Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

[Book Spoilers] EP507 Discussion

Recommended Posts

:cheers:

Ugly Little Girl, on 25 May 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:snapback.png

The best part of these episode discussion threads is all the people with absolute knowledge of what's to come in the unpublished books who can therefore whine with confidence about how D&Ds plot lines don't make sense.

:cheers:

To be fair, for the most part people are complaining about the plotlines not making sense in the context of what ALREADY happened on the show. Comparing them to the plotlines of ALREADY published books that for the most part make way more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "purpose" for having Gilly leave with Sam was to smuggle Mance Rayder's baby out of harm's way, but that's neither here nor there.

No, they haven't, but that's neither here nor there.

There's nothing special about rape that translates better on the screen than the novel's actual plot, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't care how faithful this episode was or was not to the source material. That ship has long since sailed. What I do give a hoot about is how D&D couldn't go one episode without gratuitously having another of the show's female characters sexually assaulted. I'll say it a third time. There are plenty of non-rapey ways to make the case for Gilly and her baby being evacuated from Castle Black, an all-male military fortification hundreds of leagues from civilization preparing to stop the biggest threat to the Watch in 8,000 years, and winter is coming. So no, the assault was not in any way necessary for the plot, nor did D&D include it in order to be faithful to the source material. It was just a narrative shortcut to finally get Sam and Gilly in bed together. Game of Thrones is hardly the first show to do this. I like to call it the

.
if we're going the ambiguous route, then there are plenty of ways Jon could have gotten mances baby out of castle black, the reason he sent gilly was because it killed two birds with one stone.

I still am asking what specific scenes have d&d added that were not in the books. You keep making it sound like these are in every episode but conveniently don't mention them or the fact that many of them happen in the books as well.

Of course the scene was a shortcut, I mean they are condensing 2 entire books into ten hours of television here. Every scene is a shortcut- they need to have scenes that serve multiple purposes. Can you please explain another option for a 3 minute scene that accomplishes:

- demonstrating gilly is not safe at the wall

- a growing sect the NW brothers are not trustworthy (sets up Jon's betrayal)

- reminding us ghost is still at the wall

- reinforcement of sam's bravery/protectiveness of gilly.

Because the 3 minute scene d&d came up with accomplishes these four things which all likely play a role in the narrative to come.

I really feel like you are drawing an imaginary line here and making a mountain out of a molehill, but at the same time I can tell we are too far apart to find agreement, so I will just say I appreciate your passion and agree to disagree :)

Edited by dndmn422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume that Drogon will be in the Pit.

An assumption, not a fact.

But tell me, if neither Drogon, nor Mel are going to burn down Stannis camp, then who is?

And with what?

With fire maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume that Drogon will be in the Pit.

An assumption, not a fact.

But tell me, if neither Drogon, nor Mel are going to burn down Stannis camp, then who is?

And with what?

if drogon is not at the pit then I would argue it's quite possibly the biggest and most egregious deviation d&d will have made to date.

There is a battle about to occur between stannis and the boltons, stannis is camped in freezing temperatures. Do you not think there is fire in his camp or the boltons?

If I trip and fall tomorrow, my first reaction is not to blame a banana peel that I know to be on the other side of the world. But if your prediction is correct it will certainly be entertaining to watch, I will give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we're going the ambiguous route, then there are plenty of ways Jon could have gotten mances baby out of castle black, the reason he sent gilly was because it killed two birds with one stone.

I still am asking what specific scenes have d&d added that were not in the books. You keep making it sound like these are in every episode but conveniently don't mention them or the fact that many of them happen in the books as well.

Of course the scene was a shortcut, I mean they are condensing 2 entire books into ten hours of television here. Every scene is a shortcut- they need to have scenes that serve multiple purposes. Can you please explain another option for a 3 minute scene that accomplishes:

- demonstrating gilly is not safe at the wall

- a growing sect the NW brothers are not trustworthy (sets up Jon's betrayal)

- reminding us ghost is still at the wall

- reinforcement of sam's bravery/protectiveness of gilly.

Because the 3 minute scene d&d came up with accomplishes these four things which all likely play a role in the narrative to come.

I really feel like you are drawing an imaginary line here and making a mountain out of a molehill, but at the same time I can tell we are too far apart to find agreement, so I will just say I appreciate your passion and agree to disagree :)

Have there be a fight/dispute that doesn't involve attempted rape.

Wow, that was pretty easily actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because every other female in the show is either a victim or a violent bitch. There is no layers.

That is simply your characterization. There are plenty of victims in ASOIAF, both male and female. It seems to me that you are claiming that every woman that is not a victim is a violent bitch. I do not see violent bitches here. I see strong women in a world where physical strength still reigns supreme, so they have to be able to physically show strength in order to get ahead. If they choose to forgo the traditional wife and mother roles, they have no other choices in order to get ahead. It's not like they can go to college and then forge their way into business or professional roles. They have very limited choices. They can use their physical beauty and connive their way to the top and be called a whore, or they can be strong and fight and be labeled a violent bitch. Why is it perfectly acceptable for a man to be strong and fight their way to the top, but a woman is a violent bitch if she reaches for more? What other option is there for a woman? Do you expect her to serve tea and lemoncakes and think that a man is going to say, "oh honey, you did such a good job with those lemoncakes and tea, come over here and help me plan my military attack or run my kingdom."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts while watching:



- The choices made in intercutting among locations this season have been, by and large, terrible. The cuts are made arbitrarily, too frequently, to no great dramatic effect. But this episode, despite cutting back and forth from one dark, murky location to another, improved somewhat in this regard. An early cutaway using the candle element was quite good.



- I had absolutely no objections to Sansa's rape last episode, because it (roughly) corresponded to that storyline's book equivalent, and more importantly, I expect it to have real bearing on Sansa's and Theon's stories in the show. I object to the attempted rape of Gilly, because that scene was so cliche and made absolutely no effort to shed itself of any of the tropes of said cliche.



- On the one hand, Ghost's dramatic appearance to aid Sam was a great screen moment. On the other hand, why the hell isn't he with Jon?



- I have a sneaking suspicion at this point that Jon's squire is going to be the one who stabs him. And I have another sneaking suspicion that that change will be unfulfilling.



- It speaks volumes about the show's failure to render Cersei a sympathetic character that, the whole time she was going on about how much she loves Tommen, all I could think was "I can't wait until this bitch is dead."



- Myrcella's telling Jaime off was actually a nice touch.



- I appreciate the "the effects take time" line, but there is no way to justify Bronn sitting in a cell, for days at the least, perfectly fine, only to have the poison flare up in full force the second the Sand Snakes mention it. And I'm sorry, but their behaviour in that scene was nothing but shameless, pointless titillation, and it didn't even succeed in that. I've seen some people compare the Sand Snakes to the Power Rangers; I think that's an insult to the Power Rangers, whose original "Mighty Morphin" seasons I've just discovered on Netflix. They were cheesy and dumb, but in the proper venue for it to be fun.



- Up until now, I've been thinking that that stupid, stupid, stupid Jon/Mel scene may have had a point: to establish that Mel is willing to do things behind Stannis's back, including killing his daughter (and I am convinced that Shireen's days are numbered, in the show at least). Now, I'm not so sure that Stannis won't have a hand in Shireen's death. And if he does, then I'll finally throw my voice in with all the others who feel that the show has made a travesty of Stannis Baratheon. I haven't loved some of the changes made to his story, but Stannis isn't really a favourite of mine anyway. His increased willingness in the show to sacrifice Gendry rubbed me the wrong way, but for the most part, the worst I could say about ShowStannis was that he was just as big a dick as BookStannis, just a different sort of dick. If he goes along with killing his own daughter, then at that point, we're dealing with a completely different character so far as I'm concerned, and one far less worth getting invested in.



- On a related noted: last week I talked about my mixed feelings about the expansion of the Tyrells, and how I wasn't sure if that was worth the time their story took away from more important characters. Thus far, I'm convinced that the trade-off isn't worth it when it comes to Shireen and Selyse. I've loved all of Shireen's scenes with Stannis and Davos, and Selyse has had her icy moments. And they have had less total screentime than the Tyrells. But the Tyrells, while comparatively minor figures in the books, did have a significant role to play in the political machinations of KL, and thus were good candidates for an expanded role and new material in the show. Selyse's role in the plot has been considerably less, and Shireen has played virtually no part in anything significant in the books. That doesn't mean that they had no business getting a bigger role, but it's not as natural a fit. And their expansion this season has come at the expense of Jon and the Wall, one of the most important storylines in the entire series. Jon especially is in need of a healthy shot of good material this season, because he was the victim of some of the worst character material these writers have come up with in Seasons 2 and 3. It was clear from Episode 1 of this season that most of the Jon/Watch material from ADwD (my favourite part of that book) was going to be altered/excised, and I can role with that (assuming the changes are good; we'll find out more about that next episode) but, as much as I love Shireen's scenes so far, I would gladly give every bit of screentime she and her mother have gotten over to Jon.



- Also related: the expansion of the Tyrells and Shireen/Selyse, and Grey Worm/Missandei, and the invention of characters like Ros (boy, talk about taking screentime from more important characters...and it was all pointless in the end) is why I can't sympathise with people who want to say that the show is somehow "better" than the books in not letting the focus get lost. The show may have a smaller total number of characters, but it tries to award prominence to too many of them, so the end result is a sprawling effect that's just as "bad" as that in the books IMO. And, while GRRM may have thrown too much into the last two books and created too many POV characters - when you're with a POV character for a given chapter, the whole focus is on that character. That's not always the case in the show. In fact, it's become increasingly rare.



- My friends I watch with found it very awkward to behold Sam losing his virginity. I agree with them.



- We all cheered when Cersei was arrested. That whole sequence was very well-handled.



- Jorah and Tyrion's stuff was well-handled as well. But, while I appreciate that Dany can't have been wholly successful in eradicating slavery, it's ridiculous that she's completely blind to an obvious group of chained slaves right in front of her.



- Good tune for "Dornishman's Wife." The applause Bronn got for it constitutes the one moment in this whole season where I've actually enjoyed the Sand Snakes.



- Given the title of this episode, was anyone else expecting a major Arya scene this episode?


Edited by Fisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Bronn have to be in the cell more than a few hours?

Days and nights pass in all the other storylines. Should I assume that all of them made such time progress, while the Dornish story (that isn't cut to until about halfway through the episode) has only passed a few hours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funniest part about this whole thing is the overreaction to that scene from the last season.

Apparently being manipulated by LF into covering up your Aunt's death so he can secure the Vale and dying your hair black means Sansa was about to be a player.

I think it's more an expression of what people want from that character. Sansa is one of our main POV Stark characters and she has spent five of the show's aniticipated seven seasons getting raped, imprisoned, bullied and kicked around. VIewers are just TIRED of it. Yes, people do expect an arc to a dramatic story and they do expect their protagonists to, at some point, get some agency and start moving forward under their own steam.

Sansa, in the show, is just not a well-written character. I don't think it's all that controversial to state this. Her character depiction is uninspiring, directionless and inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we're going the ambiguous route, then there are plenty of ways Jon could have gotten mances baby out of castle black, the reason he sent gilly was because it killed two birds with one stone.

Of course there are plenty of ways both GRRM and D&D could have handled this scene. That's my point.

I still am asking what specific scenes have d&d added that were not in the books. You keep making it sound like these are in every episode but conveniently don't mention them or the fact that many of them happen in the books as well.

I'm still wondering why you are asking, since the scene we're discussing was most definitely not in the books.

Of course the scene was a shortcut, I mean they are condensing 2 entire books into ten hours of television here. Every scene is a shortcut- they need to have scenes that serve multiple purposes. Can you please explain another option for a 3 minute scene that accomplishes:

- demonstrating gilly is not safe at the wall

- a growing sect the NW brothers are not trustworthy (sets up Jon's betrayal)

- reminding us ghost is still at the wall

- reinforcement of sam's bravery/protectiveness of gilly.

Because the 3 minute scene d&d came up with accomplishes these four things which all likely play a role in the narrative to come.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the only way D&D could have accomplished this stuff was to have another female character sexually assaulted?

Not even I think their writing's that bad.

The only one of the things you listed that wasn't already well established before the scene in question was "reminding us that Ghost was still at the Wall," which the scene didn't even try to explain. The direwolf just magically appears, and could have just magically appeared elsewhere.

No matter how you feel about the appropriateness of having Gilly sexually assaulted, there's absolutely no argument to be made that it had to happen that way or that it was the best possible way it could have happened or that it happened already in the books. It happened that way because D&D wanted it to happen that way. They wanted Gilly attacked, and they wanted Sansa raped, just like they wanted to make Dany's first sexual encounter back in season 1 something far less consensual that it was in the book.

Edited by Pashernate Reader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet small council meetings are going to be super awkward with just Qyburn and Pycelle.....



I imagine Pycelle just huffing and puffing giving the evil eye and then as soon one of them say anything they just start arguing about Maester type things lol


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet small council meetings are going to be super awkward with just Qyburn and Pycelle.....

I imagine Pycelle just huffing and puffing giving the evil eye and then as soon one of them say anything they just start arguing about Maester type things lol

I bet Pycell spends the whole meeting talking about how awesome his chain is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The implication to me seemed to be it would "quiet" the storm and allow Stannis to move on Winterfell more quickly. But yes, that was left pretty vague lol.

I like how the show drew a parallel between Roose and Stannis when they showed both 'validating' their imperfect children (diseased/illegitimate) in very similar scenes (you are MY daughter/son!). I think it is not impossible that in the end Stannis might end up being revealed a greater monster than Roose, though for seemingly 'higher' reasons. And already, is it really that much better to burn people alive to supplicate a god, than to flay people to keep the peace? If I just go by show story, I could imagien that in the end it will be Stannis who without too much prodding from Mel sacrifices his daughter, while Roose turns out to be god knows what, something OTHER, that while cold and alien, is not fantatical in its violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet small council meetings are going to be super awkward with just Qyburn and Pycelle.....

I imagine Pycelle just huffing and puffing giving the evil eye and then as soon one of them say anything they just start arguing about Maester type things lol

I laughed. A lot.

Well done, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everyone so against Shireen people being killed? There are even people who will stop watching the show???

This attitude (longing for happy ends) is responsible for so much bad, cliche writing in the world of tv/movies....

As Tyrion would say: if you're longing for happiness and justice, you're watching the wrong show. I wouldn't mind Shireen being burned alive.. (Precisely because she is very lovable, it would be memorable. I don't think it would be inconsistent with Stannis character either. He seems to love his daughter, but not like modern fathers love their daughters. He speaks to her once a month. And he loves his victory also. It wouldn't be bad writing imho if he decides to go along with Melisandres plan).

If someone had written the same about Sansa: "I would not mind Sansa being.......what finally happened" there would have been an outrage from many posters and some mods might have chosen to interpret this as break of whatever rule.

And yet the deed happened.

Will there be the same outrage about Shireen getting burned? Hate for those who predict it? A storm if it happens?

It has not yet happened in the books, just like the rape of Sansa. And : Shireen will definetely be dead after having burned while Sansa still has a story to tell. Death is so very final while life is full of possibilities.

Do not get me wrong: You are entirely entitled to your opinion and your prediction. And I somewhat understand your reasons. Even if Shireen is one of my favorite characters I feel that the showmakers and Martin probably later are entitled to tell us their story. There should not be any special exception and in-story protection law for Shireen because she is my favorite.

And no, I would not stop watching because the series has shown the cruel death of a young girl.

And no, I will not go to the mods because you have predicted or even wanted something horrible to happen.

I would mourn for that admirable young girl who would have made a queen a thousand times better than Stannis. And I would respect the artistic decision of show and Martin maybe later.

Edited by Woman of War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone had written the same about Sansa: "I would not mind Sansa being.......what finally happened" there would have been an outrage from many posters and some mods might have chosen to interpret this as break of whatever rule.

And yet the deed happened.

Will there be the same outrage about Shireen getting burned? Hate for those who predict it? A storm if it happens?

It has not yet happened in the books, just like the rape of Sansa. And : Shireen will definetely be dead after having burned while Sansa still has a story to tell. Death is so very final while life is full of possibilities.

Do not get me wrong: You are entirely entitled to your opinion and your prediction. And I somewhat understand your reasons. Even if Shireen is one of my favorite characters I feel that the showmakers and Martin probably later are entitled to tell us their story. There should not be any special exception and in-story protection law for Shireen because she is my favorite.

And no, I would not stop watching because the series has shown the cruel death of a young girl.

And no, I will not go to the mods because you have predicted or even wanted something horrible to happen.

I would mourn for that admirable young girl who would have made a queen a thousand times better than Stannis. And I would respect the artistic decision of show and Martin maybe later.

Shireen will not be who she is without Stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is simply your characterization. There are plenty of victims in ASOIAF, both male and female. It seems to me that you are claiming that every woman that is not a victim is a violent bitch. I do not see violent bitches here. I see strong women in a world where physical strength still reigns supreme, so they have to be able to physically show strength in order to get ahead. If they choose to forgo the traditional wife and mother roles , they have no other choices in order to get ahead. It's not like they can go to college and then forge their way into business or professional roles. They have very limited choices. They can use their physical beauty and connive their way to the top and be called a whore, or they can be strong and fight and be labeled a violent bitch. Why is it perfectly acceptable for a man to be strong and fight their way to the top, but a woman is a violent bitch if she reaches for more? What other option is there for a woman? Do you expect her to serve tea and lemoncakes and think that a man is going to say, "oh honey, you did such a good job with those lemoncakes and tea, come over here and help me plan my military attack or run my kingdom."

LOL

You have a point here

In our medieval times the only way for intellectually brilliant women was to enter a convent, to learn and to succeed there.

And if you follow their biographies you realize how very limited they were there by the repressive system of thinking, of values and beliefs, in short of reactionary ideology. Always at the brink of being condemned for heresy.

Apart from not being entitled to a sex life.

Elizabeth I and Katharina the Great are exceptions who either had no male claimant to fear or got rid of them, Hildegard von Bingen was a genius, intellectually far above even any reasonably intelligent and educated noblewoman - and could have been burned for heresy any time. There are those gems in history, probably far more than male history allows us to know about but they owe their fate to lucky coincidences.

And there has been Cat as strong woman who fights for her family and thus indirectly for her House as politician. There is Cersei as counter-example. Her speech to Tommen about what mothers would do for their children was so true and honest from her side. No, I am happy that the show has made this strong woman into a far more differenciated character who offers at least some aspects to relate to.

Edited by Woman of War

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
Sign in to follow this  

×