How Much Did GRRM tell D&D?

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Kusanagi said:

Treason of what? Treason against what?

He relinquished command, he told those who has taken the Black to stay, and only to follow him on their own volition.

It seems like show lovers don't understand why people are complaining.

We are complaining about the bad writing, i.e. characters don't follow their established arc. We are fine with characters being stupid, we are fine with character flaws, but good writing has to set those up in a logical manner.

If you believe Book Snow acts stupidly and suffered, that's fine, but that is well foreshadowed in the books, and that is not the result of only him acting rash, that is the result of the conflicts within the Watch ever since he has become the Lord Commander. You are complaining about Book Snow being stupid only because you disregard all the setups and foreshadowings in the books. 

We, on the other hand, are saying that Show Snow's action is going against his established character, and the writers has him act stupidity just because it fits their vision of the battle, i.e. to have their deus ex machina. Rickon, Sansa, and Littlefinger have no logical reason to be there, they are just there because the writers want the Battle to happen that way, in the most idiotic fashion possible. The writers use the character as mere plot devices and they have become what we called cliches, and they have no place in any well written story.

You can of course argue that Show Snow has always been this stupid and his character arc is about him bumbling through the crisis, saved by only luck. Fine, we are just saying that this character is not interesting and is boring as hell. And we have every right to question why the writers altered the source materials so much that their adaptation does not resemble the original work in terms of themes and characters. They and the audience will be much better off if they go write a completely different story.

The reason we are complaining about the show's writing is exactly the same as people complaining about the Martha moment in Batman v Superman. You can rationalize it all you want or you may even like it, but that doesn't make it good writing. A lazy deus ex machina is what it is, you cannot get around that. You can still like the show but it doesn't make the writing any good.

You don't know what a deus ex machina is then if you think that is one. Fundamentally flaws your argument. In fact the way you apply it, literally any internal decision attributed to a character independent of the plot is one. Which of course it isn't.

Jon caring for his brother and not wanting to see him die is a deus ex machina apparently. The Martha line isn't also, it was forshadowed multiple times, only some with a shallow level understanding of the material wouldn't get what the point of it was (but then if you think it's a deus ex machina that probably is the level of understanding being used). I didn't even like the movie all that much (it suffered from horrible pacing and significant issues with hammering thematic points without letting them flow naturally, which in turn crippled film), but this is the second time in this thread someone made a point about that particular film and clearly didn't have a great understanding of what they were talking about, or in your case the point of a particular scene. And that's a film I don't even care for that much.

You can not like it. That's fine. I won't even begrudge you for it. But it's an entirely subjective thing. So there is no conceit that it is the defacto wrong decision for the character.

Especially since, and not for nothing either, I would be willing to bet anything that if Jon stood in the field and let Ramsay shoot Rickon down that everyone crying about it him being stupid for running out to save his little brother would be going off for a week about how Jon's character was ruined and they made him a cold heartless monster who would let his brother get killed. I don't even feel being cynical. That's almost a certainty.

 

[Cas Stark]

8 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You don't know what a deus ex machina is then if you think that is one. Fundamentally flaws your argument. In fact the way you apply it, literally any internal decision attributed to a character independent of the plot is one. Which of course it isn't.

Jon caring for his brother and not wanting to see him die is a deus ex machina apparently. The Martha line isn't also, it was forshadowed multiple times, only some with a shallow level understanding of the material wouldn't get what the point of it was (but then if you think it's a deus ex machina that probably is the level of understanding being used). I didn't even like the movie all that much (it suffered from horrible pacing and significant issues with hammering thematic points without letting them flow naturally, which in turn crippled film), but this is the second time in this thread someone made a point about that particular film and clearly didn't have a great understanding of what they were talking about, or in your case the point of a particular scene. And that's a film I don't even care for that much.

You can not like it. That's fine. I won't even begrudge you for it. But it's an entirely subjective thing. So there is no conceit that it is the defacto wrong decision for the character.

Especially since, and not for nothing either, I would be willing to bet anything that if Jon stood in the field and let Ramsay shoot Rickon down that everyone crying about it him being stupid for running out to save his little brother would be going off for a week about how Jon's character was ruined and they made him a cold heartless monster who would let his brother get killed. I don't even feel being cynical. That's almost a certainty.

 

The show does that a lot.  Where any decision the characters make, due to bad plotting, is bad.  So, as you say, whatever Jon did in the situation is bad.  

[lancerman]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

The show does that a lot.  Where any decision the characters make, due to bad plotting, is bad.  So, as you say, whatever Jon did in the situation is bad.  

Alright but that was a completely valid strategy by Ramsay. He had an interest in killing Rickon and he had an interest in goading Jon to rush out to him. So that scenario is perfectly consistent and fine as a set up. So that in itself wasn't bad writing.

But there are only two real things Jon was going to do in that situation. Stay back or run in. It was a split second decision and it's inconsistent with his character to ask someone else to go run out there. So he was either staying and watching his brother die or running out and risking his life and the battle.

If that same scenario happened in the books somehow it would go down in a similar fashion because that's who Jon is. A character making an emotional choice doesn't make him stupid. Even in the books there are multiple instances of characters making emotional choices that don't coincide with their primary interests. Jon was watching a man with a bow shooting at his brother, the heir to Winterfell, his father's son. He's either going out there to try to save him or he's going in to watch him die. At some point, when all the options are bad for Jon, maybe it's just a smart move for the character creating the situation.

[Zombies That Were Promised]

1 hour ago, illinifan said:

 Everything that happens to Sansa in the books happens in the books but just to Jeyne.  This isn't about getting Sansa "raped" but about consolidating story lines.   And the payoff this season has been great.

To me the payoff just reminds me that Sansa/LF went way OOC with the marriage proposal to the Boltons "for le revenge" when next season they walk up to WF with The Vale army anyway.

You want revenge.  You have an army.  Your first idea is to... marry into the family you want revenge on??  There is no defending this ridiculously contrived plotline.

[Darkstream]

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The show does that a lot.  Where any decision the characters make, due to bad plotting, is bad.  So, as you say, whatever Jon did in the situation is bad.  

Exactly, Dragons from butterflies. d$d's writing has been so awful and careless that there is no way of saving this story anymore. There is not a single action that any character can take to erase the countless inconsistencies and nonsensical decisions and events that have taken place. 

All of these butterfly ripples were a result of a d$d making pointless and sensationalist changes, with no consideration to the effects these changes would have on the narrative of the story long before they were out of source material, and had no reason to believe that the show would surpass the books.

Claiming that GRRM is responsible for this abomination of literature, and the art of telling a story, is the most ludicrous and unfounded assertion possible.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Alright but that was a completely valid strategy by Ramsay. He had an interest in killing Rickon and he had an interest in goading Jon to rush out to him. So that scenario is perfectly consistent and fine as a set up. So that in itself wasn't bad writing.

But there are only two real things Jon was going to do in that situation. Stay back or run in. It was a split second decision and it's inconsistent with his character to ask someone else to go run out there. So he was either staying and watching his brother die or running out and risking his life and the battle.

If that same scenario happened in the books somehow it would go down in a similar fashion because that's who Jon is. A character making an emotional choice doesn't make him stupid. Even in the books there are multiple instances of characters making emotional choices that don't coincide with their primary interests. Jon was watching a man with a bow shooting at his brother, the heir to Winterfell, his father's son. He's either going out there to try to save him or he's going in to watch him die. At some point, when all the options are bad for Jon, maybe it's just a smart move for the character creating the situation.

Why does he want to goad Jon to rush out to him?  Why doesn't he, then, shoot Jon, who is his real enemy, instead of the child, who he can get on round 2?  Because: plot, why does he shoot wun wun instead of jon, same: plot.  For that matter, why doesn't he simply pick off the rag tag army from inside WF.  More plot.  

The real Jon Snow, yes is emotional about his siblings, and it's "Arya" after all that finally unhinges him in the book.  But, he would surely give orders not to have his army rush in after him, and I would like to think he might have come up with something better, some kind of distraction rather than running out to meet him Sound of Music style. Of course, Ramsay Bolton having a live Rickon Stark is in itself unforgivably stupid on everyone's part who was involved in that as well, LOL.

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Why does he want to goad Jon to rush out to him?  Why doesn't he, then, shoot Jon, who is his real enemy, instead of the child, who he can get on round 2?  Because: plot, why does he shoot wun wun instead of jon, same: plot.  For that matter, why doesn't he simply pick off the rag tag army from inside WF.  More plot.  

The real Jon Snow, yes is emotional about his siblings, and it's "Arya" after all that finally unhinges him in the book.  But, he would surely give orders not to have his army rush in after him, and I would like to think he might have come up with something better, some kind of distraction rather than running out to meet him Sound of Music style. Of course, Ramsay Bolton having a live Rickon Stark is in itself unforgivably stupid on everyone's part who was involved in that as well, LOL.

It was already explained in the show, I shouldn't have to explain it to you but I will. Ramsay wanted a convincing victory because the North was fractured and not unified. He wanted to show off his might and decisively defeat his one threat to Winterfell. A siege would have taken longer and would be messier and far less convincing. Ramsay also had the numbers to defeat the Jon without much fear of losing a straight up battle. And he would have.

Also both sides were aware that the most effective battle strategy was to get the otherside to attack first. Ramsay also wanted to kill Rickon because it was in his interests. Therefore, it made the most sense to use the latter to accomplish the former. Rickon wasn't getting out of their alive. Even if Jon reached him he would have had all his archers rain arrows on him and slaughter both of them. He just happened to hit Rickon first. But it was effective in getting Jon to make the first move, and it forced his armies hand. And quite frankely, if Jon's army didn't rush after him, he was dead and the battle would have pretty much ended there.

[illinifan]

54 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Here, this person has articulated it far better than I have the ability to do.

http://www.therainbowhub.com/jeyne-poole-and-bad-storytelling-why-we-need-to-stop-making-excuses-for-gratuitous-rape-scenes/

In spoiler for length and off topic.

  Hide contents

 

Sorry,,, You are disgusted by rape of Sansa Stark in the TV show but weren't equally disgusted by the rape of Jeyne Poole in the books.  Let me remind you that Jeyne had to endure more disgusting things than we saw Sansa endure.  I forgot where the producers introduced beastiality into the equation.  The fact that it is okay for Jeyne in the books but not for Sansa in the series is ridiculous.  Seriously, the real Sansas of GOT married the real Ramsay Bolton during the Middle Ages many times and he raped and abused her.  That is common then and that is common now.  Why we are whining about this is beyond me. 

[illinifan]

24 minutes ago, Zombies That Were Promised said:

To me the payoff just reminds me that Sansa/LF went way OOC with the marriage proposal to the Boltons "for le revenge" when next season they walk up to WF with The Vale army anyway.

You want revenge.  You have an army.  Your first idea is to... marry into the family you want revenge on??  There is no defending this ridiculously contrived plotline.

You think that introducing LF to the North is good?  I don't.

[Cas Stark]

9 minutes ago, lancerman said:

It was already explained in the show, I shouldn't have to explain it to you but I will. Ramsay wanted a convincing victory because the North was fractured and not unified. He wanted to show off his might and decisively defeat his one threat to Winterfell. A siege would have taken longer and would be messier and far less convincing. Ramsay also had the numbers to defeat the Jon without much fear of losing a straight up battle. And he would have.

Also both sides were aware that the most effective battle strategy was to get the otherside to attack first. Ramsay also wanted to kill Rickon because it was in his interests. Therefore, it made the most sense to use the latter to accomplish the former. Rickon wasn't getting out of their alive. Even if Jon reached him he would have had all his archers rain arrows on him and slaughter both of them. He just happened to hit Rickon first. But it was effective in getting Jon to make the first move, and it forced his armies hand. And quite frankely, if Jon's army didn't rush after him, he was dead and the battle would have pretty much ended there.

LOL.  How was the North fractured and not unified?  The Starks didn't come up with much on their begging tour.  Roose was mistaken when he said the North would rise for any Stark.  Sorry, the Northern plot in the show has been pure insanity since last season.  And when the North, for reasons unknown, decide to rally for the Starks in 2 hours, it will be just as nonsenical as when they told them to fuck off 2 weeks ago.

[Darkstream]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

It was already explained in the show, I shouldn't have to explain it to you but I will. Ramsay wanted a convincing victory because the North was fractured and not unified. He wanted to show off his might and decisively defeat his one threat to Winterfell. A siege would have taken longer and would be messier and far less convincing. Ramsay also had the numbers to defeat the Jon without much fear of losing a straight up battle. And he would have.

Also both sides were aware that the most effective battle strategy was to get the otherside to attack first. Ramsay also wanted to kill Rickon because it was in his interests. Therefore, it made the most sense to use the latter to accomplish the former. Rickon wasn't getting out of their alive. Even if Jon reached him he would have had all his archers rain arrows on him and slaughter both of them. He just happened to hit Rickon first. But it was effective in getting Jon to make the first move, and it forced his armies hand. And quite frankely, if Jon's army didn't rush after him, he was dead and the battle would have pretty much ended there.

Where was any of this explained in the show? This is your explanation. All I recall was seeing a direwolve's head thrown on the ground, Ramsey stabbing his father, and feeding his brother and step mother to his dogs. This all to the results of him becoming the ruler of the North. Maybe d$d should have shown a scene establishing some of these motivations or strategies that you claim were Ramsey's instead of countless scenes of Tyrion and his pointless jokes and drinking games. Or instead of two or three scenes showing a parody play of the first seasons, with awesome warty cocks to go along with them. The examples of pointless filler used instead of establishing all of the scenarios people constantly honey pot to explain the show are endless.

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

LOL.  How was the North fractured and not unified?  The Starks didn't come up with much on their begging tour.  Roose was mistaken when he said the North would rise for any Stark.  Sorry, the Northern plot in the show has been pure insanity since last season.  And when the North, for reasons unknown, decide to rally for the Starks in 2 hours, it will be just as nonsenical as when they told them to fuck off 2 weeks ago.

The Bolton's didn't have the entire North. You're assuming that just because Houses didn't fight for Jon they ere willing to fight for Bolton.

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Darkstream said:

Where was any of this explained in the show? This is your explanation. All I recall was seeing a direwolve's head thrown on the ground, Ramsey stabbing his father, and feeding his brother and step mother to his dogs. This all to the results of him becoming the ruler of the North. Maybe d$d should have shown a scene establishing some of these motivations or strategies that you claim were Ramsey's instead of countless scenes of Tyrion and his pointless jokes and drinking games. Or instead of two or three scenes showing a parody play of the first seasons, with awesome warty cocks to go along with them. The examples of pointless filler used instead of establishing all of the scenarios people constantly honey pot to explain the show are endless.

Davos said why Ramsay wouldn't go for defending Winterfell from the inside. Sansa explained why Rickon was going to die, and that Ramsay would try to trick Jon into making a bad move.

Hell it all happened in the same scene. This is why it's pointless arguing this anymore. When something isn't spoonfed to you and you have to think about it you call it bad writing. When something like this is, somehow it completely goes above your head and you miss it entirely. But you're somehow smarter than everybody else who like the show for.. reasons...

[Darkstream]

29 minutes ago, illinifan said:

Sorry,,, You are disgusted by rape of Sansa Stark in the TV show but weren't equally disgusted by the rape of Jeyne Poole in the books.  Let me remind you that Jeyne had to endure more disgusting things than we saw Sansa endure.  I forgot where the producers introduced beastiality into the equation.  The fact that it is okay for Jeyne in the books but not for Sansa in the series is ridiculous.  Seriously, the real Sansas of GOT married the real Ramsay Bolton during the Middle Ages many times and he raped and abused her.  That is common then and that is common now.  Why we are whining about this is beyond me. 

Please!! Go look up the definition of a strawman argument. Show me one time where I claimed that I wasn't disgusted by the rape of Jeyne Poole in the books. Attempting to discuss this with you is obviously an exercise in futility. 

In fact, the article I provided the link for, answering your question in great detail, explicitly stated the exact apposite of your accusation. It's quite apparent that you didn't even read it. That would explain why you have the same simple understanding of this issue as d$d do. I'm sure the bullet points that their intern wrote up for them didn't cover concepts like themes, you know, being for eighth grade book reports and all.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

The Bolton's didn't have the entire North. You're assuming that just because Houses didn't fight for Jon they ere willing to fight for Bolton.

If they say no to Ramsay Bolton he will kill them, which is why saying no to the Starks was so stupid.  Sorry, starting with Sansa marrying for revenge and LF getting nothing to the Umbers having the key themselves to take power and giving it to Ramsay for reasons, the entire plot of the North is hopelessly moronic.

I really don't see how anyone is going to feel good about the rah rah scenes that are coming tonight after the North already told the Starks to fuck off, after Sansa already got the few loyalists killed.  It will be completely unbelievable, yet people will believe it and buy into the meaningless rah rah feel good moment that is totally unearned and senseless and for the next week they will be showsplaining why it all makes sense that the North just did a 180 in 3 episodes even though the Starks proved they are treacherous and incompetent. LOL.

[Morky_Pep]

Book purist this, book purist that... please. You don't need to compare the show to the books to see that it sucks. The show is a complete nonsensical mess. It is bad writing. Last episodes battle was cool, but the writing is awful. Can't get anyway around it. 

[Darkstream]

35 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Davos said why Ramsay wouldn't go for defending Winterfell from the inside. Sansa explained why Rickon was going to die, and that Ramsay would try to trick Jon into making a bad move.

Hell it all happened in the same scene. This is why it's pointless arguing this anymore. When something isn't spoonfed to you and you have to think about it you call it bad writing. When something like this is, somehow it completely goes above your head and you miss it entirely. But you're somehow smarter than everybody else who like the show for.. reasons...

All nonsensical and contrived explanations that go against the entire concept of logic and strategy. You, and the show (in the rare case that it addresses anything at all) are trying to explain situations that should never exist in the first place.

Spoon fed?  d$d's explanations are like trying to feed a baby pablum with a razor sharp pitch fork.

[illinifan]

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Please!! Go look up the definition of a strawman argument. Show me one time where I claimed that I wasn't disgusted by the rape of Jeyne Poole in the books. Attempting to discuss this with you is obviously an exercise in futility. 

In fact, the article I provided the link for, answering your question in great detail, explicitly stated the exact apposite of your accusation. It's quite apparent that you didn't even read it. That would explain why you have the same simple understanding of this issue as d$d do. I'm sure the bullet points that their intern wrote up for them didn't cover concepts like themes, you know, being for eighth grade book reports and all.

So you agree that both little girls should not be raped. 

[Kusanagi]

3 hours ago, lancerman said:

You don't know what a deus ex machina is then if you think that is one. Fundamentally flaws your argument. In fact the way you apply it, literally any internal decision attributed to a character independent of the plot is one. Which of course it isn't.

Jon caring for his brother and not wanting to see him die is a deus ex machina apparently. The Martha line isn't also, it was forshadowed multiple times, only some with a shallow level understanding of the material wouldn't get what the point of it was (but then if you think it's a deus ex machina that probably is the level of understanding being used). I didn't even like the movie all that much (it suffered from horrible pacing and significant issues with hammering thematic points without letting them flow naturally, which in turn crippled film), but this is the second time in this thread someone made a point about that particular film and clearly didn't have a great understanding of what they were talking about, or in your case the point of a particular scene. And that's a film I don't even care for that much.

You can not like it. That's fine. I won't even begrudge you for it. But it's an entirely subjective thing. So there is no conceit that it is the defacto wrong decision for the character.

Especially since, and not for nothing either, I would be willing to bet anything that if Jon stood in the field and let Ramsay shoot Rickon down that everyone crying about it him being stupid for running out to save his little brother would be going off for a week about how Jon's character was ruined and they made him a cold heartless monster who would let his brother get killed. I don't even feel being cynical. That's almost a certainty.

 

OMG!

How many time do we have to say, nay, yell: Rickon, Sansa, and Littlefingers appearing on the scene does not make any sense.

Rickon does not have to be there anyway. If he is not in Skagos, but in Umber's land then the Umbers would protect him and rally to Jon, as the North's code of honor is clearly described in the universe. The sole reason Rickon appears on scene is so that the writers can have Rickon dead, Jon being insane and forgoes logic, and Vale army comes for the save! Plot device>Internal logic=Deux ex machina! 

For how many time, we are not saying whether one should like or dislike it, we are saying that this garbage writing, because the writing violates its own logic!

Foreshadowing does not mean merely mentioning something, it has to establish character motivations, and it has to make sense internally. Your honey-potting does not make the illogical logical. Martha does not work because the characters lack motivations, knowledge, and have better alternatives!

Are there better alternatives to the Battle? Why, Yes!

1. Rickon is simply not there.

2. If Rickon for some convoluted reason has to be there and has to die, someone like Davos stops Snow's suicide rescue, sends someone else, have this person shot down, Snow is shown being shaken, broken down after the batter. This way you show Snow is a conflicted character who understand he has a load of burden on his shoulders.

3. Snow despite shaken, forces himself to maintain composure and follows through his battle plan. 

4. Snow wins by have Northern Lords coming to his rescue. Geez, that is the whole point about Rickon in the books! Davos is going to Skagos to find him and rally the North!

The materials are all there, the writers simply chose to ignore or even alter them to the point the character are no salvageable. Don't blame GRRM for the show's atrocious writing.

[Cas Stark]

So, just as I predicted.

The rah rah feel good in the North moment, that indeed feels good if you forget about the previous episodes where the North, including Baby Mormont told the Starks to fuck off.  But, now, they're back, totes loyal, back to season 1 level loyalty.  Sad.  Could have been so much better.