Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Zane
Nov 14, 2007

teagone posted:

I will be watching this sober and enjoying it.
you monster

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
lol @ the notion that some of got's themes about the historical complexity of morality and politics will be preserved. it's going to be the most simple tolkeinesque victory over evil you guys.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

fishing with the fam posted:

It wouldn't surprise me if the problem the people have with the show is exactly the same reason GRRM is having problems finishing the books. The series made its bones being steeped in political intrigue and subverting genre expectations, but having everything build to grand apocalyptic battle with an unknowable and external existential threat is not conducive to either. There is no bargaining, backstabbing, or politicking with the white walkers, so they are boring rear end villains.
the setting would have a lot more legs if the white walkers were not the apocalypse but a sort of more proportional threat such that the common imperative to sustain the nights watch would have to be balanced against the disparate imperatives of the various civil war factions. a good writer could keep that spinning indefinitely.

e: apocalyptic thinking was really prevalent in the medieval era and it motivated a lot of actions. the crusades for example. so it is helpful to have a fantasy analogue. but it's almost always better for it not to be straightforwardly resolved.

Zane fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Apr 16, 2019

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
robb broke his marriage oath. the only bond that glues feudal society together. walder frey did nothing wrong. :colbert:

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
speaking more seriously for a moment: the starks would have been pretty hosed without the karstarks and freys to support them. and the starks wouldn't be inclined to bend the knee for long with ned, and presumably arya, still lying unavenged.

the situation is actually good historical encapsulation of the endless cycle of blood revenge--the avenging of past kin--that a lot of elites in pre-modern europe typically got up to before the church introduced a more impartial and universalist legal tradition. the lannisters want revenge for tyrion. the karstarks want revenge for eddard and torrhen and then for rickard. the starks want revenge for.. everything. it's one of the themes in beowulf: grendel is a son of cain, the first kinslayer; and beowulf has to 'kill' the principle of kinslaying somehow.

Zane fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Apr 17, 2019

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Away all Goats posted:

Hey remember when Jaime killed his own cousin.
that was a real dumb and unnecessary addition.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
she can be a ruler but it isn't some nice picnic in the woods

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

LividLiquid posted:

If somebody told the first half of a really good story at a dinner party, then stopped and said they'd tell you later, and then never did, you'd feel like they wasted your time.

Now imagine that story was several books long.
meh. i wouldn't regret it.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Spoke Lee posted:

How small do you guys think the chances are that the Night King dies and the remaining 3 episodes are the fallout and the fight for the throne? I hope not but I wonder.
this would actually be great (back to realpolitik) but it's not going to happen

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

A Buttery Pastry posted:

You're right that the music tells the story, but it's not the one you posted here. Dany's in Vaes Dothrak is the primal beating of drums, Cersei's the measured precision of the piano, a subtle hint that Cersei is bringing Westeros into modernity while Dany's "breaking the wheel" is turning back the clock to pre-feudal tribalism.
this is a terrible interpretation that hangs upon nothing. if any character in the show symbolically analogizes broader historical forces it is dany who symbolizes the forward march of enlightenment western values. even this however is an extremely stupid and simplified d&d translation that isn't worth discussing further.

Alhazred posted:

The Drogo/Dany thing is just so very, very badly written. Some times she's like "my brother sold me to a raping, slaving barbarian" and the next moment she's like "I must learn how to gently caress him better".
this is a psychologically plausible response for someone in her circumstances imo

Zane fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Apr 27, 2019

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

To the degree that politics is still relevant to the story, the feudal system has definitely fallen and events are forcing the characters to think in terms of a nation of westeros relative to outside political entities (white walkers, golden company/iron bank, the unsullied/dothraki). It seems like there will be a more renaissance understanding of nation and people going forward vs the emphasis on managing relationships between lords to maintain stability within westeros.
these penny-ante historical explications are the worst. the renaissance is typified by increase in commerce, recovery of classical learning, growth of urban populations, and reintroduction of republican forms of political government. none of this is in evidence -- if anything, almost precisely the opposite.

Zane fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Apr 27, 2019

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
if different group experiences are entirely self-enclosed and impossible to at least somewhat bridge through the medium of language then no one can intrinsically understand anyone, all communication is pointless, and everything is a war to the death.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

LionArcher posted:

Except the acting is still very good on this show on an episode like this one, and killing eve is getting a universal pass because of gay Stan culture. (It’s always going to be woman show runners and so on). And that’s great.

But when I brought up to somebody who’s queer (and loves killing eve) that they can’t have a consensual relationship since one of them is a serial killer with major personality disorders, they got furious at me. Fandom isn’t logical always. Rooting for your team isn’t logical always (it’s how there are people out there that actually think trump is a good president and that the warriors are a team worth rooting for).

Basically, I’m just grumpy because thrones is so popular it’s now held up to an impossible standard that nothing else could pass under either.
all this poo poo is disposable and will be soon forgotten. better to expend your energy elsewhere.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Crimpolioni posted:

The amount of medival fantasy series where characters actually have a medival mindset can be counted on one hand with fingers left over.
the 2015 bbc tv miniseries wolf hall is real good for anyone starved for competent but overlooked medieval drama in this vein. it's historical fiction rather than fantasy fiction ofc.

Zane fucked around with this message at 11:04 on May 6, 2019

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

this but the medieval tactics posts

the show shamelessly doesn't give a flying gently caress.

Season loving one: "ah, yes, the longsword, ideal for piercing plate..."
goons like to sperg. but the property's whole premise is that it is a pseudo-realistic historical fantasy world. there's every justification to expect events to be at least vaguely bound by a plausible reconstruction of medieval reality.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Bacon Terrorist posted:

The evidence for Tony dying is not explicit but there's so much implied (the would be assassin wears a Member's Only jacket, goes to the bathroom prior ala Godfather, Tony peels an orange which is also a Godfather thing) that he definitely bites it and as is previously discussed in both the show and other mafia media you don't hear the shot that kills you when a wise guy does.
also the deliberate scene where meadow is delayed and isn't in the restaurant (i think? it's been a while). with the authorial intent being clearly to suggest she isn't as morally condemned as the rest and might deserve to live.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
grrm has said in interviews that the eastern cities aren't supposed to be ethnically homogeneous. it only appears that way in the show because they were filming in places like morocco and the extras were all arabic. the issue gets even more tangled up between what i would call diagnostic and normative postures of fictional-historical representation: between a diagnostic reconstruction of a medieval society from the past in which concepts of race were close to non-existent (religion was a far more meaningful equivalent divider in the actual medieval era) and a normative intermingling of current racial constructions onto that diagnostic reconstruction.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
the writing was on the wall in s5. they very impressively screwed up roose bolton, littlefinger, and stannis, the instant they deviated from the source material. every failure afterwards was no surprise and requires no great analysis to understand. d&d simply have no understanding of the traditions of writing that GoT is embedded within: the tradition of fantasy genre fiction (ultimately deriving from the chivalric romance and the epic) and the tradition of social-political historicism. they had no systematic criteria for judging what a 'good story' vs a 'bad story' was and so everything subsequently became an inconsistent and improvisory mishmash. i threw a fit when this happened (2015) and have ever since been hate-watching from afar.

Zane fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Aug 16, 2019

Zane
Nov 14, 2007
the only magic they conceivably 'toned down' was melisandre's abilities at certain arbitrary moments. which ruined her character.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

punk rebel ecks posted:

What was different about her?
she can create magical shadows out of nothing and raise the dead and live forever for all we know. then her great feat at the battle of winterfell was to inconsequentially light some stuff on fire and die.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Precambrian posted:

I think Vale's actually the strongest, or, at least, least damaged. Wasn't it mentioned that Dorne went to a civil war after Cersei took out their leadership?

But Bran's the compromise option. A King, so the kingdom still stands and they, generally, do enjoy the benefits of being in a kingdom. Essos has effectively sent armies three times to Westeros (Stannis, Dany, Golden Company), and now the North is fair game for them to start carving out land from. But Bran's also a king who's too weak to really make them do anything. They've increased their individual power without having to take the risk of seceding.

The North continuing to secede anyways is a dumb, rear end in a top hat move, but that's what feudalism is. GOT used to make a point so you knew why Robb's bannermen were angry, vengeful, and petty and how he had to really twist himself to herd those cats (and when he decided to assert his own authority, it hurt someone's feelings and got him murdered). Sansa has those same families as her bannermen, plus years of experience being on her own as the sole administrator of the North at a time her brother was loving off selling out his kingdom and the South was planning how to invade her. It's reasonable for her to do a dumb thing, it's just that we never got to see the moving parts that lead her to be dumb.

One of the things I like about the first book is you get why Ned has to be the most honorable man alive, even if that's the trait that gets him murdered in the South. He's got to be the guy a bunch of warlike, quarreling assholes agree to go to for settling disputes. So he needs to be honest, consistent, and forthright to deal with them, but those traits don't work when you're in an environment of subtle schemers, so he does a shitload of dumb things.
the showrunners weren't thinking about any of this. they were thinking about how best to subvert viewer expectations. unlike martin's technique of subversion--which works always to play upon the gap between the myth and the reality of a feudal society--the d&d technique of subversion by s8 has devolved into simple gimmickry; of getting one up on the fan community from one episode to another. there is no point in explicating the meaning of anything that resulted from this lovely d&d misunderstanding of what grrm was trying originally to do.

Zane fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jan 25, 2020

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Precambrian posted:

But GRRM was probably the one who did most all of that. He's the guy who told the showrunners that Bran would be the king, that Sansa would leave with the North, and the other big picture things about how everyone ended up. And I think it's a fairly interesting setup, because it's weird and messy and complicated. What D&D did, though, was just rush to the ending, because all they care about was the big shocking reveal driven by some jerkoff thing about ~storytellers~ rather than telling the story that'd actually build up those points.

E. I think I misread you, and I think we mostly agree. I just think when people criticize Bran the Broken, the problem isn't the idea of King Bran and an Electoral Monarchy as an inherently bad ending, but the execution.
it's true that d&d were working off of a broad plot outline provided by grrm. the evidence for that has been strongly confirmed at least. but i don't believe--it would be big news to me--that many of the concrete details of that outline were ever actually established. my take is that grrm--in his constant alternation between idealism and realism--intended to subvert the dany hero story but to affirm the jon hero story. both conclusions would be a culmination of a lot of the already established narrative logic of these characters. in the books, the dany and jon plots are both fundamentally political stories that constantly alternate between the affirmation and the subversion of the 'return of the one true king, rise of the hero' plot structure. the bran plot, by contrast, is an almost purely metaphysical narrative: a journey that moves further and further away from immediate political struggle, and closer and closer to deeper questions of light and dark, life and death, human and nature; the substance of the different gods, the deep history of the different races; etc. there's nothing about bran's long established place in this metaphysical story that informs a sudden place for him in the political story. he has done nothing--has experienced no struggle--over the entire series to earn a personal power base, a set of territorial holdings, a body of retainers, that are the typical trappings of feudal power. and that's why i am almost certain d&d pulled it out of their asses.

Zane fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Jan 25, 2020

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

PittTheElder posted:

It's really not, those dudes were fanatical about maintaining their contracts, they knew having a trustworthy reputation was central to everything.

The reason they routinely wind is switching sides is because their employers had switched sides, or their employers were in crazy arrears.
medieval/renaissance italian mercenaries--some of the most well documented--were infamous for their unreliability.

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

Sky Shadowing posted:

This controversy is nicknamed in the book fandom "Lemongate", and is used as the baseline for all sorts of theories. Generally, those of us who buy Lemongate believe that this means her House With The Red Door is in Dorne, as no area in ASOIAF is as associated with lemons as Dorne is.

One branch of the Lemongate tree is nicknamed (f)Dany, and we believe that Dany is not who she (or anyone) thinks she is. The theories range over all sorts of areas. Some believe she's nobody special, just a right-looking girl picked up in a slave market in Lys or something to pass off as Viserys's sister so he can make marriage alliances. Most (including me) believe that that's way too boring, and that she's Rhaegar's daughter, as in her story she's far more associated with Rhaegar than she is with her (presumed) father- specifically she's told by multiple people "you really are Rhaegar's sister", in at least one vision she actually sees herself AS Rhaegar, and Rhaegar is the most common person in her visions in general.

The question then is, who is her mom. There are two favored candidates: a woman named Ashara Dayne, and Lyanna Stark. I myself switch back and forth between who I believe her mom is based on the mood I'm in.

I'll break this down further tomorrow if anyone wants me to, but you can pretty much read a loving novel on the subject if you care to.
cool. i remember reading an old post from the asoiaf fan community deconstructing the prophecy in the house of the undying and it was great stuff. say what you will about grrm he did put a lot of work into the story at some point.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zane
Nov 14, 2007

kaworu posted:

I've been doing a re-read of the books recently - actually, I'm listening to them for the first time on audible. I'm currently on A Feast for Crows, and the Cersei chapters are definitely the best part of that book, I think. They're just so much fun! Something you forget about the Cersei chapters is just how hilariously and cartoonishly evil she really is, in addition to the arrogance, ignorance, and dangerous stupidity.
couldn't really disagree more. tywin isn't changed. and everything the show did with cersei is bad.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply