Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 105 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, it also has Valyrian steel.  Pretty sure Filoni Star Wars ripped Martin off with the introduction of beskar. 

Your argument that ASOIAF can't be a profitable/tentpole IP like LOTR or Star Wars or Marvel is ludicrous on its face.  We are seeing them do exactly that right now.  If you don't like HotD or think it will ultimately fail, fair enough, but stop trying to tell people to believe you instead of their lying eyes.  

Like seriously chill out. I said I don’t understand why HotD is doing so well and explained why I think it’s only a bubble and why I don’t see it having longevity. 
 

Im not telling people what to believe, I’m just giving my opinion. Lay off other people once in a while and stop assuming the worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Like seriously chill out. I said I don’t understand why HotD is doing so well and explained why I think it’s only a bubble and why I don’t see it having longevity. 

You said it repeatedly and in incredibly drawn out fashion.  That's why I responded - to register my own opinion.  Which is that you're wrong, and your arguments are silly and weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

(1) My point isn't to argue the merit of Martin's story, but the longevity of the world as a cinematic universe. Say ASOIAF had the best story ever and the best characters ever. It wouldn't change the fact that those characters have had their entire narrative written and the specific story structure of the books has already been adapted. 

(2) For HBO to continue, they can't just fall back onto the same people so they have to invent or adapt new stories unrelated to the main one. And the actual world is not something with the same iconic classification as it is more just a generic medieval backdrop with some oriental elements.  

(3) With Star Wars for example even without Luke or Anakin, you have a specific moral philosophy behind the jedi, the sith, the republic, etc. that can be built upon into an interconnective web of media. 

(4) With comic books the characters reinvent themselves. You can writer a hundred origin stories to Spiderman, a hundred deaths, and have a similar number of canonical universes. In ASOIAF you only have one so once Jaime's story is told there is nothing else to do with him. 

(5) All they have is writing new stories with new characters which really amounts to the same as writing new medieval fantasy. There would be hints and easter eggs as to the main series with banners, sigils, and familiar surnames, but in the end that is all superficial, and the only thing keeping hardcore fans connected is Martin's writing, and a cinematic universe would have to exist beyond his lifespan. 

Take the Gates of Xi animated film. The location is just handwaving about ancient china. So you have a medieval story about ancient china with maybe some fantastical elements. How does it feed into a collective universe or at least into an identifiable world that can fit the brand "Game of Thrones"? Game of Thrones does not have a tone or message that is very specific to its show. It is dark and gritty but many write dark and gritty shows. Its claim to fame is killing off main characters but that is running off the memory of the red wedding with nothing to compare of since.  

 

3 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Yeah, I wrote this in another reply but I'll give it again. All those property have either iconic characterization, styles, morals, or aesthetics that draw people to the brand and form an interconnective structure regardless of what rendition the media is produced in. 

(3 + 4) Comic books have the same characters reinvent themselves time and time again. There is a sort language to their mannerisms that is identifiable regardless of actor or animator (like James Bond) that allows them to exist in a hundred canonical settings. Spiderman can have a hundred origin stories and a hundred deaths, the character is the brand not a specific narrative. 

(5) In ASOIAF, take a fan favorite character (say Jaime Lannister). When Jaime Lannister dies his story is over. He can only be adapted once and isn't the basis for new content or more adventures. The media produced thereafter aren't going to be about the characters we loved or hated in the main series, it is going to be about random people in a generic world. 

(3) Which brings us to the philosophical basis for the universe. Star Wars even without Anakin or Luke has a specific moral code given to the Jedi, the Sith, and the republic which alongside their specific fashion allows for a breadth of stories within the expansive galaxy to be told in a breadth of time periods. If you read about the old republic, or play games set in that era, it is distinct but it is still star wars with the same organizations like the Jedi Order, the Bounty Hunters, the Sith, and the Republic fighting with more or less the same motivations that can be exploited by the narrative in similar ways. 

(3) ASOIAF doesn't have lightsabers, it has swords. It's moral façade is heavily plot driven, with the shocking deaths driven less by a coherent sort of nihilism but by a will to surprise. The generic European style of Westeros has nothing that is not the standard for all of Tolkienesque fantasy besides its grimness, and grimness is everywhere in television today. 

(6) The question is, if you subtract Martin from the writing (which if it were a cinematic universe is a prerequisite) what about his world outside of the story being told in ASOIAF merits the cultivation of singular identity across multiple productions? You can have the brand "Game of Thrones" but that will only play up to nostalgia for so long especially as the characters and stories will have nothing to do with Game of Thrones outside of a few name drops and familiar sigils. 

It has dragons I guess. But are dragons enough to sustain a global brand that can produce hundreds of stories with little to no underlining basis for connecting them outside of the heading or subheading "GOT"? I don't know, but I find it very hard to believe.  

(1) The original stories for Sherlock Holmes and James Bond had their stories written and adapted. That didn't stop new writers from crafting their own original stories for those characters. HBO already has a Jon Snow sequel in production. What's to stop them from doing the same for the Stark children? Daario Naharis? Even Drogon can get an animated sequel.

(2) That's literally how every franchise works. Harley Quinn was a character introduced in Batman: TAS and now she's a character in her own right that can headline a franchise. How different is this to the Sea Snake prequel that's currently in development? Wonder Woman is a character that was created separately from Batman & Superman, how different is that from the Nymeria prequel that is also in development?

(3) Within Essos & Westeros you have a multitude of cultural beliefs and moral compasses that can be built upon into an interconnective web of media. If HBO does a Valyria prequel, it potential sequels will have Valyria's culture play a key role, e.g. Braavos'  hatred of Slavery, Volantis' romanticism for Old Valyria, Ghiscari reclaimation. Even in Westeros, prequels can track the cultural and institutional shifts from the conquest (how did the Reach Lords react to some servent house becoming liege Lords?) right up to Tywin undoing the reforms implemented by Aegon V.

(4) And what is wrong with reversing the roles? Instead of having the same character in a gundred different settings, why not have the same setting with a hundred different characters?

(5) So, basically like every other franchise in existence?

(6) Is the same not true for every other cinematic universe? Star Wars without Lucas? James Bond without Broccoli? Toy Story without Lasseter/Doctor? MCU without Feige?

21 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Like seriously chill out. I said I don’t understand why HotD is doing so well and explained why I think it’s only a bubble and why I don’t see it having longevity. 
 

Im not telling people what to believe, I’m just giving my opinion. Lay off other people once in a while and stop assuming the worse.

The compartmentalising required to believe that ASoIaF cannot be a successful franchise despite having the attributes of all other successful franchises is mind-boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

You said it repeatedly and in incredibly drawn out fashion.  That's why I responded - to register my own opinion.  Which is that you're wrong, and your arguments are silly and weak.

Twice, since a person asked. And I'll stop now. You seem disinterested in my arguments, which is fine. Perhaps they are silly and weak, and perhaps you should not respond to them at all being as that may be the case and do us all a favor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Perhaps they are silly and weak, and perhaps you should not respond to them at all being as that may be the case and do us all a favor. 

Your attempts to guilt me into shutting up aren't going to work.  You made assertions on a discussion board.  I then responded to those assertions - albeit, sure, quite harshly.  You are welcome to respond in kind, but this arguing about arguing is pathetically lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Can we start a Rant & Rave thread for HOTD? That way people can share their complaints and those who don’t want to see them won’t have to.

What complaints? No one is complaining about complaints, they're arguing about whether the GoT universe can be a franchise. Personally, I agree with @DMC and @Cashless Society that franchises exist with much thinner material to hand. The Witcher is launching a second show based on practically nothing, and already did a cartoon. Walking Dead has launched two or three shows at this stage, and all it has is zombies.

Ultimately, whether HBO will manage with GoT depends on whether they create good material or not that draws viewers. If not, the erstwhile franchise will fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

What complaints? No one is complaining about complaints, they're arguing about whether the GoT universe can be a franchise. Personally, I agree with @DMC and @Cashless Society that franchises exist with much thinner material to hand. The Witcher is launching a second show based on practically nothing, and already did a cartoon. Walking Dead has launched two or three shows at this stage, and all it has is zombies.

Ultimately, whether HBO will manage with GoT depends on whether they create good material or not that draws viewers. If not, the erstwhile franchise will fail.

I meant complaints about the show, not about other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Cashless Society said:

 

(1) The original stories for Sherlock Holmes and James Bond had their stories written and adapted. That didn't stop new writers from crafting their own original stories for those characters. HBO already has a Jon Snow sequel in production. What's to stop them from doing the same for the Stark children? Daario Naharis? Even Drogon can get an animated sequel. 

I don't see ASOIAF going in that direction for a few reasons. SH and JB don't have a set timeline and are permitted reinvention from time to time. Some characters in westeros can have their backstory further clarified, but all the material for their lifespan is mostly settled and must exist in that framework. Which is part of the reason why these future projects with exception of Snow try to branch out away from the main series. 

Holmes can solve a thousand different cases with no conception of time or aging, just as Bond might save the world three hundred times whilst starting back at point A with every film/book. 

42 minutes ago, Cashless Society said:

(2) That's literally how every franchise works. Harley Quinn was a character introduced in Batman: TAS and now she's a character in her own right that can headline a franchise. How different is this to the Sea Snake prequel that's currently in development? Wonder Woman is a character that was created separately from Batman & Superman, how different is that from the Nymeria prequel that is also in development? 

Characters like Harley Quinn are first developed based on the cast we know and follow and become part of the psychological drama starting with Batman and going off from there. The characters have a web of rivalries that build up and do themselves have a certain style that is reminiscent of Batman and his rogue's gallery with recognizable outfits and personality disorders.  

With ASOIAF we have to take characters unrelated (outside of ancestry) to the main cast who lack any specific color or identity apart from being true to a gritty realistic medieval world. What connects them is Martin's writing style, and Martin isn't going to be around to write all these stories in an ever expanding universe.  

42 minutes ago, Cashless Society said:

(3) Within Essos & Westeros you have a multitude of cultural beliefs and moral compasses that can be built upon into an interconnective web of media. If HBO does a Valyria prequel, it potential sequels will have Valyria's culture play a key role, e.g. Braavos'  hatred of Slavery, Volantis' romanticism for Old Valyria, Ghiscari reclaimation. Even in Westeros, prequels can track the cultural and institutional shifts from the conquest (how did the Reach Lords react to some servent house becoming liege Lords?) right up to Tywin undoing the reforms implemented by Aegon V. 

There is history, but a lot of the world is just references to our world with a more stereotypical lens. Exploring Essos and further east is just the same as taking from our own history and then crafting a gritty story with vague magic. Any of which can be great or enthralling depending on the writer, but could work just the same without the subheading "GOT." 

Old Valyria is an exception, but how much more people want to watch of dragon lords with an ethnic supremacy before it grows old is a big question. GOT had dragons, but they were a small piece to a bigger tapestry.

42 minutes ago, Cashless Society said:

(4) And what is wrong with reversing the roles? Instead of having the same character in a gundred different settings, why not have the same setting with a hundred different characters? 

Because either the characters have to be iconic with a brand identity or the setting. In ASOIAF the characters have brand power, the setting (in my opinion) does not given how generic it is conceptually. 

ASOIAF has more or less told complete character arcs for its main series and now must rely on the world to be the basis of its connective tissue, and I don't see how that will work. 

42 minutes ago, Cashless Society said:

(5) So, basically like every other franchise in existence? 

I don't think anything about the world or its philosophy are enough. The sigils and family names are too vague and superficial while the gritty cynicism is far too common to stand out as an identifiable trait. 

42 minutes ago, Cashless Society said:

(6) Is the same not true for every other cinematic universe? Star Wars without Lucas? James Bond without Broccoli? Toy Story without Lasseter/Doctor? MCU without Feige? 

Star Wars for example has the Jedi and Sith code with both organizations having identifiable trade marks and styles. The red lightsaber and outfits automatically entail a certain mood and psychology whereas seeing a Stag on someone's sigil might as well fall into a number of fake medieval houses.

42 minutes ago, Cashless Society said:

The compartmentalising required to believe that ASoIaF cannot be a successful franchise despite having the attributes of all other successful franchises is mind-boggling.

We'll see. Personally I don't see how it can have much longevity if it just subsists off of a bunch of showrunners who want to write their own medieval fantasy. But that is just my opinion. I didn't see HotD being as popular as it was, and I guess I would reason it has to do with the proximity to GOT which only just came to end three years ago. 

But again, who knows, I could be wrong. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ran said:

Ultimately, whether HBO will manage with GoT depends on whether they create good material or not that draws viewers. If not, the erstwhile franchise will fail.

Speaking of which, what was HBO's initial expectations from GoT? Several people involved in the show have said that it wasn't supposed to become as big as it got.

Edited by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Your attempts to guilt me into shutting up aren't going to work.  You made assertions on a discussion board.  I then responded to those assertions - albeit, sure, quite harshly.  You are welcome to respond in kind, but this arguing about arguing is pathetically lame.

You don't reply to my arguments or provide reasons for your disagreement. You make false assumptions like that I am telling people what to believe. You make it about my intentions and not my arguments, and you do this repeatedly. 

If you can't stop antagonizing me I don't know what to do. You can dislike me or my posts as much as you want, but I'm at lost for what to tell since you don't provide any material to discuss. And if that is going to be how you continue to engage with me then just help yourself and stop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mark Antony said:

idk people in here upset the show is too well liked and not being criticized enough is taking me back to the peak rant and rave days. 
 

I've a theory that the Rant and Rave posters who kept those threads alive for literal years after GoT ended in ignominy are basically suffering from a kind of self-reinforced PTSD that colors their response to this show. It's why I've decided to not have the threads at present because I believe they were ultimately unhealthy for the participants.

If they want to go and found their own forums to talk critically about GoT, HotD, and other related proposed shows without being forced to discuss or defend those critiques, they are absolutely welcome to do so. ProBoards, Tapatalk, and a few others still offer free forum hosting.

 

@Takiedevushkikakzvezdy

Yeah, no one could have imagined it would be this global phenomena that would draw so much attention. It went far above and beyond expectations. Like, if it had done as well as The Sopranos, they would have been over the moon, but it surpassed that mark in season 4 and then simply kept going. House of the Dragon has also surpassed that mark.

Of course, the landscape has changed a lot thanks to streaming and international markets getting the show widely. It's a bit apples and oranges. But by any measure HotD is right up there with the most popular shows of the other major platforms, and per the Entertainment Guy I've mentioned before, it's possible that when all is said and done that this first season may surpass the viewership of the latest Stranger Things season, which itself set records.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

What complaints? No one is complaining about complaints, they're arguing about whether the GoT universe can be a franchise. Personally, I agree with @DMC and @Cashless Society that franchises exist with much thinner material to hand. The Witcher is launching a second show based on practically nothing, and already did a cartoon. Walking Dead has launched two or three shows at this stage, and all it has is zombies.

Ultimately, whether HBO will manage with GoT depends on whether they create good material or not that draws viewers. If not, the erstwhile franchise will fail.

The Witcher has it's own selling point for western audiences given as it's based on slavic lore (rather than vague western European medieval stereotypes.) and also has a distinct organization at its core with its own iconography and moral philosophy called "Witchers". 

The Walking Dead is kind of a dead horse, I agree they've tried to turn it into an endless franchise, but I don't see it being the model HBO wants to replicate. HBO wants a new Star Wars or Marvel verse, not just the Walking Dead. And I think of the two ASOIAF will be much more like that (if my predications come true).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mark Antony said:

idk people in here upset the show is too well liked and not being criticized enough is taking me back to the peak rant and rave days. 
 

Well I can only speak for myself. It doesn't make me upset that HotD is successful, but given what I see of it I don't see how HBO can keep this franchise at or even near the level of GOT. That was popular due to its specific story and characters. Once you remove those from the equation the GOT "style" or brand just isn't there anymore (outside of some soundtracks). 

If HBO proves me wrong, cool. I still won't be upset. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

And I think of the two ASOIAF will be much more like that (if my predications come true).  

You are as capable of prognosticating as I or anyone else is, but I certainly  think there's not much use to it all. HBO with all of its brain trust couldn't predict GoT will be a great show or that the first pilot they filmed afterward wouldn't land, how are we to do better?

That said, my main data point on it all is that I know there are a lot of people who enjoy the world GRRM has created, simply because of the empirical fact that 8 years after release The World of Ice and Fire is still selling very well. There's definitely people who are interested and would like to learn (and perhaps see) more of that world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

You don't reply to my arguments or provide reasons for your disagreement. You make false assumptions like that I am telling people what to believe. You make it about my intentions and not my arguments, and you do this repeatedly. 

This all started with me replying - "Your argument that ASOIAF can't be a profitable/tentpole IP like LOTR or Star Wars or Marvel is ludicrous on its face."  Now, that's mean - I'm not denying I can be a pretty big dick.  But it's entirely directed at your argument and the reason for my disagreement is provided in the next sentence.  You are the one making this personal.  

Your argument that ASOIAF is in any way inherently deficient as a tentpole IP - compared to the other tentpole IPs - is absurd on its face and makes no sense.  That's what I was saying, what I am saying, and what I will continue to say.  I was dismissive about it because the argument deserves to be dismissed.  Particularly when comparing it to Star Wars or fucking comic books as if the latter two have some indelible root premise ASOIAF lacks.  Give me a fucking break. 

As mentioned, AMC is producing so many Walking Deads I can't even keep track.  I can't even believe the original show is going on.  Now, I don't see any reason to shit on other shows just to make a point - which is why I didn't say anything before - but talk about a thinly veiled premise.  It's literally just hey let's look at the post-apocalypse with dead people walking around.  Kirkman et al. eventually don't even try to pretend this isn't just a construct for social commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

That said, my main data point on it all is that I know there are a lot of people who enjoy the world GRRM has created, simply because of the empirical fact that 8 years after release The World of Ice and Fire is still selling very well. There's definitely people who are interested and would like to learn (and perhaps see) more of that world.

I obviously don't know anything about the TWOIAF and it's sales numbers, but that is curious indeed. But the question is do those numbers correlate in size to the television audiences that HBO wants or are they doing well relative to the book series (which was smaller than GOT)? 

HBO can write great stories under the heading GOT, but from my perspective HotD is subsiding on the popularity of GOT. It can merit spin offs as any big show does. Pretty much every major television franchise had a tail end of success that proved profitable through merchandising and spinoffs. 

There is a difference between Karate Kid which was popular for its core movie and allowed some extraneous spin-offs, sequels, and merchandise reliant on that first production and a franchise like James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Star Wars, or Star Trek. 

The latter are more than just the original story while the former is just living off the memory of it's original rendition. Cobra Kai (the first season at least) had great writing which rejuvenated the brand, but it was just riding off the characters and stories from 1984. There is a difference in scale between that (or something like the X-files) and building an all new Marvel universe (which existed before Feige).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

This all started with me replying - "Your argument that ASOIAF can't be a profitable/tentpole IP like LOTR or Star Wars or Marvel is ludicrous on its face."  Now, that's mean - I'm not denying I can be a pretty big dick.  But it's entirely directed at your argument and the reason for my disagreement is provided in the next sentence.  You are the one making this personal.   

And then you ended it with: "but stop trying to tell people to believe you instead of their lying eyes." 

Which yeah, is a false accusation, and not your first. You don't offer anything worth responding to which makes me question why you reply at all. And there cushioned with your substanceless characterizations of my argument leaves me with nothing but a poster trying to antagonize me. 

But again, you know you are doing this or else you wouldn't keep doing it. 

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Your argument that ASOIAF is in any way inherently deficient as a tentpole IP - compared to the other tentpole IPs - is absurd on its face and makes no sense.  That's what I was saying, what I am saying, and what I will continue to say.  I was dismissive about it because the argument deserves to be dismissed.  Particularly when comparing it to Star Wars or fucking comic books as if the latter two have some indelible root premise ASOIAF lacks.  Give me a fucking break.  

Cool, so if my arguments are so worthless that they are not even worth debating why post at all? If you don't want to engage with my argument but think it stupid why waste your time?

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

As mentioned, AMC is producing so many Walking Deads I can't even keep track.  I can't even believe the original show is going on.  Now, I don't see any reason to shit on other shows just to make a point - which is why I didn't say anything before - but talk about a thinly veiled premise.  It's literally just hey let's look at the post-apocalypse with dead people walking around.  Kirkman et al. eventually don't even try to pretend this isn't just a construct for social commentary.

Yeah, and that's why I think the Walking Dead is a dead horse. It's franchise that does not merit such revivals (similar to how I view GOT). But HBO (and Martin) wants more than the Walking Dead, they want GOT to be the next MCU, an endless cash cow of unending profits.  

And I imagine it going closer to the former than the latter. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

And then you ended it with: "but stop trying to tell people to believe you instead of their lying eyes." 

Which yeah, is a false accusation, and not your first. You don't offer anything worth responding to which makes me question why you reply at all. And there cushioned with your substanceless characterizations of my argument leaves me with nothing but a poster trying to antagonize me. 

But again, you know you are doing this or else you wouldn't keep doing it. 

Cool, so if my arguments are so worthless that they are not even worth debating why post at all? If you don't want to engage with my argument but think it stupid why waste your time?

If my responses seem brief that's because I intend them to be so.  If YOU want to engage about how ASOIAF is somehow less worthy than the other major IPs with premises that are far more simple than Martin's world, let me know.  Otherwise this is just you childishly whining.  Over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...