Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]

[CaptainTheo]

21 hours ago, RenlyIsNotRight said:

Season 5 at very least still kind of sort of "felt" like ASOIAF in the sense that it was subversive, even if it was in the dumbest and most hamfisted "MUH SHOCK VALUE!" way possible.

The problem with Season 6 is that to me it represented the show becoming the very thing the series is supposed to be a deconstruction of - a generic fantasy series. Characters likely deemed by D$D as "peripheral" are snuffed out to boil everything down to being all about the Starks, Lannisters and Targaryens, and all the obvious "good guys" coming together to defeat the obvious "bad guys". The only thing about the end game in Season 6 I didn't see coming was that Ramsay would be killed off, and even that would have been obvious were it not for the fact that you could practically hearing D$D masturbating in the background while writing all his scenes.

I'm expecting even more flowery generic bullshit in Season 7, hell if the leaks turn out to be true I already know I'm right.

I agree. Despite encountering few season #6 spoilers, I just knew that the Starks were going to win the Battle of the Bastards because it's now become Hollywoodised, and the Vale army showing up was no surprise at all - it was telegraphed in episode #7 when Sansa was shown writing to Littlefinger. I found it all too predictable.

Unlike Battle of Blackwater when there's basically zero clues that Tywin's going to show up - it is believed up until then that he was heading off to deal with Robb. So his appearance is a good twist.

[Prof. Cecily]

On 7/3/2017 at 8:27 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

I kind of wish GOT would go the Netflix route and release all the episodes for the upcoming season on the same day. I would prefer to just binge-watch the season rather than have it dragged out all summer. 

Never mind- why not enjoy both ways of viewing the series?

First in a pub to be amused by the group's reactions and then in a binge watching at your leisure?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

On 7/5/2017 at 4:11 PM, Le Cygne said:

It's one of those too bad to even laugh ones.

 

LOL  I'm not watching, I'm not watching, I'm not watching.  ~Sticks fingers in ears, covers eyes, and sings lalalalalalalalalalalala~

[The Dragon Demands]

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:36 AM, The Coconut God said:

I said I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore, but I'll make an exception here to correct your misconception. Stunt casting means casting a famous name in a minor role in order to promote a film or tv show, not giving an actor more scenes because you like them. Ian McShane was stunt cast, Olly and Ramsay were not.

Also, here's a link to Jóhannes Haukur's Lem Lemoncloak video, in case other people want to know what you're talking about.

No.

"Stunt casting" means just ....casting based on actor you like and not what fits the character.  Even if it's an unknown.

Yes, explicitly, they turned Olly into a recurring character because "we really like the actor".  They've said this.

And that's stunt-casting.

Though the semantics are trivial.

No, it isn't always a great idea just to "show off the actors". 

[The Dragon Demands]

Quote

Arya as cupbearer to Charles Dance. I'm specifically not using the name Tywin. And yes those dialogues and the acting of Charles Dance with Maisie was a riveting watch, as long as you didn't stop to think that Tywin the character would never ever have philosophical conversations with a girl he believes to be a commoner

• Season 1 is a hit
• Season 2, this emboldens D&D to start "doing it the way we want it!"...which is "show off the actors' talents"....
• These changes weren't very well received.  They still had to get renewed one year to the next, so they actually paid attention and started dialing it back for Season 3.  Season 3 had noticeably LESS of those invented scenes.  Anyone else notice that?  Continuations of earlier ones but nothing too new.  Cogman even admitted that in an interview from back then I need to dig up.  At the time he phrased it as "without Ned Stark as the main character we didn't know who to focus on and weren't very willing to just give Tyrion an episode off" -- in hindsight, he might Peter Dinklage.
• Season 3 finale has the Red Wedding, international mega-hit.  Now they're guaranteed renewed forever - they even admit this - "now we know we're secure" - and went right back to changing things....
• due to production overlap, season 4 was already written.....so the first thing they write post-Red Wedding is Season 5.  Massive changes "to show off the actors' talents".

We might not have realized it was "to show off the actors", but even in Season 5....I realized they always had an urge to go off-book.  Well, Starting with Season 2.  And it got better in Season 3 (and most of Season 4) because negative reaction to that was enough to make them stop (cowards).  Then once they reached Red Wedding and "we're guaranteed to run the whole thing"....they stopped caring what anyone thinks. 

It's all so clichéd and predictable. 

Wasn't there some interview where Weiss said that when writing Season 1 scripts he'd walk around reading Tywin's lines in a Charles Dance voice, even before he was cast?  And that doesn't even sound too crazy at first - if I read a draft script around, and had a favorites list for an ongoing casting process, yeah, why wouldn't I just slip into using the actor's voice?  But....in retrospect and in context of their actor-centric obsession....that seems like a warning sign. 

[The Dragon Demands]

The Lost Original Ending of the Battle of the Bastards:  Why It Is A Failure of Writing & Production:
 

What's worse than D&D not thinking it's significant that the "North Remembers"?  Actually thinking it was, having it in their filming script, but then not getting to film it due to an avoidable disaster of bad time management.

What's worse than forgetting to have anyone care about Sansa's rape?   D&D actually acknowledging that Northern lords would be motivated by her rape in their original filming script, but then abandoning it by filming running overtime.

And why did they run overtime you ask?...

[Le Cygne]

“There’s a part of Sansa that feels very hard done by, and because of that, she is going to make not-so-honorable decisions,” Harington says. “Jon still sees her as just his kid sister. But he’ll start listening to her more this season.”

And give Sandra's sex trafficker a guest room.

“It’s a big season for Cersei and Jaime,” Headey says. “If you thought it was complicated before, just wait. He blindly, wholeheartedly loves her; she [emotionally] vampires him.”

https://www.tvinsider.com/264815/game-of-thrones-hbo-season-seven-overview/

Cersicula and Jaimfield. Whatever you say, my master.

(Also these conflicting things they have the characters do. They aren't really telling stories, just disconnected skits.)

One season it's imperative to burn one's mattress to avoid giving family killers an heir, another season, it's whatever.

One season it's imperative to kill the monarch who threatens to use wildfire as a weapon, another season, it's whatever.)

[Le Cygne]

On 7/5/2017 at 5:25 PM, TheCasualObserver said:

Oddly enough, I find season 5 and season 6 to be written in very similar ways, with the key difference being that season 5 was intended to be dark and season 6 less so.

So season 5 had improbable and ridiculous things happen which worked to the detriment of the good guys and season 6 had similar ridiculous things happen to their benefit.

Yep, and the good guy and bad guy stuff is spelled out.

[lakin1013]

On 6/22/2017 at 0:14 PM, sweetsunray said:

It's not LF's way... If you interprete "Fighting every battle everywhere always in your mind" as a fluffy way to portay a strategist who has an overview of every possible moves ahead like a chess player, then LF is not a chess player, but an opportunist. He can make plans, but it's more akin to "I make a move and see where the pieces fall, and then I'll see what I'll do. He's not trying to control events or people, just use them. So,no, LF himself does not fight every battle everywhere always in his mind. 

But doesn't LF tell us, when Sansa asks him directly what he wants, that he closes his eyes and thinks about each avenue for action and whether it leads him to what he ultimately wants - the iron throne and Sansa by his side.   "Whenever I consider an action, I ask myself will this action help make the picture a reality....I only move if the answer is yes.  The picture is you and me at the Iron Throne, with you by my side."   Wouldn't that make LH more of a strategist than an opportunist?

[sweetsunray]

11 minutes ago, lakin1013 said:

But doesn't LF tell us, when Sansa asks him directly what he wants, that he closes his eyes and thinks about each avenue for action and whether it leads him to what he ultimately wants - the iron throne and Sansa by his side.   "Whenever I consider an action, I ask myself will this action help make the picture a reality....I only move if the answer is yes.  The picture is you and me at the Iron Throne, with you by my side."   Wouldn't that make LH more of a strategist than an opportunist?

And he also says "chaos is a ladder". Creating chaos is not being a strategist, because no one can predict who lives or dies in that chaos. It does however can create opportunities for the absolutely callous. And that is what "chaos is a ladder" means.

You can't be an opportunist thriving on chaos and a chess playing strategist at the same time. The two MO's oppose one another to define a character or personality. So, the S6 "pretty picture" speech reveals that there are two different LFs who exclude one another, without there ever having been a growth arc for LF. First he's cannonically defined as an opportunist. And all of a sudden he's a strategist, without us actually having seen any evidence that he's even good at it. His S5 strategy was dumb as fuck. 

[TheCasualObserver]

2 hours ago, lakin1013 said:

But doesn't LF tell us, when Sansa asks him directly what he wants, that he closes his eyes and thinks about each avenue for action and whether it leads him to what he ultimately wants - the iron throne and Sansa by his side.   "Whenever I consider an action, I ask myself will this action help make the picture a reality....I only move if the answer is yes.  The picture is you and me at the Iron Throne, with you by my side."   Wouldn't that make LH more of a strategist than an opportunist?

That quote is so stupid. What did marrying Sansa to the Boltons have to do with making that picture a reality?

 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And he also says "chaos is a ladder". Creating chaos is not being a strategist, because no one can predict who lives or dies in that chaos. It does however can create opportunities for the absolutely callous. And that is what "chaos is a ladder" means.

You can't be an opportunist thriving on chaos and a chess playing strategist at the same time. The two MO's oppose one another to define a character or personality. So, the S6 "pretty picture" speech reveals that there are two different LFs who exclude one another, without there ever having been a growth arc for LF. First he's cannonically defined as an opportunist. And all of a sudden he's a strategist, without us actually having seen any evidence that he's even good at it. His S5 strategy was dumb as fuck. 

I guess it's a special kind of chaos which is actually meticulously planned somehow.

I simply don't understand why they would do this, other than because they are so enamored with the character they simply want him to be everything at once. We've known from book one that Varys is the careful chess master and LF is the chaotic social climber, and these are very clear cut characterizations. Why change them?

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

I guess it's a special kind of chaos which is actually meticulously planned somehow.

4 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

I simply don't understand why they would do this, other than because they are so enamored with the character they simply want him to be everything at once.

They seem more enamored with actors than characters. They don't like writing dialogue anyway, preferring emoting with facial muscles. So, they just write some lines without thinking about it. Just what may sound good and cool without context. If the actors themselves don't know why their character says this or that, doesn't say this or that, or even why their character does something, then there is nothing to understand. Heck, NJW asks them why Jaime says this or that, and all he gets as an answer is "just say the lines". Nobody knows what any of it means, but here people try to use one of their nonsense dialogue of S6 to argue what sort of man LF is. Go figure

[The Bard of Banefort]

47 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

They seem more enamored with actors than characters. They don't like writing dialogue anyway, preferring emoting with facial muscles. So, they just write some lines without thinking about it. Just what may sound good and cool without context. If the actors themselves don't know why their character says this or that, doesn't say this or that, or even why their character does something, then there is nothing to understand. Heck, NJW asks them why Jaime says this or that, and all he gets as an answer is "just say the lines". Nobody knows what any of it means, but here people try to use one of their nonsense dialogue of S6 to argue what sort of man LF is. Go figure

It's interesting to hear that that's how D&D write, because in the past the two of them have reminded me a bit of what George Lucas is like as a writer, and not telling the actors what their characters are thinking is exactly the sort of thing George Lucas would do. Then there's wooden dialogue and a huge love for special effects, as well as marketing. Most people probably disagree with me on this, but I suspect that one of the reasons why Dany is pushed to the forefront so heavily by them is because she's the one that sells the most merchandise. 

[lakin1013]

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Nobody knows what any of it means, but here people try to use one of their nonsense dialogue of S6 to argue what sort of man LF is. Go figure

 

Since this is the TV show forum (and it is) and not the book forum (which it isn't) the main way viewers have to determine the nature of a character is by using what the character says, and does.  You can rail against the writers, which it seems you do, but to criticize using actual dialogue to talk about the nature of a character is rather unreasonable, to my way of thinking.  

14 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

That quote is so stupid. What did marrying Sansa to the Boltons have to do with making that picture a reality?

 

 

By marrying Sansa to Ramsey, LF made himself look like a good friend to the Bolton's (just in case they become more powerful),  met secretly with Cersei to better impress her with his information about this situation, (just in case she becomes more powerful), and is this when he meets with the Queen of Thorns about another, a handsome young man? (cannot remember),  Finally, he moved a player piece according to his will, thus further cementing Sansa as 'his' player piece.  I am not certain LF knew the extent to which Sansa would suffer.  He tells her he didn't.  And we all know this blew up in his face, but we can imagine his plans. 

[Le Cygne]

13 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

That quote is so stupid. What did marrying Sansa to the Boltons have to do with making that picture a reality?

Nothing at all. And to quote the show, "If you didn't know, you're an idiot. If you did know, you're my enemy."

[SecretWeapon]

16 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And he also says "chaos is a ladder". Creating chaos is not being a strategist, because no one can predict who lives or dies in that chaos. It does however can create opportunities for the absolutely callous. And that is what "chaos is a ladder" means.

You can't be an opportunist thriving on chaos and a chess playing strategist at the same time. The two MO's oppose one another to define a character or personality. So, the S6 "pretty picture" speech reveals that there are two different LFs who exclude one another, without there ever having been a growth arc for LF. First he's cannonically defined as an opportunist. And all of a sudden he's a strategist, without us actually having seen any evidence that he's even good at it. His S5 strategy was dumb as fuck. 

How so? Using chaos while making plans based the probable reactions of the ones affected yet keeping in mind that they might not happen increases the odds of success. Hence the "Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind" thing.

[sweetsunray]

42 minutes ago, lakin1013 said:

Since this is the TV show forum (and it is) and not the book forum (which it isn't) the main way viewers have to determine the nature of a character is by using what the character says, and does.  You can rail against the writers, which it seems you do, but to criticize using actual dialogue to talk about the nature of a character is rather unreasonable, to my way of thinking.  

This is not a debate thread. This is a rant thread. I can criticise all I want in this thread: writers, dialogue, inconsistencies, characterization. Which is exactly what I'm doing: dialogue to make LF out to be an opportunist in S1, dialogue to make LF out to be a strategist in S7, and then S5 choices where Sansa herself points out that he was a terribly stupid strategist in S6. The full picture is a debacle of a characterization.

Please read the OP of this thread. If you wish to discuss and posit that LF is a high level chess playing strategist based on dialogue then you're free to request to start such a thread in the show forum.

[lakin1013]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

This is not a debate thread. This is a rant thread. I can criticise all I want in this thread: writers, dialogue, inconsistencies, characterization. Which is exactly what I'm doing: dialogue to make LF out to be an opportunist in S1, dialogue to make LF out to be a strategist in S7, and then S5 choices where Sansa herself points out that he was a terribly stupid strategist in S6. The full picture is a debacle of a characterization.

Please read the OP of this thread. If you wish to discuss and posit that LF is a high level chess playing strategist based on dialogue then you're free to request to start such a thread in the show forum.

I agree with you completely about the writing - at times, it is thoroughly and completely awful.  I am only making the point that taking a character's dialogue as an indicator of the character's motivation is a reasonable thing to do, even in a rant thread. 

[sweetsunray]

34 minutes ago, lakin1013 said:

I am only making the point that taking a character's dialogue as an indicator of the character's motivation is a reasonable thing to do, even in a rant thread. 

My point is that taking a show quote from a character to determine their MO is not reasonable at all when you have other quotes that are the opposite MO. And we were talking MO (method operandi), not motivation. Pikcing out one quote that is contradiced by others is nothing more than cherry picking.

[StepStark]

4 hours ago, SecretWeapon said:

How so? Using chaos while making plans based the probable reactions of the ones affected yet keeping in mind that they might not happen increases the odds of success. Hence the "Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind" thing.

You're right in a way, but "Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind" is simply nonsensical thing to say. If somebody said that to me in real life, I'd surely ran away from the psycho and never come back.