Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 105 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ran could just as well shut down the entire board to protect me from positively obsessing about ASoIaF. Haven't I better things to do?

Well, you said it.... :P

Edited by DMC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Must say, though, I hated it how they flooded social media with stills and clips.

I don't mind it, really. Teasers is all they are. I looked at pictures for the costumes, but you can't really get a glimpse of the plot from them if you haven't read the source material. Some things do come through for us thou, that's just how it is.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Did I read the leaks and spoilers? Sure enough, because I wanted to know what the show about and how they would adapt it. It piqued my interest.

Well, the sole reason I didn't read the leaks is laziness. Like, I'm not bothered by people sharing stuff about the leaks here (I read all of them), but it felt silly to me. I understand why would someone go for the leaks in our situation, it's just so much not a thing for me that I'm not even gonna spend my time on that, altough I'm hungry for ASOIAF these days, I could especially chew on some Winds of Winter, or at least an update from George.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, there you are in for a disappointment and a positive surprise:

  Hide contents

Daeron won't be in season 1 at all, but he hasn't been cut. He is already in Oldtown as a ward, page, and squire, and they reference him.

I'd read that as a positive sign, them wanting to have a Stannis-like character they are name-dropping in the first season to introduce and develop in the second season. The inclusion of Otto's brother in the first season indicates that Oldtown and the Hightowers are likely going to feature big time in season 2.

There is a lot of potential there with Daeron as an aloof third party who he isn't really connected to the quarrels of the family. They could show him as a guy who wants to restore peace rather than escalate the war further, and then slowly show how things spiral out of control.

Well, I take it as a sour but huge W. Hope they really do something with the character tho. Later on.

Edited by Daeron the Daring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I have high hopes for this upcoming episode. This'll be the setup for the new dynamics between the characters and it matters a lot, I think. Especially with Alicent's children.

What's worrying (to me) is that there's still no Daeron. I wonder why wouldn't they show that, when we get the three other children of Alicent.  I mean, based on the casual luck I have in life, I wouldn't be surprised the character who's name I choose (simply bc it's cool) is the one single important secondary character who gets cut. Sorry, I may have messed up our timeline.

considering Rhaena and Rhea ...even  Ryam Redwyne and Melos are not cut , I think it's doubtful that Daeron gets cut . he'll probably be treated like Stannis in GoT . there will be mentions of his existence , till we meet him in season two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critique can be cathartic and, dare I say it, fun. The R&R thread kept going because it was fun—and because there was no new material to talk about. FnB came out in 2018, GOT finished in 2019. I never got the feeling that anyone was traumatized by GOT, only that we enjoyed kvetching about a TV show that ultimately doesn’t really matter. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Edited by The Bard of Banefort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Critique can be cathartic and, dare I say it, fun. The R&R thread kept going because it was fun—and because there was no new material to talk about. FnB came out in 2018, GOT finished in 2019. I never got the feeling that anyone was traumatized by GOT, only that we enjoyed kvetching about a TV that ultimately doesn’t really matter. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

On a side note, I’ve now typed the word “kvetching” enough times that my phone doesn’t auto-correct me :P

Edited by The Bard of Banefort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RumHam said:

Have they cut anyone of significance so far? The only character I can think of is the Sealord's wastrel son who I'm sad we won't get to see. And mushroom if that one guy wasn't him.

That guy was definitely Mushroom.

I don't know if we've seen Septon Eustace yet, unless he's the one who officiated the wedding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

On a side note, I’ve now typed the word “kvetching” enough times that my phone doesn’t auto-correct me 

This sounds like a whole bunch of mishegoss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Stephen

* Claiming the Kingdom of England as the male heir despite the fact his claim came through his mother, Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror.
* The fact his usurpation came after personally swearing allegiance to Matilda and declaring it didn't count.
* The use of his own brother, Henry of Blois, the Bishop of Winchester to crown himself.
* His brother, Henry's bullshit agreement on the part of the Church that legitimized his ascension to the throne in exchange for various privileges that wasn't Henry's to make. Also, freeing Stephen from his oath.
* Stephen's explanations for his violation of his oath to Matilda were infamously bad. Ranging from doing it for regional stability to bribing Hugh Bigod (the Royal Steward) to claim that Henry I changed his mind about Matilda then named him instead. The latter was believed about as much as you might think.
* Most of this was overturned by the Pope recognizing Stephen's claim by letter but this all completely fell apart by Stephen's later actions. Also bribing a lot of the barons with huge promises that later backfired on him.
* Stephen flat out BREAKING most of his promises to the church, including refusing to return lands taken that had gone out to nobles.
* Stephen stealing the wealth of William de Corbell, Archbishop of Canterbury, for himself.
* Stephen broke a LOT of his bribal promises to the barons that had supported him, which led directly to the support for Matilda. Basically giving him a reputation as
* The fact that he arrested a family of bishops. Roger of Salisbury and his nephews was considered to be a gross crime against the faith. Especially since the arrest was due to STephen arranging an incident to justify it in order to seize their castles.
* Stephen's brother's duplicitousness reflected on Stephen, including Henry's own betrayal of his cause.
* Stephen's relationship with the Pope refusing to acknowledge his claim or his son as heir.Stephen took this...badly...and basically developed a reputation as whining.
* That reputation went from whining to criminal when he imprisoned the papal legate for refusing to let him name Eustace as the heir to England over Henry II.
* Eustace turned on his own father for when Stephen disinherited him and named Henry II as his heir. This actually offended Stephen's own supporters as it seemed like a betrayal.

Stephen was basically viewed as an oathbreaker, a man who promised lots of things to his supporters only to break his agreements, stole the wealth of the church via trumped up charges, and made sketchy as fuck legal arguments to provide a veneer of legitimacy to numerous decisions that offended his fellow nobles as well as supporters. He was basically viewed in his own time as a man whose word and promises were garbage with a scheming duplicitous family. He was certainly a great military leader and if not for that and his wife's skill at improving his cause would have probably collapsed much sooner.
But his own allies thought of him as an asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

(1) So there isn't anything stopping HBO with continuing the stories for surviving characters from the original show. 

And there is a reason they are not pursuing that angle outside of Snow which is a passion project from Harrington. They are focusing on the world and its history because those story arcs are finished, their development has reached a crescendo and detailing their future lives would have the same breadth as an extended epilogue. 

Story's constructed to have a beginning middle and end are made deliberately so that once the narrative comes to a close the future is left implied for a specific purpose. 

James Bond's character never had a specific ending in mind as characters such as him where not made to be developed across multiple volumes but to begin with a distinct characterization that acts like a throughline for multiple adventures. People like Arya or Jon Snow change throughout the narrative until their stories reach a specific climax and conclusion. Delving into their futures would be like telling the stories of Frodo after LotR.  

Comic book characters like Spiderman and Batman can exist in different canons and have multiple endings, multiple childhoods, and multiple deaths. Characters like Jon and Arya can only have one which leave them without the possibility of a do over.  

 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

(2) Why can't  ASoIaF characters be permitted reinvention from time to time? 

Well, supposedly per Martin their is a united canon that all the adaptions are fixed under. Rewriting GOT doesn't seem to be on the table. 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

(3) And where exactly does their lifespan end? Because when characters become part of a franchise, that lifespan happens to not just be where the story ends, but also the characters death (and even then, retconning and remakes happen). So taking the Stark children again, a bunch of writers can tell a million different stories of Arya's travels west of Westeros; Sana's suitors, conflict resolutions with the Northern Lords, whatever she wants to do with the Wall; Bran's reign, succession crises etc. These stories can theoretically go on until they're 100 years old. 

Well again, I don't see at least going off Martin that they are trying to recapture those stories and characters but rather invent new ones. And continuing the narrative of characters who have a closed arc univariably ruins what came before via retconning the full scope of development for more conflict.  

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

(4) Characters like Corly Velaryon are first developed based on the cast we know and follow and become part of the psychological drama starting with season 1 of HotD 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 GoT and its morally complex characters with recognizable outfits and character motivations. 

 

As an aside in my humble opinion Corlys is more of a power fantasy like Oberyn Martell or Oakenfist, fascinating people who accomplish incredible feats out of some vague badassery.  

But regardless, outside of the white hair I don't see what about him has moral complexity unique to GOT (if at all), how the sigil of Seahorse is evocative of this world, or how his character motivations remind you of the original show/books. 

I guess he is written by Martin so people can analyze similarities in his character traits to other of Martin's creations, but Martin isn't going to be around to write this extended universe so that option won't be on the table. 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

 

 

(5) Didn't Wonder Woman start off like this? Guardians of the Galaxy? The Mandalorian? 

And that's the thing. You can follow any of them given that their universe engenders them with specific traits and aesthetics. 

ASOIAF has that too, but the universe is patently generic medievalism with a pseudo-realistic vibe. So creating a character for that world would be like creating a real medieval character. They could invent a character named: Ser Robert of the Vale with his steel armor and it's not going to cry "Game of Thrones!" because there is nothing original or specific about the character conceptually. And any supposed grittiness and 'complexity' is a compliment to the author's writing ability, not to an invention specific to his world. 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

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

 

My point is that there is no specific reason to set these stories in the world of GOT. The tagline GOT would be irrelevant. If you want to write a fantasy story in medieval china (Xi), or fake India (Qarth), or a magical adventure through some unexplored jungles (Sothoryos) there is no reason to put it in this universe. 

The locations are like westeros a jumble of stereotypes and some hand waving about foriegn cultures. There is nothing about the setting unique to GOT or the grittiness or realism, etc. that justifies it being part of a shared universe.   

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

 

(7) The culture and politics of the setting of ASoIaF constrain the motivations and actions of the characters, this what give them their nuance. So long as the writing is guided by that, then the franchise can keep creating iconic characters. 

The culture and politics is just some vague impression of patriarchal medieval society where people swear fealty to lords who inherit there role through bloodline and marriages. There is a reason Martin and the viewers talk about "those times" when discussing Westerosi politics. It is just medieval Europe with misplaced details and a lack of logistical sense. 

The world has nothing the says "ASOIAF" or "Game of Thrones" because the world is just a copy-paste medieval backdrop for the drama of the main series to take place in.   

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

(8) Other franchises don't even dip their feet in the pool compared to the lake ASoIaF is swimming in but apparently this isn't enough for audiences? 

Complexity via scale is not the same thing is identifiable features critical to the narrative framework and style. ASOIAF can have an endless number of details, it doesn't make the world any more unique or memorable. 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

How are the names and sigils vague and superficial? 

Not only are the animals basic, the concept of medieval houses with sigils involving fish, stags, wolves, dragons, etc. is in every rendition of the medieval times. 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

And how common is this so call "gritty cynicism" exactly? 

It's very common, and getting more so. Martin doesn't have an original perspective on grittiness, he relies on gratuity to drive home the point of how awful bad things are. Like watch Squid Game, it does the same thing by leaning into the violence and showing how gritty and cynical the real world is. 

It's trending, and its everywhere on TV today thanks to streaming. 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

(9) And what of the direwolves? Weirwood trees? White Walkers? Iconic castles such as the Eyrie, Red Keep, Winterfell? People's unease when a wedding occurs? The iconic catchphrases? 

Iconic catchphrases are a thing, but it's not enough. The rest is just not really that special. 

Their iconic in your mind because of the stories that takes place in those weddings or castles, but they are themselves just backdrops. The red keep is just a red keep. Weirwoods are white trees that bleed red sap. White Walkers are ice zombies. 

None of them are going to give the franchise a name as stories are written to fulfill a basic medieval template. Medieval europe plus a Weirwood tree in the background drives home the point how little this world has to work with. 

All of them are minor inclusions that don't influence the general geography or architecture of the world. Direwolves are just wolves and Dragons are cool, but GOT can not seriously claim ownership to them no matter how hard HBO tries. 

17 hours ago, Cashless Society said:

Come on, there's really no argument that can be made that would preclude ASoIaF being as successful as any other franchise. 

Well, I guess I disagree. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

@C.T. Phipps

You've said before that Stephen of Blois was worse than Aegon II. Could you elaborate on that because everything I've read about the guy makes him sound like a better version of Aenys (brave and charming but dominated by stronger personalities like that of his wife and younger brother)?

Don't forget his mother.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Don't forget his mother.

Pretty sure Stephen's mother was dead by that point. (Incidentally, it looks like GRRM replaced Stephen having a competent wife with Aegon II having a competent mother because by God is Helaena a massive disappointment in F & B. Thanks Womb Syndrome!)

Going back to what @Lord Varys was saying about a trial by combat, does anyone think that would have been a better explanation for the Cargyll affair because I find Cole sending a fellow Kingsguard on an assassination mission really makes it hard to buy his in-universe reputation as recalled generations later by Jaime, Arianne, Arys, etc.?

Edited by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 12:26 AM, Ran said:

As to the city, it seemed triple-walled which makes me think Qarth immediately, but that's the book Qarth, not the show Qarth, which was depicted differently.

Yea I was thinking Qarth because of the triple walls. It looked like a bell tower at the center which made me think Norvos. But Norvos has steps leading to several bell towers I think. 
I forget this is the show and not entirely the books where things are depicted different.

Makes me think of the casting choices of a previous Qarth character and a possible Driftmark connection. I need to do another reading.

Do you think you could get a 3D tour of the model on the site? The Valyria and Qarth miniature city and maybe the painted table?? Just tell me where to donate/kickstart. ;) 
I could virtually walk around those city’s maybe read some graffiti on the walls, see what kinda sewer system they had, public fountains, and statues! :) 
 

Understandable if ya don’t wanna comment.  No matter what ya say it’ll be interpreted as offensive to someone somewhere. Anyway thank you for the awesome site and time.

 

 

Edited by Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe
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...