john666 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Don't forget that Drogon is going to attack.. Haven't forgotten that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Emperor of Yi Ti Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I give it 50/50. If the show kills Stannis, Ramsay, Roose, possibly also Bronn they are really down several of the most compelling characters for next season. Since most everyone is hugely underwhelmed by the Sand Snakes, they would need to hit a huge, huge home run next season with Euron and just about everything else in order to keep the show on an even keel, and I don't have confidence they can do that. IMO they thought killing off lots characters early would give them the wow factor but what it really is doing is further robbing the audience of anyone they are interested in watching. You can't exactly blame D&D for bumping off favourite characters early!! Do you really think the mainstream audience gave a toss for Barristan or Mance Rayder? The show obviously feels a massive loss from a lack of Tywin, Joffrey and the Hound from last season, but what were they supposed to do? Likewise, if the GRRM plot say Stannis and/or the Boltons all die at or around the Battle of the Ice, what are D&D meant to do about it? Keep them alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 You can't exactly blame D&D for bumping off favourite characters early!! Do you really think the mainstream audience gave a toss for Barristan or Mance Rayder? The show obviously feels a massive loss from a lack of Tywin, Joffrey and the Hound from last season, but what were they supposed to do? Likewise, if the GRRM plot say Stannis and/or the Boltons all die at or around the Battle of the Ice, what are D&D meant to do about it? Keep them alive? I would be shocked if George killed Stannis at the Battle of Ice, everything leading up to nothing. The audience surely was more invested in Mance than the dumb as fuck sand snakes, so if you know that you are killing off even more people...then you had better make sure the new people..Doran, the snakes....are really good, well drawn and the audience will connect with them. Otherwise, you will lose viewers....which is what is happening now. ETA, and yeah, if the show can kill off people early, why can't they keep them alive a little longer if that helps keep the narrative thread going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 i just wrote in the thread to this episode - "so,where do we go from here"an extensive theory for the remaining 3 episodes regarding Sansa, Jon and the North. It is large so I will not repost it but I think I have a good idea how this will play out. Hint, The bedding scene was not the big, big scene Sophie and Iwan were talking about. it is in episode 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john666 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 There is the scene of Mel getting outdoors, holding a lantern. Maybe the lantern, maybe the LIGHT is a signal. A signal to Brienne to come and kill Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Do you really think the mainstream audience gave a toss for Barristan or Mance Rayder? Considering they don't exist, the only way for them to have the audience give a toss for them is if the producers had made them interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Considering they don't exist, the only way for them to have the audience give a toss for them is if the producers had made them interesting. Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Emperor of Yi Ti Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Thank you. I felt like I was letting out the awful side of my personality on the internet. But infanticide has been acceptable in multiple cultures, so there can be some justification for it (although it is evil if abortion is available), but abusing and torturing a child? giving it a name like "From his fathers" causing those children to grow up into disordered adults. Obviously the mother's had serious PTSD, but what they did was horrible. Yet if those women had been given access to abortion then they wouldn't have become terrible mothers: they would've had children of their own choosing and been great mothers. Yet I don't think the writer's understand that capacity of women to hate, and hate even their own children (and to pick favourites amongst said), since they gave Cersei that line "You may not love him, but you will love his children" and "What Sansa needs is a baby" (to Tyrion). Catelyn and Cersei are both quite flat portrayals of motherhood. Walda Frey is a sweet lady and I couldn't help but sympathize with her in her scenes with Sansa over dinner,, then Ramsay Bolton makes jokes about her weight behind her back and the writers play it for laughs... I think that scene with Walda was unintentionally a good example of GRRM's original theme that actually revenge is awful: to kill a woman as good natured as Walda Frey would be an an evil thing to do, and it is unjust that she should suffer for her father or grandfather's actions. But what would D&D know, they think themes are for 8th grade book reports. Now you could play that as Sansa becoming a colder, more morally ambigous person that she incites Ramsay Bolton to kill Walda Frey, but instead they will just play her as being badass... tell that to Wyman Manderly- i must have missed GRRM tone of disapproval there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stagfyre Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 If Sansa ends up with Ramsay's spawn inside her I hope she does something to end the pregnancy when she escapes. Or drown little Ramsay in a river once he's born. That would be a great way for her to be all "NOPE NOPE NOPE" and piss off a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Emperor of Yi Ti Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Considering they don't exist, the only way for them to have the audience give a toss for them is if the producers had made them interesting. Perhaps they didn't want to invest more time with them because they knew they would be killing them off and wasting the investment- so better to spend the time on the characters with an actual future. In other words fixing GRRM's trope of developing an interesting character, then promptly bumping them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Correct ...and they have failed in that, to the point that it's not that they had to kill them. They HAD to GET RIDE of them because they probably don't know what to do with them. And, btw, Mance is a popular character in books, as much as Ciarán Hinds is a great actor many feel completely underused. Barristan also has a few fans here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Emperor of Yi Ti Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 If Sansa ends up with Ramsay's spawn inside her I hope she does something to end the pregnancy when she escapes. Or drown little Ramsay in a river once he's born. That would be a great way for her to be all "NOPE NOPE NOPE" and piss off a lot of people. fair to say you're a believer in the nature over nurture school of child development ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Sansa would squander almost all sympathy she has garnered for her character if, after knowing her brothers are alive, would willingly, if she was pregnant, carry and have Ramsay's baby and raise him or her. I don't give a flip about Cersei's advise regarding fathers and children. Cersie was a liar, those kids were not Roberts, they were hers and Jaime's. Show Cersei aborted her baby she was pregnant by with Robert. Sansa would need to cleanse herself. Besides, if the Bolton line is out and technically she would be the last lady bolton, she inherits by right all things belonging to the boltons. I know it is in the books but LAdy Waynewood was a Manderly but her husband and son were both killed, extingquishing the Waynwood line but she inherited Waynwood castle so there is a precedent for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 tell that to Wyman Manderly- i must have missed GRRM tone of disapproval there. Ramsay will have Myranda do it while he and his father are off fighting stannis in episode 9. If Myranda fails, she will be flayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alayne's Shadow. Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Perhaps they didn't want to invest more time with them because they knew they would be killing them off and wasting the investment- so better to spend the time on the characters with an actual future. In other words fixing GRRM's trope of developing an interesting character, then promptly bumping them off. So it's better not to develop a character because they are going to die? Then what the hell was Ned Stark for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Emperor of Yi Ti Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 ...and they have failed in that, to the point that it's not that they had to kill them. They HAD to GET RIDE of them because they probably don't know what to do with them. And, btw, Mance is a popular character in books, as much as Ciarán Hinds is a great actor many feel completely underused. Barristan also has a few fans here and there. Do you understand the difference between a book and tv ? [and their consumers]. How many characters do you expect them to full develop in 10 hours per season, over 7 seasons? How much of the 10 hours have they misallocated this season - for all the yelping, how much time did the booksnob hated targets get so far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 There is the scene of Mel getting outdoors, holding a lantern. Maybe the lantern, maybe the LIGHT is a signal. A signal to Brienne to come and kill Stannis. This may be Mel going outside as she feels or senses the Boltons about to attack their camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Sansa would squander almost all sympathy she has garnered for her character if, after knowing her brothers are alive, would willingly, if she was pregnant, carry and have Ramsay's baby and raise him or her. I don't give a flip about Cersei's advise regarding fathers and children. Cersie was a liar, those kids were not Roberts, they were hers and Jaime's. Show Cersei aborted her baby she was pregnant by with Robert. Sansa would need to cleanse herself. Besides, if the Bolton line is out and technically she would be the last lady bolton, she inherits by right all things belonging to the boltons. I know it is in the books but LAdy Waynewood was a Manderly but her husband and son were both killed, extingquishing the Waynwood line but she inherited Waynwood castle so there is a precedent for it. BookCersei did, iicr. Show Cersei lost their baby and doesn't look like she was happy about it. This conversation is kinda awkard, though, specially after yesterday, my congress filed the petition to remove penalization for women who have abortions due to rape. Like, if you get raped, and you don't want to keep it and have an abortion, you go to jail. I've met women who kept their babies and they remained happy, seeing it as some sort of "good side" of their situations. I know I would see it in that way. But that doesn't mean every other woman should. And sadly, we're having this conversation about Sansa... Sansa from all the other women in this story... They couldn't have brought a worst way to have this discussions :dunno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God-Emperor of Yi Ti Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 So it's better not to develop a character because they are going to die? Then what the hell was Ned Stark for? I hope you are being deliberately obtuse and that you understand the difference between how one treats a keyif short lived character like a Ned Stark or an Oberyn Martell vs a secondary character whose plot is thinly spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Do you understand the difference between a book and tv ? [and their consumers]. How many characters do you expect them to full develop in 10 hours per season, over 7 seasons? How much of the 10 hours have they misallocated this season - for all the yelping, how much time did the booksnob hated targets get so far? Well, let me see. We didn't need any of Loras and Olyvar. We didn't need any of Missy and Greyworm's romance. I doubt we needed Bronn and Lollys beach walk. We didn't need as much of Sam and Gilly and Shireen. So, that alone frees up considerable space that could have gone to fleshing out Dorne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.