped the entire army in enemy territory, the horses were dying, they were low on food and supplies. It was either burn his daughter for blood magic or watch as his army died, and his cause along with them. In his logic, if he died, the world would be doomed. "What's the life of a child to that of a kingdom?"

 

11 hours ago, StepStark said:

But he told Roose that Cersei is weak and Roose believed him, which is why he accepted to marry his son to an enemy of the crown Sansa Stark. So is Cersei weak or not? If she is, as Roose agrees, then why would Littlefinger risk his most important asset (Sansa) in order to get the permission of a weak ruler? If she isn't, and Littlefinger does need her permission, then why is Roose marrying his son to the enemy of the crown? And please, go back and watch again this season's scene in Mole's Town between Sansa and Littlefinger and you'll see that the show actually knows that this entire plot didn't make any sense at all.

The Lannisters are in a weaker position than they had been, but they are still a powerful family. He deceived Roose into believing Cersei is weaker than she actually is. Littlefinger wanted to hide his true intentions and rebel against the crown at the last possible moment. 

 

11 hours ago, StepStark said:

What guilt? And why would she ever think she may avenge her family by marrying to Ramsay The Usurper Bolton? Who does that???

It's called survivor's guilt. Littlefinger shamed Sansa by reminding her as her entire family was slaughtered, she was sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. In her shame, she agreed to a plan without thinking and without getting all the details. 

 

11 hours ago, StepStark said:

But why would anyone in Meereen care about Tyrion's experience from the opposite side of the world? Who appoints their rulers like that? In both reality and ASOIAF It's completely ridiculous! But not a bit less ridiculous than Dany's decision to appoint him as an adviser!

He wasn't the perfect option, but he was the only one available to rule Meereen. As for Dany making him her advisor, that was absolutely the right decision and showed Dany's growth. Despite hearing Viserys's account about the Lannisters, she realized from Barristan that Robert's Rebellion wasn't so black and white, and that the fault laid with all sides, including her own. She listened to Tyrion's words and concluded that he would be a powerful ally to have at her side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dragon in the North

It's no use.  

The disconnect here is that people who nitpik the show have no interest in it being a good show - they only want it to be a direct and exact duplication of the book.  There is, in their minds, no way for a plot to be convincing unless GRRM came up with it himself.  And even then if presented not like in their heads it's a "hack job".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

@Dragon in the North

It's no use.  

The disconnect here is that people who nitpik the show have no interest in it being a good show - they only want it to be a direct and exact duplication of the book.  There is, in their minds, no way for a plot to be convincing unless GRRM came up with it himself.  And even then if presented not like in their heads it's a "hack job".

Agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

It absolutely does matter because ADWD doesn't have a proper climax and, therefore, doesn't have a proper ending.

As a standalone novel, ADWD would obviously benefit from a battle or two. But once the entire series is completed, that issue could be much less important than it is now.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

George is ultimately in charge of his own story. If he wanted to include the two big battles he could have.

This, I agree with. Pity D&D aren't always held to the same standard.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

He just needed to trim the fat and make room for them.

What fat, please? I hear about this "fat" a lot, but usually it turns out that people just repeat what others said without thinking about it. For example, some people keep saying that Dany's ADWD chapters are repetitive, but once you ask them to point to at least two chapters that are repetitive, they can't. Same thing with this "fat" some people talk about. You know, just because something can be condensed, it doesn't mean it should be condensed. In fact, everything can be condensed, every work of fiction can be edited down, but most of them would loose something in the process. I'm pretty sure that ADWD would also loose something. If you'd cut out Quentyn's chapters just to include one or two battles that will otherwise be included in TWOW anyway, then it's a poor trade. The same goes for some of Tyrion's chapters, because, even though I'm not particularly fascinated with each and every detail in his ADWD arc, they all reflect his specific state of mind at the moment, and his state of mind is the main point of his ADWD arc.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

As for the show, I actually liked Stannis better as a character than his book counterpart.

I don't know how is this even possible.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

His constant struggle between family and duty was fascinating to watch, and Stephen Dillane quickly became one of my favorite actors. I'm just glad D&D gave Stannis a full arc in season 5, rather than split it up like Martin is doing in his book.

What constant struggle? Prior to blizzard and the burning of Shireen, there was absolutely no struggle of that kind! Selyse even approved his sex with Mel in that ridiculous scene with dead babies!

That's what I'm talking about: you're just seeing things that aren't there. D&D make up some foolish excuses in those Inside the episode videos, and show lovers take their words as gospels, even when their words clearly contradict the show itself. In the show there was no constant struggle for Stannis between family and duty, no matter what D&D fantasize in their explanations. Stannis in the show was turned into a creature obsessed with personal ambition, which was the most bankrupt reading of the character.

Funny that you're avoiding the ridiculous way in which his campaign ended, but yeah, no military campaign in real history ended that way, and you think that that's a "full arc"???

As for Dillane, he openly admitted that he didn't understand nor care about the character he played. If you think that actors can deliver good performances without understanding and caring about their characters, then your definition of good acting is a rather strange one. And I don't blame Dillane of course, because in many other roles he proved to be a very capable actor, but the script he had to work with in GOT was simply disastrous.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

The Umbers didn't come to the Boltons out of loyalty but because they needed their help. In exchange, the Umbers will support the Boltons claim to the North against the Starks. It was an exchange in which both sides benefit.

Again you're ignoring the parts that aren't convenient for you. Ramsay did offer them his help, only if they bend the knee to him, just like Karstark did. And then Umber refuses, but gives him Rickon. Why would anyone give Rickon instead of just bend the knee??? Does that pass for realism these days?

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Davos knew enough about Jon to know that he was an honorable man. Jon being stabbed by his own men in the middle of the night, his corpse being left to rot in the snow was enough for Davos to know that it was an injustice. He could have ran, but instead he came up with a smarter plan which worked.

What smarter plan? Preserving the dead body is a smarter plan? Really? Can you please just spell Davos' plan for me, because I fail to see anything that isn't ridiculous in it?

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Stannis loved Shireen, but he had a duty to the rest of the world, or so he thought. Stannis believed himself to be the messiah who would lead the entire realm to victory against the White Walkers. In order to do that, he needed to survive this battle. The snow had trapped the entire army in enemy territory, the horses were dying, they were low on food and supplies. It was either burn his daughter for blood magic or watch as his army died, and his cause along with them. In his logic, if he died, the world would be doomed. "What's the life of a child to that of a kingdom?"

And that's your better version than in the books??? Stannis in the books knows he isn't the messiah, and knows the meaning of the vision of a king with the crown in flames. When he sacrifices Shireen in the books, it's not going to be because of some blizzard, or because of his military campaign. Not to mention that military campaigns should never end like his ended in the show. They don't end like that in reality, and they shouldn't end like that in realistic stories. And not to mention that commanders just don't bring their young daughters in risky military campaigns.

I mean, just tell me what is it about Stannis in the show that you like so much that you prefer him to the books' version? In the show he's a fool eaten by his own ambition, but he's also a complete moron, because only a complete moron would bring his wife and daughter on a military campaign. How can that be even comparable to the character from the books, who is one of the most complex characters in the entire story?

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

The Lannisters are in a weaker position than they had been, but they are still a powerful family. He deceived Roose into believing Cersei is weaker than she actually is. Littlefinger wanted to hide his true intentions and rebel against the crown at the last possible moment. 

So Roose is a moron too? If Littlefinger can deceive him like that, then he has to be a really stupid individual. You see the pattern? For the show to make at least some sense, characters just have to keep acting like complete morons. That's bad storytelling, period.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

It's called survivor's guilt. Littlefinger shamed Sansa by reminding her as her entire family was slaughtered, she was sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. In her shame, she agreed to a plan without thinking and without getting all the details. 

And out of this survivors guilt she decides to marry Ramsay and legitimize Boltons' claim to Winterfell? Please, just spell her plan. What was going through her had when she was agreeing to marry Ramsay?

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

He wasn't the perfect option, but he was the only one available to rule Meereen. As for Dany making him her advisor, that was absolutely the right decision and showed Dany's growth. Despite hearing Viserys's account about the Lannisters, she realized from Barristan that Robert's Rebellion wasn't so black and white, and that the fault laid with all sides, including her own. She listened to Tyrion's words and concluded that he would be a powerful ally to have at her side.

And that's another problem with the show. For all the treachery and scheming and secret plots, when the show needs it, characters start believing whatever they're told on face value. I mean, she sends Jorah away, but she trusts Tyrion? Where is the logic in that? Not to mention that Tyrion's rule over Meereen was turned into a disaster as soon as the plot needed it. Even Tyrion becomes moron once D&D need him to be moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StepStark said:

As a standalone novel, ADWD would obviously benefit from a battle or two. But once the entire series is completed, that issue could be much less important than it is now.

Each book still needs to have a dramatic structure: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

This, I agree with. Pity D&D aren't always held to the same standard.

I can't speak for everyone, but I hold D&D accountable for everything that happens in the show, the good and the bad.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

What fat, please? I hear about this "fat" a lot, but usually it turns out that people just repeat what others said without thinking about it. For example, some people keep saying that Dany's ADWD chapters are repetitive, but once you ask them to point to at least two chapters that are repetitive, they can't. Same thing with this "fat" some people talk about. You know, just because something can be condensed, it doesn't mean it should be condensed. In fact, everything can be condensed, every work of fiction can be edited down, but most of them would loose something in the process. I'm pretty sure that ADWD would also loose something. If you'd cut out Quentyn's chapters just to include one or two battles that will otherwise be included in TWOW anyway, then it's a poor trade. The same goes for some of Tyrion's chapters, because, even though I'm not particularly fascinated with each and every detail in his ADWD arc, they all reflect his specific state of mind at the moment, and his state of mind is the main point of his ADWD arc.

Trading Quentyn's chapters for a proper climax in the story is not a poor trade at all. Quentyn adds nothing to the story, and if Martin really wants to use Quentyn as a catalyst for the Martells joining Aegon instead, which I really don't think is needed, he could have Quentyn show up in one of Barristan's chapters and show his death from Barristan's point of view. And Tyrion's travelogue deals a lot with character development, which is fine in moderation, but this is another case of sacrificing story for character development. By cutting down on some Tyrion chapters, as well as Dany's and Jon's, he may have been able to include his climaxes that way as well. He had plenty of options to choose from.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

I don't know how is this even possible.

I'm not surprised. You seem incapable in accepting other people have different opinions from

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

What constant struggle? Prior to blizzard and the burning of Shireen, there was absolutely no struggle of that kind! Selyse even approved his sex with Mel in that ridiculous scene with dead babies!

That's what I'm talking about: you're just seeing things that aren't there. D&D make up some foolish excuses in those Inside the episode videos, and show lovers take their words as gospels, even when their words clearly contradict the show itself. In the show there was no constant struggle for Stannis between family and duty, no matter what D&D fantasize in their explanations. Stannis in the show was turned into a creature obsessed with personal ambition, which was the most bankrupt reading of the character.

Funny that you're avoiding the ridiculous way in which his campaign ended, but yeah, no military campaign in real history ended that way, and you think that that's a "full arc"???

As for Dillane, he openly admitted that he didn't understand nor care about the character he played. If you think that actors can deliver good performances without understanding and caring about their characters, then your definition of good acting is a rather strange one. And I don't blame Dillane of course, because in many other roles he proved to be a very capable actor, but the script he had to work with in GOT was simply disastrous.

Of course there was a struggle. Stannis struggled in killing Renly, he struggled with burning Gendry, and he struggled with burning Shireen. 

I never watch the inside the episodes, and I came to my own conclusion. From my understanding, Stannis was not obsessed with personal ambition, unlike Book Stannis. In the books, it's unclear what Stannis's true objective is. Is he marching on Winterfell to further his resistance against the White Walkers, or is he overcoming another hurdle on his way to the Iron Throne? Imo, Martin doesn't explain Stannis's motivations very well. In the show, however, his motivation is made clear when Melisandre states, "Only you could lead the living against the dead." Show Stannis's main objective was the White Walkers, but before he could deal with them, he needed to take the Iron Throne and unite the realm. 

All I can say is that Dillane did a brilliant job as Stannis, despite not understanding the character. I'm grateful that he was a part of the show.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Again you're ignoring the parts that aren't convenient for you. Ramsay did offer them his help, only if they bend the knee to him, just like Karstark did. And then Umber refuses, but gives him Rickon. Why would anyone give Rickon instead of just bend the knee??? Does that pass for realism these days?

I'm not ignoring anything. Smalljon isn't loyal to the Boltons, but he isn't loyal to the Starks either. Giving up Rickon was a smaller price to pay than bending the knee. 

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

What smarter plan? Preserving the dead body is a smarter plan? Really? Can you please just spell Davos' plan for me, because I fail to see anything that isn't ridiculous in it?

No, getting the wildlings to help.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

 Stannis in the books knows he isn't the messiah, and knows the meaning of the vision of a king with the crown in flames. 

And that, to me, makes him boring.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

When he sacrifices Shireen in the books, it's not going to be because of some blizzard, or because of his military campaign. Not to mention that military campaigns should never end like his ended in the show. They don't end like that in reality, and they shouldn't end like that in realistic stories.

Maybe, but you don't know that for sure.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

I mean, just tell me what is it about Stannis in the show that you like so much that you prefer him to the books' version? In the show he's a fool eaten by his own ambition, but he's also a complete moron, because only a complete moron would bring his wife and daughter on a military campaign.

I believe I'v answered this above.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

How can that be even comparable to the character from the books, who is one of the most complex characters in the entire story?

That's highly debatable. 

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

So Roose is a moron too? If Littlefinger can deceive him like that, then he has to be a really stupid individual. You see the pattern? For the show to make at least some sense, characters just have to keep acting like complete morons. That's bad storytelling, period.

Roose is not a moron, he's simply being manipulated by a master manipulator. I mean, Littlefinger even manipulated Tywin into thinking Sansa and Tyrion poisoned Joffrey, when he was behind it. Would that make Tywin a moron?

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

And out of this survivors guilt she decides to marry Ramsay and legitimize Boltons' claim to Winterfell? Please, just spell her plan. What was going through her had when she was agreeing to marry Ramsay?

Again, her guilt clouded her judgment and made it so she couldn't think very clearly. As I said, Littlefinger is a master manipulator. He knows how to manipulate people into making stupid decisions.

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

And that's another problem with the show. For all the treachery and scheming and secret plots, when the show needs it, characters start believing whatever they're told on face value. I mean, she sends Jorah away, but she trusts Tyrion? Where is the logic in that? Not to mention that Tyrion's rule over Meereen was turned into a disaster as soon as the plot needed it. Even Tyrion becomes moron once D&D need him to be moron.

Jorah betrayed Dany's trust and leaked information that almost got her and her unborn child killed. Tyrion hadn't done any harm to Dany whatsoever. His only crime was being a Lannister. If Tyrion was held responsible for the actions of his father, Dany would also have to be held responsible for the actions of her father. 

I actually liked that D&D had Tyrion make a mistake. Ruling is hard and nobody is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

@Dragon in the North

It's no use.  

The disconnect here is that people who nitpik the show have no interest in it being a good show - they only want it to be a direct and exact duplication of the book.  There is, in their minds, no way for a plot to be convincing unless GRRM came up with it himself.  And even then if presented not like in their heads it's a "hack job".

Yeah, if I watched my shows with the same mentality as some of the members of this forum, I would have gotten rid of my television ages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I'm not surprised. You seem incapable in accepting other people have different opinions from

Feeling frustrated? I was just wandering when are you going to start with personal attacks. You show lovers never disappoint in that regard. And also, it's telling you couldn't even finish that sentence.

FYI, I don't have a problem with differing opinions, I just don't see what qualifies as an opinion in your posts. When you say that giving up Rickon is a smaller price than bending the knee (not to mention that in the scene itself Umber just explained how meaningless bending the knee actually became), it's impossible to accept that as an opinion. That's like saying that 10 is bigger than 100. Just because you think it is, it doesn't make it an opinion.

Or what about Stannis! D&D themselves describe him as a power-obsessed ambition-driven man, and the actor who played him says he never understood nor cared for the character, and yet here you come and claim he was not only well written and well acted, but also better than in the books. You're bringing that "death of an author" idea to a whole new level, because you seem to know more about Show Stannis than even D&D, than even Dillane, than even what was actually shown on the screen. I don't know what that is, but it's certainly not an opinion. That's like saying that Mona Lisa is actually a dragon. Just because you see it that way, it doesn't make it an opinion.

And you're seeing things that aren't there. For example, you're saying that Littlefinger manipulated Tywin into thinking Tyrion and Sansa poisoned Joffrey, but actually Littlefinger did nothing like that. Cersei jumped to accuse Tyrion right away, Littlefinger had nothing to do with that, either in books or the show.

Your only answer to some of the questions is that Littlefinger makes people make stupid mistakes because he's a master manipulator. And then you're wandering why people think GOT is a stupid show?

I asked you what was Davos planning to do with Jon's body, and you replied that his plan was to get the wildlings to help. What kind of an answer is that? It certainly isn't the answer to my question.

As I already said, why do you even bother? Why would anyone post things like that? Why waste time on it? Okay, you believe Mona Lisa is a dragon, and that 10 is bigger than 100, good for you, but do you really expect anyone to accept that as an opinion, let alone a legitimate one?

Just to compare, when we were discussing ADWD, if I were to act like you, I'd argue that the book has climaxes in Dany riding Drogon and Jon getting stabbed. But that wouldn't be an opinion worthy of posting. It wouldn't be a legitimate opinion. And yet, the way you're defending the show is even way lower than that, sorry to say.

Let me just ask you this: do you have any complaint against D&D's writing? Any at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×