Game of Thrones
#161
Posted 2013-April-10, 20:09
I'm not a fan of how Tyrion interacts with Shae in this season at least and probably last season but I don't remember being so peeved about it. I know he's supposed to be overcome with emotions and what not, but they've made him too mollified and beta, as if he's suppliant to Shea, which imo is not at all in line with his character. It would never have occurred to me to describe him as whiny and pitiful, but he certainly demonstrated some of those qualities in the last episode.
bed
#163
Posted 2013-April-13, 08:52
jjbrr, on 2013-April-10, 20:09, said:
I'm not a fan of how Tyrion interacts with Shae in this season at least and probably last season but I don't remember being so peeved about it. I know he's supposed to be overcome with emotions and what not, but they've made him too mollified and beta, as if he's suppliant to Shea, which imo is not at all in line with his character. It would never have occurred to me to describe him as whiny and pitiful, but he certainly demonstrated some of those qualities in the last episode.
I think it's the only thing that makes sense given his experience with women (getting burned by his first wife the whore), combined with being a dwarf, the guy is gonna have no confidence at all with women and then comes this beautiful woman who has stuck by him and shown him love, no doubt hes gonna be WHIPPED son lol.
#164
Posted 2013-April-14, 00:59
JLOGIC, on 2013-April-13, 08:52, said:
He also has the added danger that she's forbidden to him, and a weakness for him (others can use her against him), and in constant danger. All of that would act to reinforce her importance to him.
#165
Posted 2013-April-19, 14:38
JLOGIC, on 2013-April-13, 08:52, said:
(Don't know how to do the spoiler alert code :-s)(thanks jjbrr I did it)
John Nelson.
#166
Posted 2013-April-19, 20:36
Yes, I agree it is a problem. Like I said I completely forgot about Tysha and didn't realize it's a big deal, but it's huge in the books.
The attack of the Others at the Fist was also a big deal in the book and we were provided no details in the show, so there's a huge gap in how much the audience knows.
bed
#167
Posted 2013-June-03, 14:42
#168
Posted 2013-June-03, 15:08
Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 14:42, said:
Not the reaction that I've been seeing/hearing
#169
Posted 2013-June-03, 15:18
#170
Posted 2013-June-03, 15:30
Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 15:18, said:
As someone who got HBO a month ago and caught up on all of season 2 and 3 I found last nights episode very shocking, however I don't think the show sucks.
Spoilers only if you haven't seen the last episode
Is there anyway to watch Season 1 without buying/stealing it?
#171
Posted 2013-June-03, 16:27
Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 15:18, said:
I see this as a sign that the writers, actors, and producers did a great job getting folks to care about the characters...
#172
Posted 2013-June-03, 17:24
I can understand that some kind of special people like the change of the good guys all dying around, I mean its like watching real life politics, the few honest politicians are get rid of quickly while the worse snakes climb up. But if you want to make it real... why do you put dragons on it?
#173
Posted 2013-June-03, 19:18
Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 17:24, said:
I can understand that some kind of special people like the change of the good guys all dying around, I mean its like watching real life politics, the few honest politicians are get rid of quickly while the worse snakes climb up. But if you want to make it real... why do you put dragons on it?
There is a draw to watching real people in unreal situations, less so for watching unreal people in unreal situations. Sad that you can't enjoy the distinction, you are missing out!
#174
Posted 2013-June-03, 20:12
#175
Posted 2013-June-03, 20:23
This is a bit personal, but I also though it was so totally artificial the way the author killed Eddard, he wasted a lot of time to make you think Eddard was smart, and then he makes child mistake which not only costs his life but is partially responsible of every kill thereafter.
#176
Posted 2013-June-04, 01:07
Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 20:12, said:
draw = attraction
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#177
Posted 2013-June-04, 07:20
Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 20:23, said:
This is a bit personal, but I also though it was so totally artificial the way the author killed Eddard, he wasted a lot of time to make you think Eddard was smart, and then he makes child mistake which not only costs his life but is partially responsible of every kill thereafter.
I get where you are coming from. I read the first book and didn't like it at all. It was IMO poor fiction .. plenty of plot but no story, no long term narrative that I could identify. Characters presented as significant, with strongly indicated future plot lines, are trivially killed. To me it had very much a "making it up as he went" feeling.
Although I see how this could make better material for a television series, where a consistent long-term story is not really expected.
-gwnn
#178
Posted 2013-June-04, 07:51
billw55, on 2013-June-04, 07:20, said:
Game of Thrones is clearly inspired (in part) by the War of the Roses.
If there is one thing that conflict showed its the ephemeral characteristic of major "characters"
Leading contenders for the throne and kingmakers like Richard of York and the Earl of Warwick were constantly being killed in battle or executed.
By the end of the wars, so many major players had been disposed of that the throne eventually fell to Henry Tudor.
I don't think that Martin is making this up as he goes along. Rather, he's doing a great job introducing more complexity into the fantasy genre...
#179
Posted 2013-June-04, 13:51
bed
#180
Posted 2013-June-06, 14:41
hrothgar, on 2013-June-04, 07:51, said:
If there is one thing that conflict showed its the ephemeral characteristic of major "characters"
Leading contenders for the throne and kingmakers like Richard of York and the Earl of Warwick were constantly being killed in battle or executed.
By the end of the wars, so many major players had been disposed of that the throne eventually fell to Henry Tudor.
I don't think that Martin is making this up as he goes along. Rather, he's doing a great job introducing more complexity into the fantasy genre...
I suppose he has his sources. Perhaps it is a personal preference for me, I like character driven fiction.
I would not say that he "introduced" complexity to the genre: see the Wheel of Time for example, which is plenty complex. Still, it seems fair to say GoT is more complex than most.
-gwnn