|
Post by jnr on Jul 19, 2016 17:20:20 GMT
What will make and has made this show successful is pandering to the majority of audience expectations.What's important to us wee folk doesn't number among the majority. Sure. All the same, I'm not surprised to see media reports of GRRM having "differences" with D&D over their creative choices; this is exactly the kind of crap he was afraid Hollywood would pull, that led him to turn down other proposals before D&D. Also, even the show audience is increasingly noticing and mocking the more blatant fuckups. Example: Varys' mutant power to teleport across a planet drew a certain amount of commentary. None of it's going to stop the show from being successful, any more than GRRM's own blatant fuckups will stop the books from being successful. It's incredible to me that he took as long as he did to write a book as thoroughly padded and boring as AFFC, but he did, and most fans just forgave him for it. (Not me; I said I wouldn't buy the next book and I didn't. I never would have read it at all except Aeka decided to mail me a copy to find out what I thought.)
|
|
|
Post by azriel on Jul 19, 2016 19:15:24 GMT
So jnr,
Do you believe that the show should be completely true to the books, or do you believe that the directors/writers should have some artistic freedom with interpretation? I remember when Interview with the Vampire was being made, Anne Rice was up in arms over the whole thing, she hated Tom Cruise as Lestat. However, once the movie was released she was "pleased", I as a huge fan of the series was not and felt the writers really took a lot of important details out of the story.
I get that some novels are too large to make into a decent movie or show, time constraints and all, but there are certain things you just can't remove or change.
Just curious on your take on the subject of artistic freedom/liberty.
|
|
|
Post by jnr on Jul 19, 2016 19:26:05 GMT
Do you believe that the show should be completely true to the books, or do you believe that the directors/writers should have some artistic freedom with interpretation? The second, of course. For instance, I complained above that AFFC was padded and boring. Well, D&D obviously agree with me. So they went with marrying Sansa to Ramsay instead of her doing much more slow-developing plot from the books. Brienne, similarly, doesn't just go nowhere, as she does in AFFC; she heads somewhere sensible in her search (the Eyrie) and she actually finds Arya (by an incredible coincidence, but we'll look the other way about that). There are other changes I like, too. In the first season, there's a noncanonical scene in which Cersei asks Robert "Did we ever have a chance?" and Robert says "No!" and it's actually a humanizing moment, that she would ask that question and he would give that answer. So thumbs-up from me for that. But artistic license doesn't explain some of D&D's kookier, more poorly thought-out decisions. A simple example would be giving the CotF fireballs, because if they had had those, the First Men would never have invaded Westeros successfully, so there would be no Starks, no Winterfell, no Long Night, no Storm's End, no Casterly Rock, and on and on. The whole history we know would be completely different. Similarly, there's just no way a newborn baby could be taken, with no breast milk or formula or even decent clothing, hundreds of miles into the uttermost north of Westeros and survive... or Arya could be stabbed twice in the guts and still do the amazing physical things she does in the next episode. This kind of thing is just screwed-up storytelling IMO, because it ignores basic realities of how human beings function that any fifth-grader should know.
|
|
|
Post by azriel on Jul 19, 2016 19:51:42 GMT
This kind of thing is just screwed-up storytelling IMO, because it ignores basic realities of how human beings function that any fifth-grader should know. Well maybe that is part of the problem, you are assuming they have the same limitations and earthly humans. Maybe while looking like us their anatomy is a bit different and they can withstand more then we can? Just a theory...but you all are the experts on the books/show...
|
|
|
Post by min on Jul 19, 2016 20:35:10 GMT
This kind of thing is just screwed-up storytelling IMO, because it ignores basic realities of how human beings function that any fifth-grader should know. Well maybe that is part of the problem, you are assuming they have the same limitations and earthly humans. Maybe while looking like us their anatomy is a bit different and they can withstand more then we can? Just a theory...but you all are the experts on the books/show... I'm no expert. I just have some ideas that I have developed from the books and reading other people's OP's over time. I change my mind quite often. I think most of the people here are way ahead of the curve and I'm catching up all the time. I have reread the books four time now and I still don't get the mysteries. When I'm brave enough, I'll even post some ideas and test them out on other people. There is always a great diversity of opinion and expertise here to tap into. I tend to use Westeros Wiki as well. I enjoy the show for it's entertainment value, but like you, I expected more from Anne Rice's movie adaptation because of my experience with her books. And now, I'm eagerly anticipating SyFy's adaptation of the Hyperion Cantos which can't possibly be as good as the books. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by jnr on Jul 19, 2016 21:52:51 GMT
Maybe while looking like us their anatomy is a bit different and they can withstand more then we can? If this is so, it should be consistently so. But it seems D&D make these decisions only when it's convenient for their plot. For instance, in the season six finale, Pycelle is stabbed. And instead of outduelling assassins and leaping great distances, as Arya does, he... drops dead. Quite the expected course of action in our world. And Qyburn knows that's going to happen, and apologizes in advance for Pycelle's forthcoming death. Had Pycelle demonstrated anything resembling Arya's superhuman healing factor he would have been shocked. Similarly, if we imagine that human babies in that world don't require food and can withstand subzero temperatures for multiple days in a row, then surely grown adults should be able to do that as well. But instead, we're shown in season five that Stannis' army, full of grown warriors, is mortally threatened by cold weather, so much so that Stannis agrees to let his own daughter be burned alive. It seems an extraordinary contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by azriel on Jul 19, 2016 21:57:32 GMT
jnr,
I was playing devil's advocate, lol. Yes there are many scenes were we see how human they are, but you never know what's up with those Stark kids...maybe Rob was really the bastard and wasn't Ned's that is why he was easily killed. Just something to think about, but I am sure you have dissected that theory, lol.
|
|
|
Post by jnr on Jul 20, 2016 0:50:14 GMT
maybe Rob was really the bastard and wasn't Ned's that is why he was easily killed. Just something to think about, but I am sure you have dissected that theory Hmmm, that would actually be a new one on me. As crazy theories go, I'm still partial to TRJS's: that Nagga was not in fact a sea dragon, but an almighty sorcerous CotF whose mystical powers were somehow stolen by the Ironborn, and Theon has inherited them after thousands of years. Because, if true, it means that Theon can just grow a new cock any time he wants. Or two, even. Not out of the question if he's almighty.
|
|
|
Post by Maester Flagons on Jul 20, 2016 1:01:02 GMT
SyFy's adaptation of the Hyperion Cantos I'd gladly watch that.
|
|
|
Post by min on Jul 20, 2016 1:53:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Some Pig No Doubt on Jul 20, 2016 2:56:03 GMT
But watch Littlefinger's face (particularly his left eyebrow) when Sansa says that Rhaegar "kidnapped and raped her." That cocked eyebrow after the rape comment is a favorite amongst the RLJ crowd, but I personally was far more intrigued by Baelish's NEXT action, which was to gently herd Sansa out of the crypts while saying, "Come, let's speak somewhere the dead can't hear us." Now, why would that be necessary, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by jnr on Jul 20, 2016 3:15:20 GMT
Now, why would that be necessary, I wonder? Good question. All they had to do was put their hands over Lyanna's stone ears.
|
|
|
Post by azriel on Jul 20, 2016 19:17:43 GMT
jnr, I was playing devil's advocate, lol. Yes there are many scenes were we see how human they are, but you never know what's up with those Stark kids...maybe Rob was really the bastard and wasn't Ned's that is why he was easily killed. Just something to think about, but I am sure you have dissected that theory, lol. So do you think it is possible that Ned has some sort of mystery DNA mixed in that might make his children less susceptible to mortal wounds? Just curious because it does seem like some can withstand quite a bit and survive...I mean Bran fell how many stories, was in a coma but came out of it and was only paralyzed, not that being paralyzed is an only condition, but you would think given the limited medical procedures it would be rare he would have come out of the coma much less survive.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Jul 20, 2016 19:20:55 GMT
jnr, I was playing devil's advocate, lol. Yes there are many scenes were we see how human they are, but you never know what's up with those Stark kids...maybe Rob was really the bastard and wasn't Ned's that is why he was easily killed. Just something to think about, but I am sure you have dissected that theory, lol. So do you think it is possible that Ned has some sort of mystery DNA mixed in that might make his children less susceptible to mortal wounds? Just curious because it does seem like some can withstand quite a bit and survive...I mean Bran fell how many stories, was in a coma but came out of it and was only paralyzed, not that being paralyzed is an only condition, but you would think given the limited medical procedures it would be rare he would have come out of the coma much less survive. Weasel Pie help me out here. What thread where you wondering something along similar lines that Jon, Arya, and Bran seemed like they couldn't be killed, and I said maybe that's because they're already dead?
|
|
|
Post by Weasel Pie on Jul 20, 2016 19:21:56 GMT
jnr, I was playing devil's advocate, lol. Yes there are many scenes were we see how human they are, but you never know what's up with those Stark kids...maybe Rob was really the bastard and wasn't Ned's that is why he was easily killed. Just something to think about, but I am sure you have dissected that theory, lol. So do you think it is possible that Ned has some sort of mystery DNA mixed in that might make his children less susceptible to mortal wounds? Just curious because it does seem like some can withstand quite a bit and survive...I mean Bran fell how many stories, was in a coma but came out of it and was only paralyzed, not that being paralyzed is an only condition, but you would think given the limited medical procedures it would be rare he would have come out of the coma much less survive. I'm with you on that actually. Possibly not "Ned's DNA" per se, but it's my suspicion that some of the characters might be something close to "immortal." Something in the Stark line possibly, yes, but there's a long list of characters who've survived near-death and actual-death.
|
|