Game of Thrones (contains serious, massive SPOILERS)

A place to engage in friendly conversation with your fellow This Old Neon community members. Culture, entertainment, and various miscellaneous discussions are welcome here. Please be sure to acquaint yourself with the Forum Rules before posting.
User avatar
The Shoemaker
Local Legend
Local Legend
Posts: 3261
Joined: 19 Jun 2014 21:32
Location: Canada

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by The Shoemaker »

Kong Wen wrote:
The Shoemaker wrote:One thing I do hope they have time for is a little Stannis mourning from Davos and Mel. I think they only had time for a quick sad glance in the season 5 finale. I think maybe in the next episode or two they'll talk about it for a moment.
They definitely have bigger problems on their hands right now, but I'm sure Stannis will be a topic of conversation at some point this season, especially if the Boltons use some old Baratheon parts as intimidation props in the upcoming conflict (burning/flayed bodies, etc.).
Haha of course, just hope it gets slipped in at some point. I'm thinking it will when Mel talks about her lapse of faith.

Never thought of what might happen to his body.. Not looking forward to that :( haven't heard of Dilane appearing this season though, so we will see.
Currently reading: A Feast For Crows AND A Dance With Dragons
User avatar
Kong Wen
Just a Normal Kong
Just a Normal Kong
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 Jun 2014 18:14
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by Kong Wen »

The Shoemaker wrote:Never thought of what might happen to his body.. Not looking forward to that :( haven't heard of Dilane appearing this season though, so we will see.
I don't think they'll need Dilane to show what the Boltons do to his body. :(
• TONe's Discord server is a laid-back place to chill & chat
• Please subscribe to help my Langrisser channel on YouTube!
• Follow me on Twitch to get a notification when I'm streaming
User avatar
The Shoemaker
Local Legend
Local Legend
Posts: 3261
Joined: 19 Jun 2014 21:32
Location: Canada

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by The Shoemaker »

Kong Wen wrote:
The Shoemaker wrote:Never thought of what might happen to his body.. Not looking forward to that :( haven't heard of Dilane appearing this season though, so we will see.
I don't think they'll need Dilane to show what the Boltons do to his body. :(
:shock:

Never thought about that..
Currently reading: A Feast For Crows AND A Dance With Dragons
User avatar
The Shoemaker
Local Legend
Local Legend
Posts: 3261
Joined: 19 Jun 2014 21:32
Location: Canada

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by The Shoemaker »

Alright, season 6 episode 2 has come! Spoiler tags are for the big moments of this episode, as well as some book things.

This episode was alright, had a little more to it than the first episode.

Bran: Not much happened here, but it's nice to pick up with him again. I loved the music they used and the overall aesthetic. I didn't care for the flashback/vision, or changing Hodor's name from Walder to Wyllias :lol: . I thought Meera's interactions were good, understandable that she begins to question what her role is anymore.

Sansa: I think this scene was well acted between all participants, and I think the conversations with Brienne and Theon were sweet. I found it odd that when describing the Hound Brienne would refer to him as "A man". I feel like the writers just didn't want to deal with the implications of Sansa hearing about the Hound at this time? They kind of have a big relationship. Theon going back to the Iron Islands seems very convenient for the plot as well. Comparing it to the book, I don't think Theon would see any reason to return there, especially if it means turning around and going back towards Winterfell. They didn't accept him before he was tortured and mutilated and I doubt they will now. Seems like something old Theon would do and not new Theon? We'll see how it goes. Like I said, I think the actors did the scene well, but I don't dig this Iron Island stuff.

Tyrion: I felt like these scenes were a little more sloppy in terms of character motivation and writing (If I have an idea like that again punch me in the face?). It's another scenario were it seemed like the plot wanted Tyrion to go see the dragons and so he did. The dragons sure were tamed by his non-valyrian words, more so than Danny. Interesting how it seems like Tyrion is now just taking over Danny and Quentyn's ADWD storyline with the dragons and Yunkai/Astapor. Hard to say if they charged their minds how they wanted this story to go or if they just made sure Yunkai/Astapor were made peaceful last season to delay them until this season. It was nice that they got some book dialogue in there with Tyrion and the dragons, but it felt out of place to me. It was a nice touch though to have Tyrion touch the dragon. In that moment you could tell that it was something Tyrion had wanted to do all his life.

Arya: I really don't like Jaqen. I said this last season, but I'm really tired of him. Same with the Varys/Tyrion combo and Bronn from last season. These characters worked in earlier seasons and I don't feel like they are achieving the same things they did in earlier seasons. I wish the waif would leave Arya alone and let her make friends in Braavos, like with Brusco's daughters or something. Are they done with blind Beth now though?
Spoiler
Was hoping to see her warg a cat. I'm sure they'll bring it in at a later point.
Kingslanding: I liked how these scenes started with the random guy making fun of Cersei. I kind of feel like so far we haven't seen Cersei really react or seem affected by her walk and this moment at least reminds us that it happened and that she no longer has respect from the smallfolk. I don't really care for Tomon's guilt about Cersei, just seems like another thing they have to deal with now that he's no longer 10 :lol: So I guess the Sand Snakes got away if no one knows who killed Tyrstanne? Swam back to Dorne then? :lol: I'm sure they will show up.

Iron Islands: I enjoyed seeing Yara, and her pinecone comment. Looking forward for more Euron. I really did enjoy these scenes, characters seem to be on par. Other than the Salt Throne comment... what happened to the Seastone Chair? Also Kingsmoot is law now? Why have they been calling Theon the heir then?

The Wall: This is another batch of scenes where I felt it was well acted, but I struggle to see where the characters found their motivation. Like I know you can think of a reason, but it just seems so random for Davos to be all "Hey Mel, you think there's any way we can revive Jon? You know magic right?" Just felt sloppy is all. Same with the
Spoiler
ressurection. Felt overly voodo-esc, and a little to cliche for everyone to leave the room and then Jon wakes up. But it was a nice nod to have Ghost sort of wake up and look at Jon, and then see he's back. But if Davos doesn't ask Mel about somehow resurrecting Stannis now...

One question I do have about the ressurection is that throughout the series we have heard only death can pay for life, will we be seeing a concequence to this?
Wintefell: How long was Walda pregnant? :lol: Was Sansa really in Winterfell for 6 to 9 months? Anyways, I'm amazed at Walda's ability to walk around with her baby in the cold 10 minutes after giving birth :lol: One thing I am wondering about in this scene is Lord Karstark.
Spoiler
Not sure if he was already in cahoots with Ramsay before he killed his dad, or if he jumped on after seeing him kill Roose. I'm hoping there's more of a reason than wanting to see new blood. Can't imagine the rest of the Northern Lords will be happy to hear about Ramsay kinslaying his father, step mom and new step son, he better keep it on the down low.
It's interesting how the show diverged from the books the most last season, but now it seems like they are trying to reel in back in in odd ways. I already mentioned Tyrion, but there's Ramsay as well. They needed to find a way to build tension between him and Jon so they made Ramsay want to kill Jon so that he can't protect Sansa (at least I think that was what was happening). Spoilers suggest other characters will be catching up on other book plots as well.

As a final thought, I feel like the show is starting to become quite predictable and is repeating itself in terms of it's shocking moments.
Spoiler
How many times are we to be surprised by random kinslaying? Interesting too how they killed both Roose and Doran, the two most interesting characters in their respective stories.
But yeah, overall more engaging than the last episode. Some good moments in here.
Currently reading: A Feast For Crows AND A Dance With Dragons
User avatar
Kong Wen
Just a Normal Kong
Just a Normal Kong
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 Jun 2014 18:14
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by Kong Wen »

Episode 2 was nice! A bit better than the first one, if only because it had to spend less time establishing / welcoming us back.

Bran is as boring as ever, unfortunately, although I feel like they're moving him in the right direction. Max will help. The flashbacks do two different kinds of work: starting to establish a backstory that we don't get to see in the show (and inevitably leading up to a revelation or two that will have an impact on the events of the present), and fan-service (we get to see more Ned, Benjen, Winterfell, and get introduced to characters we haven't had a chance to see yet).

Side-note: If we ever get to see young Robert and Raegar in these flashbacks, I sure hope they cast some magnificent beasts to play them.
Shoe wrote:I found it odd that when describing the Hound Brienne would refer to him as "A man". I feel like the writers just didn't want to deal with the implications of Sansa hearing about the Hound at this time? They kind of have a big relationship.
Not the writers: Brienne. She knows Sansa knows who the Hound is.
Shoe wrote:Comparing it to the book, I don't think Theon would see any reason to return there, especially if it means turning around and going back towards Winterfell. They didn't accept him before he was tortured and mutilated and I doubt they will now. Seems like something old Theon would do and not new Theon?
It's pretty believable and true to his character. He's worthless and has nothing to live for. He knows Brienne and Pod are better than him. He also knows Yara tried to rescue him and be basically hung her out to dry, so he owes her an apology. I think he wants to go and live a quite life in a familiar place (since his other familiar place is even more unwelcoming right now).

I really liked Tyrion's scene. Motivations there were quite simple: he wanted to release the dragons, and the dragons wanted to be released. I think he's right about the dragons being more intelligent than people think. And I think they see something in Tyrion, and liked his story. I hope they don't turn up again for a couple of episodes, though.

Arya's scenes are still boring, but that's mostly because they're playing a really long con about setting up her character. Like, Shoe, your spoiler, that's either something they want to slowly build up to, because it's really a culminating event for her character, or it's something they plan to cut out. But I think it's the former. If her character can't do that, I don't see the point of putting all this effort into developing her journey.

Cercei hasn't really had anything to react to yet. Just having Zombountain around is a good enough reminder to the viewers for now. Jaime did the reacting on her behalf with the standoff against the sparrow at the funeral. It was interesting to see the sparrow kind of acting haughtily with Jaime, basically telling him that if he died killing a nobody commoner, it would be his death that gets remembered, not what he died doing. Interesting position of power from powerlessness. Jaime's going to cook up a plan to deal with him, though.
Shoe wrote:So I guess the Sand Snakes got away if no one knows who killed Tyrstanne? Swam back to Dorne then? :lol: I'm sure they will show up.
They're in the city plotting their next move. Remember, the sand snakes are basically ninjas, and they have a plan.

On to the Iron Islands. I'm finding this stuff as boring (or more boring) than the Dorne scenes. When their scenes were on, I said to Mrs. Kong "these guys have the shittiest kingdom in the realm." It was hard to care about Balon's death because we hadn't even seen anything of him in several seasons, and consequently it was hard to care about Euron. He had some good lines, though. I hope he's as crazy as he sounds.
Shoe wrote:Other than the Salt Throne comment... what happened to the Seastone Chair? Also Kingsmoot is law now? Why have they been calling Theon the heir then?
I don't remember what episode they mention the Seastone Chair in. Theon was the presumptive heir. It sounds like the current king's son/heir would have had a major advantage in a Kingsmoot. We don't have much Iron Islands history in the show, but it's easy to imagine that the Kingsmoot would have most commonly rubber stamped the presumptive heir.
Shoe wrote:Was Sansa really in Winterfell for 6 to 9 months?
Yes.
Spoiler
I doubt Karstark was already in cahoots with Ramsay. I think he simply saw what was happening and realized his opportunity to keep his cool, especially knowing what kind of person Ramsay is. The Northern Lords won't get to be happy about it or not, because they won't know. The idea of Roose being poisoned by his enemies may backfire on Ramsay, though, because it could split the Northern loyalties (i.e. who were his enemies, who would have poisoned a Bolton? Stark loyalists? Who are the Stark loyalists? Let's get together with them!)—I think this is something we're going to see Davos capitalize on when he goes rallying banners for the Starks, as we saw in the trailers.
As for the last scene, I really liked Davos's role. He realizes Jon's importance, both as the leader of the Night's Watch and as the connective tissue between them and the wildling armies.
Spoiler
This is a good point of character development for Davos. He didn't like Melisandre when she was doing twisted stuff like killing people, and manipulating his lord. But he's seeing a defeated, human side of her, and because he's the Davos we all know and love, he's at least a little bit sympathetic. And if she has the potential to use her powers for good rather than for evil, then she better do that! His hesitating air when discussing the issue is nicely done. The Big Scene itself was predictable (but it was always going to be—it was a TV Event), but I thought it was well done. It shows the difference between Melisandre/Jon and Thoros/Berric quite nicely. Melisandre is more about the ceremony and respect, and Jon is a more important figure than Berric.
Spoiler
"But if Davos doesn't ask Mel about somehow resurrecting Stannis now..." - They don't have Stannis's body. :)
Spoiler
"One question I do have about the ressurection is that throughout the series we have heard only death can pay for life, will we be seeing a concequence to this?" - That struck me mainly as a Faceless God tenet, not something widely shared among belief systems, but even so, maybe we'll see consequences, but maybe this is itself the consequence. Remember Mance. Remember Shireen. They were sacrificed for Stannis, but Stannis didn't get his successes. He wasn't the "chosen" one. Maybe Melisandre is just reaping the rewards of those sacrifices now.
A couple of points to remember that didn't bear directly on this episode:

Remember that not everyone knows everything that's going on. Ramsay knows that a Lannister army is probably coming for them eventually, but they don't see it as an imminent threat. Securing Sansa is Ramsay's first priority, and sealing off the Wall as a means of her escape seems like it should be easy: the Night's Watch is understaffed. Ramsay doesn't know Jon died, and he doesn't know about the Wildlings.

Remember that Littlefinger promised Cersei that they could swoop in on the Boltons and crush them (and kill Sansa) after they wore themselves out against Stannis. Littlefinger expected Sansa to get away (I don't think he really intended to throw her under the bus). Now his plan will be to consolidate his own power in the East and the North.

Everyone was gearing up for a Bolton/Lannister(+ secret help from Littlefinger) conflict, with a minor clash against 20 Night's Watchmen in the north first. Now it's looking like we're going to get a much more massive northern clusterfuck with Wildlings, Stark loyalists, Boltons, and possibly the others later. It'll be interesting to see what order these things play out. If the Boltons lose their footing in the North before the others even get involved, how will that change Littlefinger's scheming?
• TONe's Discord server is a laid-back place to chill & chat
• Please subscribe to help my Langrisser channel on YouTube!
• Follow me on Twitch to get a notification when I'm streaming
User avatar
The Shoemaker
Local Legend
Local Legend
Posts: 3261
Joined: 19 Jun 2014 21:32
Location: Canada

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by The Shoemaker »

@Kong

Not the writers: Brienne. She knows Sansa knows who the Hound is. - So Why not say she was with the Hound then? You could say she didn't say it because she didn't want Sansa to be worried, but Brienne killed the Hound anyways. Seemed like it was a topic being avoided by the writers because they didn't have enough scene time to discuss the Hound.

Tyrion - Yes, he went to the dragons because he wanted to, I'm just saying the whole scene just felt awkward to me, but I did appreciate the little "moment" Tyrion had with the dragons.

Definitely agree with Arya. Might also be why they haven't shown any of her Wolf dreams.

They're in the city plotting their next move. Remember, the sand snakes are basically ninjas, and they have a plan. - Haha, I know, I'm joking here.


I don't remember what episode they mention the Seastone Chair in - They didn't as far as I know. Just saying it's kind of an odd thing to change from the books. They constantly change character names, background details and famous lines. Something like Seastone Chair is so tiny, why change it at all when they could make book readers happy? I like Asha a lot in the books so I enjoyed her scenes as they felt on character. I still thought it was weird to suddenly see Balon, though I thought it was a little meta and funny for Balon to be bragging about being the last living king in the War of 5 Kings. I wasn't terribly impressed by Euron, I just want to see more.

They don't have Stannis's body. - That's not the point. Davos shouldn't know the extent of Mel's magic, if he doesn't at least ask if it's still possible for Stannis I'll be a little disappointed, or at least say "if only we had Stannis's body".
Spoiler
It is interesting hearing Ramsay talk about going to kill Jon, not knowing he's already dead, and now by the time he gets to him Jon will be alive and it will be like nothing ever happened :)
Currently reading: A Feast For Crows AND A Dance With Dragons
User avatar
Kong Wen
Just a Normal Kong
Just a Normal Kong
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 Jun 2014 18:14
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by Kong Wen »

The Shoemaker wrote:Not the writers: Brienne. She knows Sansa knows who the Hound is. - So Why not say she was with the Hound then?
Because she doesn't want to? There could be a lot of reasons. I think it would be weirder if she had a whole long scene where she could have fully discussed the Hound, and we would have asked "Why say she was with the Hound?"
The Shoemaker wrote:I don't remember what episode they mention the Seastone Chair in - They didn't as far as I know. Just saying it's kind of an odd thing to change from the books.
Oh, well, then nothing happened to the Seastone Chair. It's called the Salt Throne in this work, and it would be weird to change it. ;) Maybe they call it the Seastone "Chair" out of respect for the King when the Iron Islands are vassals to King's Landing, but when they entertain independence they call it a Throne.
The Shoemaker wrote:They don't have Stannis's body. - That's not the point. Davos shouldn't know the extent of Mel's magic, if he doesn't at least ask if it's still possible for Stannis I'll be a little disappointed, or at least say "if only we had Stannis's body".
If he doesn't ask this on-screen, I'm going to assume he asks off-screen. There's not much drama in it, so it would be a strange thing to waste precious minutes on. Unless they somehow manage to inject a plot point into it, but they have enough going on right now, so I doubt it.
• TONe's Discord server is a laid-back place to chill & chat
• Please subscribe to help my Langrisser channel on YouTube!
• Follow me on Twitch to get a notification when I'm streaming
User avatar
The Shoemaker
Local Legend
Local Legend
Posts: 3261
Joined: 19 Jun 2014 21:32
Location: Canada

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by The Shoemaker »

Kong Wen wrote:
The Shoemaker wrote:Not the writers: Brienne. She knows Sansa knows who the Hound is. - So Why not say she was with the Hound then?
Because she doesn't want to? There could be a lot of reasons. I think it would be weirder if she had a whole long scene where she could have fully discussed the Hound, and we would have asked "Why say she was with the Hound?"
The Shoemaker wrote:I don't remember what episode they mention the Seastone Chair in - They didn't as far as I know. Just saying it's kind of an odd thing to change from the books.
Oh, well, then nothing happened to the Seastone Chair. It's called the Salt Throne in this work, and it would be weird to change it. ;) Maybe they call it the Seastone "Chair" out of respect for the King when the Iron Islands are vassals to King's Landing, but when they entertain independence they call it a Throne.
The Shoemaker wrote:They don't have Stannis's body. - That's not the point. Davos shouldn't know the extent of Mel's magic, if he doesn't at least ask if it's still possible for Stannis I'll be a little disappointed, or at least say "if only we had Stannis's body".
If he doesn't ask this on-screen, I'm going to assume he asks off-screen. There's not much drama in it, so it would be a strange thing to waste precious minutes on. Unless they somehow manage to inject a plot point into it, but they have enough going on right now, so I doubt it.
I think the differences in our opinions Kong comes from you being okay with things happening and being explained off-screen, while I am not. If it didn't happen on screen, or wasn't alluded to, than it's of my opinion that it did not happen. I really can't give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when many scenes only add up if you imagine certain events occurred off screen. I find that to just be projection honestly, but I'm not going to argue which is the right way to view it, because that's just subjective.

As for Salt Throne, I heard what you're saying, but this work is an adaptation of A Song and Ice and Fire, so it would be nice if it took some influence for it, especially when it comes to tiny things like the name of a throne. It's like them renaming longclaw to longtalon.

Definitely agree to disagree when it comes to Brienne and the Hound.
Currently reading: A Feast For Crows AND A Dance With Dragons
User avatar
Kong Wen
Just a Normal Kong
Just a Normal Kong
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 Jun 2014 18:14
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by Kong Wen »

The Shoemaker wrote:I think the differences in our opinions Kong comes from you being okay with things happening and being explained off-screen
It's the nature of the medium. Stuff happens off-screen all the time in film, television, theatre. It's something most people learn to embrace if they're going to enjoy these media. It actually happens in books as well—though not as often in sprawling, descriptive books like the ones on which this show is based—, but books have more flexibility with backstory and other aside-type content (like thoughts) than visual media do as well.

It's not really projection, it's interpretation. Instead of "Why would a character act this way? Something must be broken. The creator must have done something wrong." you say "Why would a character act this way? There must be something inside this character that I don't know about or haven't figured out yet." You're given some (but not all) information about a character, situation, and motivations, and you connect the dots. Any good art involves some of this kind of work on the part of the viewer/reader.
The Shoemaker wrote:Definitely agree to disagree when it comes to Brienne and the Hound.
Sure, if you want. This is honestly one of the weirdest objections I think I've heard, though, and I think it stems from your tendency to attribute too much of what goes on inside the screen to the artifice of the writers/producers outside the screen. Some of it is astute, but this Brienne example is really just nitpicking. Why not say it was the Hound? Why say it was the Hound? Why not talk about the candle in the window? Why not talk about Stannis, or Jaime, or Littlefinger? Brienne has her own motivations and complexities, and she's certainly not known for being effusive. She didn't not tell Sansa the details by accident. The writers didn't leave out a nod to the Hound by accident. She said what she wanted to say. The viewers got to see the scene between Brienne and the Hound with their own eyes, so frankly I'm surprised we got a scene with her re-telling that story at all. If anything, the shifting focus on the details tells us more about her character. The more I think about that scene, the more effectively I think it was written.
The Shoemaker wrote:As for Salt Throne, I heard what you're saying, but this work is an adaptation of A Song and Ice and Fire, so it would be nice if it took some influence for it, especially when it comes to tiny things like the name of a throne. It's like them renaming longclaw to longtalon.
I think its influence shows quite clearly through the main events and characters. :) Nah, I understand your point, I'm just ribbin'. I generally find it funny when book fans (not just Game of Thrones, but other big book-to-movie adaptations as well *cough*LordoftheRings*cough*) allow their enjoyment to be side-tracked by minutiae. "Man, this is a rollicking epic with deep social commentary, but how come that hut has a straw roof instead of clay?"
• TONe's Discord server is a laid-back place to chill & chat
• Please subscribe to help my Langrisser channel on YouTube!
• Follow me on Twitch to get a notification when I'm streaming
User avatar
The Shoemaker
Local Legend
Local Legend
Posts: 3261
Joined: 19 Jun 2014 21:32
Location: Canada

Re: Game of Thrones Discussion (May contain spoilers)

Post by The Shoemaker »

Continued spoilers below!
Kong Wen wrote: It's the nature of the medium. Stuff happens off-screen all the time in film, television, theatre. It's something most people learn to embrace if they're going to enjoy these media. It actually happens in books as well—though not as often in sprawling, descriptive books like the ones on which this show is based—, but books have more flexibility with backstory and other aside-type content (like thoughts) than visual media do as well.

It's not really projection, it's interpretation. Instead of "Why would a character act this way? Something must be broken. The creator must have done something wrong." you say "Why would a character act this way? There must be something inside this character that I don't know about or haven't figured out yet." You're given some (but not all) information about a character, situation, and motivations, and you connect the dots. Any good art involves some of this kind of work on the part of the viewer/reader.
I do agree with you, I do think it is fine for things to happen off-screen (I definitely made myself sound completely opposed to it). But I think there's an extent to what should be shown off screen. There are moments like these in the show that are done well, such as Davos saying "I've seen what this woman can do" without actually explaining everything. Not the best example, but it's one that comes to me immediately. My problem in particular with Game of Thrones is that I feel they leave out too much, and often skip out on essential information that I feel is necessary for the scene to add up. Often it's things that could easily be put in. Such as when the Sand Snakes meet Trystanne on the boat he could have easily said "how did you get here?" and the Snakes could explain before doing what they do. Instead we have no way of knowing how they got there without assuming. For me that's not a neat mystery, that appears more like incontinutity considering we last saw them on shore at Dorne and Trystanne's boat far in the distance.

I just think too often I'm doing all the work when it comes to figuring out this plot, and not in the right ways.

In particular with Davos, my comment about reviving Stannis stems off my comment from last week about wanting to see him mourn Stannis in some way. We can assume he is doing so in his thoughts and behind the scenes, but if the writers don't show him doing so in any way then I think it shows that they don't find his relationship with Stannis to be particularily important to Davos character, which I think it is. So saying they need to show him ask Mel about reviving Stannis is a little extreme on my part, I just need one moment to show that this is something that is affecting Davos. But for me, I feel like it's a logical next step for Davos to ask Mel "now that I know you can revive people... any chance we can bring back Stannis?" Even if he knows the answer. It also stems off of how I feel like for the past couple seasons, for the most part, they haven't really been showing the repercussions of the big character moments.

Kong Wen wrote: Sure, if you want. This is honestly one of the weirdest objections I think I've heard, though, and I think it stems from your tendency to attribute too much of what goes on inside the screen to the artifice of the writers/producers outside the screen. Some of it is astute, but this Brienne example is really just nitpicking. Why not say it was the Hound? Why say it was the Hound? Why not talk about the candle in the window? Why not talk about Stannis, or Jaime, or Littlefinger? Brienne has her own motivations and complexities, and she's certainly not known for being effusive. She didn't not tell Sansa the details by accident. The writers didn't leave out a nod to the Hound by accident. She said what she wanted to say. The viewers got to see the scene between Brienne and the Hound with their own eyes, so frankly I'm surprised we got a scene with her re-telling that story at all. If anything, the shifting focus on the details tells us more about her character. The more I think about that scene, the more effectively I think it was written.
My problem with the omission isn't related to Brienne, or the scene between her and the Hound. It's about Sansa and her relationship to the Hound. It strikes me as odd to full well know who Arya was with, and not release that information. And as a writing decision, to know of the history between Sansa and the Hound, and to have an opportunity for Sansa to be reminded of that character in relation to her sister, strikes me as a missed opportunity. Jaime, Stannis and the candle weren't related to the conversation at hand, but the Hound was. I also don't think it should be surprising that we got this scene, since I think it's kind of important to know that Brienne told Sansa about her incounter with Arya, which is why I said I liked the scene in the first place. It was a moment of satisfaction for Brienne being able to reassure Sansa of her family, and a moment of (somewhat) joy for Sansa to find out that her missing sister is alive, and could still be. Adds on to the fact that she just found out recently that Bran and Rickon are alive. It's a moment of hope that I think the show skips out on too often, we should be seeing more of these kinds of scenes.

This is why I said it's a small point that bugged me, because all I wanted was a quick recognition from Sansa of the Hound. I still think there's an opportunity for it to come up later, but I thought this was a good spot.

But you are right in that I hold a lot of bias against the writers. This is due to their history of refusing to recognize ciriticisms of the show, common instances (on screen and off) of caring more about shocking moments than character development and logic, and distaste for representing the books. I see a pattern in their wiriting, which is why I often criticise from their writing perspective. Though I could cut them a bit of slack due to the fact that the medium they are working with requires more shocks in order to keep the average viewer interested each week, and the nature of deadlines (which GRRM does not do well with) means they only have so many working days to work on the script.
Kong Wen wrote: I think its influence shows quite clearly through the main events and characters. :) Nah, I understand your point, I'm just ribbin'. I generally find it funny when book fans (not just Game of Thrones, but other big book-to-movie adaptations as well *cough*LordoftheRings*cough*) allow their enjoyment to be side-tracked by minutiae. "Man, this is a rollicking epic with deep social commentary, but how come that hut has a straw roof instead of clay?"
Oh definitely, which is why I continue to say I enjoy the episodes, but am disappointed by little things like changes in names and iconic lines, because I often don't see the benefit in the change, especially when it can be an easy way to please those who know the source material. My intention is without a doubt to come off as a book snob. I also just like to point out what I felt worked, or didn't work, regardless of its importance.
Last edited by The Shoemaker on 06 May 2016 01:30, edited 1 time in total.
Currently reading: A Feast For Crows AND A Dance With Dragons
Post Reply