WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
Probably a combination of Euron, Dany and the White Walkers.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
*UNMARKED SPOILERS ALL BOOKS* Game of Thrones |OT| - Season 6
- Thread starter Steelyuhas
- Start date
- Status
LegendofJoe
Member
It makes no sense from the standpoint of the books that the Umbers would betray the Starks like that, but this show is horrible when it comes to logical consistency so maybe you're right.
Salty Catfish
Member
Is it possible that they're going to eliminate Victarion from the storyline completely and make the Kingsmoot just Euron vs. Yara?
Again, Ramsay already has a wife. Giving him fArya doesn't help him at all at this point.
That's clearly what they're doing.
Unless I missed some casting news, this is pretty much guaranteed.
LegendofJoe
Member
He doesn't have Sansa anymore and afaik she isn't pregnant. At the moment he has nothing to give himself legitimacy.
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
Theon is going home. So maybe Euron vs. Yara vs. Theon.
Why are so many people concerned with the emphasis on Ramsay? I can think of at least a dozen other characters whose character development and portrayal deserve more attention.
Ramsay? He’s just the annoying ass holding Winterfell. He’s literally the least complicated figure in the series.
Ramsay? He’s just the annoying ass holding Winterfell. He’s literally the least complicated figure in the series.
bodyofanamerican
Member
It makes sense from the standpoint of
Ramsay finally having something of legitimate importance to Sansa that would lead her to at least consider returning as his wife in return for Rickon's safety. It also lets him send the show version of the pink letter, demanding Sansa's return as his wife in exchange for Rickon's life. Will also very easily kick off Ramsay vs. Jon.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
plus a male heir would rally the north against Ramsay. The show has conveniently sided major northern houses with the Boltons for this stupidity to "work" but throwing a male Stark heir in the mix changes things. Or should.
I find it fascinating that so many readers don't believe in the red god despite there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The story has two previous lord of light resurrection examples, shadow babies, poison immunity, fire sight (predicting the future in the flames), glamouring and seemingly some form of immortality.
I also think people's opinions of the Faith Militant is interesting. A lot of people have admitted to rooting for Cercei and Jamie against the faith. What's interesting about that, to me, is that Cercei and Jamie embody political corruption among many other things. Basically the conflict in King's Landing is setup as the politically corrupt vs religious zealots. There doesn't seem to be a clear good vs evil match up here.
One of the more intriguing aspects of the story overall is how the readers/viewers react to the various plots and characters. What does it say about person if they are indifferent to Jon, but love Stannis? Or if s/he cheers for Cercei instead of the High Sparrow? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do think it's fun to think about.
I also think people's opinions of the Faith Militant is interesting. A lot of people have admitted to rooting for Cercei and Jamie against the faith. What's interesting about that, to me, is that Cercei and Jamie embody political corruption among many other things. Basically the conflict in King's Landing is setup as the politically corrupt vs religious zealots. There doesn't seem to be a clear good vs evil match up here.
One of the more intriguing aspects of the story overall is how the readers/viewers react to the various plots and characters. What does it say about person if they are indifferent to Jon, but love Stannis? Or if s/he cheers for Cercei instead of the High Sparrow? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do think it's fun to think about.
Sad to see McElhatton go really, always thought he was wonderful casting for Roose. Loved his comment on Brienne's fatalities though, Ramsay's good men are down to 14. Although I was wondering this after ep1, but the insanely vicious dogs ran away from Sansa and seemingly teleported back to the kennels.
At this rate I can see the climax to the northern kerfuffle being a massive clusterfuck on both sides of the Wall. With two bastards fighting on top of the wall, shirtless, to a Harry Gregson Williams medley.
At this rate I can see the climax to the northern kerfuffle being a massive clusterfuck on both sides of the Wall. With two bastards fighting on top of the wall, shirtless, to a Harry Gregson Williams medley.
As flawed as monarchy is, it's still a hell of a lot better than theocracy. High Sparrow's a self-righteous dick, but at least he's not cruel. Now imagine if they held the power and eventually someone like Joffrey became the High Septon.
SpaceHorror
Member
I really hope the whole
Rickon thing is a ploy by the Northern houses, but it doesn't seem like it. I'm really not sure why D&D have made the Northern lords so goddamn conniving. Hopefully, at least the Manderlys and maybe some other Umbers join with the Mormonts against Super Satan at some point. I just don't get why the Umbers would side with the Boltons after the Red Wedding. Maybe because they didn't show Greatjon at the Red Wedding?
Well to be fair the bloodhounds were different dogs than the ones that killed Walda and son.
They are already horrible, what they did to Cersei was appalling, and I hate her as much as anyone else.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
With lots of twists and the fact happy endings not exactly a well known thing in GoT / ASOIAF, I have a feeling that the Night's King and the Walkers could actually win or if not, at least someone not so obvious will end up on the Iron Throne in the end.
One thing I think would be cool, if the Walkers make it as far as King's Landing, we could see a lot of dead characters return and join the undead army. I can imagine the horror on people's faces if someone like Joffrey returns from the dead.
I think the odds that the Lord of Light exists are equal to the odds that s/he/it doesn't exist. That's kind of my point though, what would constitute proof of the Lord of Light's existence?
He doesn't have physical possession of her, which is a problem, but they are married. fArya doesn't help him in that regard, because he can't marry her.
dead souls
Member
I think you answered your own question. Ramsay is a dreadfully boring character that the show spends way too much time on. On a show filled with terrible writing he's one of the most one note characters. Another shocking atrocity? Yawn.
Yeah, I'm just saying it could be worse. A lot worse. People burnt alive in pyres in the public square kind of worse.
I was speaking more to the obsessive reactions in this thread, people are very interested in how Ramsay is portrayed. Totally fine, but personally I just don't get it.
There's plenty of yawnworthy moments in the books too, dare I say. Though that's not as cool as blanket bitching about the show writing.
LegendofJoe
Member
So it's either Theon or Rickon. It can still be Theon because technically in the book Yara or Asha comes to Winterfell to rescue Theon to mount a challenge to Euron. They meet outside the castle in one of the released WoW chapters. Him going "home" to Winterfell makes sense too. Also, the sick look of glee on Ramsay's face when he sees the gift wouldn't come from seeing a boy he's never met.
I'd probably bet Rickon gets done in on the show, I just don't see the viewers invested enough in him for D&D to make him worthwhile. Likely it'll be another shocker/sad death for the Starks for showatchers to get riled up over. If he showed up this season with a massive army behind him then I mean cool I guess, the forgotten son on the show becomes the unlikely hero, but D&D always play it real on the nose so eh...
The Crown beheaded Ned in the public square on manufactured charges.
This is certainly reasonable but a little too neat and trope-y for Martin. HBO could certainly go their own way with a "heroes conquer all the villains" story but I just don't see it being that easy in the books.
And I really do believe fAegon will sit the throne.
A lot of people complain about Feast and Dragons. Their slow pacing and added characters who may or may not matter in the end. I love the books but there are many who have profess their problems.
Before the Faith Militant was reinstated, the king ruled with absolute power. Just look at the Mad King for reference. Horrible things happened to nobles and commoners under his reign. Joffrey flung the antler men on a catapult with impunity.
I think the line between theocracy and monarchy has been historically blurred. Divine right was often used to legitimize the monarchies authority and get people to believe that questioning the king was the same as questioning God.
Anton Sugar
Member
This.
Any sort of nuance they try to give his character (his feels of inadequacy as a son/heir being the main one) is immediately undone or overshadowed by his sadism.
At this point, his scenes are worse than bad: they're boring.
This sentiment that "but the books do it, too" is somehow an excuse for the (heavily revised/altered) TV show is laughable and, honestly, annoying.
We are stuck with him as the main villain for the rest of the season.
What's the difference? At most, the High Septon is now claiming more secular power, power that a king already has, and as we've seen, has exercised aggressively.
The High Sparrow in the books is one of the only political figures in the series actually concerned about ordinary people, and his followers are reacting (correctly) to the horrendous carnage the nobles have caused the continent.
But hallow bitching about the show isn't? It's not debatable that both platforms have their faults. I don't get why this is so hard to accept.
m_shortpants
Member
Agreed, perfect casting. His voice is so cold, so blunt. Perfect Roose.
Anton Sugar
Member
"Ramsay's scenes are boring and have no momentum or drama" cannot be countered with "there are boring scenes in the books". That's not how critical thought/criticism works.
You're the one who brought up the books as a retort to a complaint about Ramsay. Everyone here knows the books have faults, and I think everyone would agree that hollow bitching about the books would be annoying.
Pointing out that a character and his scenes are boring and poorly conceived is not hollow bitching.
Ding ding ding!
Cornballer
Member
Not sure these were posted yet:
- IGN: Patrick Malahide on Balon Greyjoy Being the Last of the Five Kings
- IGN: Gemma Whelan interview
- Making Game of Thrones: Storyboard for the final scene from last week's episode
A few columns on Jon's resurrection and the problems therein:
- Maureen Ryan for Variety: When Character Deaths (and Revivals) Work and When They Dont
- Matt Zoller Seitz for NY Mag: Last Nights Game of Thrones Twist Couldnt Have Been More Disappointing
- Vanity Fair: Jon Snow Should Have Stayed Dead
- Sepinwall: Could Game of Thrones have done what it did tonight any better?
Given that he had to die and be resurrected as that's how the story goes in the books, was there a better way to handle it in terms of structure and where they located it within a season? Is some of the problem that they ended the season with his death and then waited until the new season to revive him? Was it an issue with the way the scene was shot? Are most of these problems inherent to a resurrection plotline and unsolvable? I'm curious if anyone has better ideas on how to put this particular plotline together.
- IGN: Patrick Malahide on Balon Greyjoy Being the Last of the Five Kings
- IGN: Gemma Whelan interview
- Making Game of Thrones: Storyboard for the final scene from last week's episode
A few columns on Jon's resurrection and the problems therein:
- Maureen Ryan for Variety: When Character Deaths (and Revivals) Work and When They Dont
- Matt Zoller Seitz for NY Mag: Last Nights Game of Thrones Twist Couldnt Have Been More Disappointing
- Vanity Fair: Jon Snow Should Have Stayed Dead
- Sepinwall: Could Game of Thrones have done what it did tonight any better?
Given that he had to die and be resurrected as that's how the story goes in the books, was there a better way to handle it in terms of structure and where they located it within a season? Is some of the problem that they ended the season with his death and then waited until the new season to revive him? Was it an issue with the way the scene was shot? Are most of these problems inherent to a resurrection plotline and unsolvable? I'm curious if anyone has better ideas on how to put this particular plotline together.
You created an argument that I never made. As I've already repeated, I was specifically referring to a few comments made that Ramsay needs more screen time, despite being so boring. It was you who followed up with "yawn books, boring character writing".
Naturally I believe that criticism is warranted, but Im also willing to accept that as a show, there are certain creative restrictions. Since we cant get into the characters heads, its impossible to completely understand every facet of every intention. Good writing helps with this, but can never completely replace thousands of pages of internal dialogue and development. This sentiment has been expressed numerous times in this thread, Im sure. As for George, Im willing to give a pass to the occasional slow, drawn out portions of the books while suspense, character development and pace can be established.
Vague, generalized the show and/or books do it better comments provide no value and arent constructive in the least. If you have issues with one side, you should take issue with the opposite as well.
But there is also a lot of 'evidence' that the Old Gods exist. They only consistency is the fact that this is a world with magic. The evidence of their being any particular specific god just as strong as it is in the real world for any particular god or lack of one. That's the point.
I think relatively, the revival of Jon Snow was handled well. One thing that the books and show did well, was introduce the fact that resurrection exists in this world way before it actually became relevant to the plot, so it isn't some kind of Deus Ex Machina. Furthermore, there is a cost to revival, it's not like everything is fine and dandy when it happens.
I do think making the death of Jon Snow a cliffhanger was a bad idea though (in both books and show), as it means the surprise of resurrection it lost. From the book point of view, because there are more than enough hints that is where the story is heading if you have time to think about everything. With the show, the fact that information leaks in between seasons. If this wasn't a cliffhanger, then the viewer/reader could have got lost in the moment, not analysing details, so it is still a nice surprise, but the hints being there for it not to feel like an ass pull when it does happen.
I haven't read the links though and am in a bit of a rush, but I hope I explained what I meant well enough.
I think they could have emphasized it less if it didn't spread over two seasons. Like if the stabbing was in 601 and he was revived in 604 or something, it would've been the exact same story but without all the hype behind it. There was no way to live up to the weight that was put behind the "Is he dead" question for an entire year.
The other thing that could have tempered it was if the resurrection itself wasn't just Melisandre praying. That's what people expected. If Bran were involved, or if the resurrection had somehow been accidental (burning of Shireen accidentally reviving him or something) it would have felt a bit more like a twist, instead of just prayer working.
I can't really be disappointed in it. It was fine. It's only because it got hyped up so much that it feels anticlimactic when it happened
ChaosZeroX
Banned
Anyone else think
once Jon Snow finds out that Ramsay has Rickon, hes going to go after the Boltons. Will we see Jon go around to all the northern houses to rally the troops or will he send someone to do this?
There needs to be some motivation that drives him there. I just wonder how long he's going to hang around Castle Black pondering everything that just happened and what he'll do next.
Cornballer
Member
One more question for the thread: are there any prophecies introduced on the show that haven't been resolved yet? They certainly haven't leaned on these as heavily as the books, and I can't remember too many that have been introduced aside from Maggie the Frog. Speaking of which, iirc, they don't include 'the valonqar' in the show version, right? I think the only bit that's unresolved with that prophecy is that Tommen is still alive and he's supposed to die before Cersei, gold shroud and all.
I'm also forgetting if Quaithe had anything of import to say on the show, or if she was mostly giving vague hints to Jorah when she showed up. Wonder if we'll see her again or if they're just dropping that at this point. Not sure if there's much point to revisiting her in the end.
I'm also forgetting if Quaithe had anything of import to say on the show, or if she was mostly giving vague hints to Jorah when she showed up. Wonder if we'll see her again or if they're just dropping that at this point. Not sure if there's much point to revisiting her in the end.
Right, I think it was handled reasonably well in Ep 2, but it proceeded exactly as one might have guessed. There wasn't much drama to seeing it on screen the way it unfolded.
Anton Sugar
Member
? Are you confusing your own posts for mine or something?
Everyone is aware that there are creative, and temporal, restrictions at play here--which is why it's all the more frustrating that Ramsay gets so much screentime and so little done with it.
I disagree with the notion that "if you have issues with the show, you should take issue with the book". They're two different mediums and have different paths, even if they end up at the same place. D&D literally have reign enough to change what's boring/bad about the books and use that screentime for something more valuable. That's why book readers get frustrated: when good content is cut and bad content is its replacement, as opposed to the opposite.
There are Melisandre's profecies I guess, but they are unreliable. Besides Maggie's and Mirri's profecies to Dany and Cersei there have been no other profecies as far as I can recall. Quaithe was basically non existent in the show.
Edit: oh there's also Bloodraven's to Bran: "you will never walk but you will fly" thing.
Edit: oh there's also Bloodraven's to Bran: "you will never walk but you will fly" thing.
ChaosZeroX
Banned
I think once Sansa
gets to Castle Black, they will probably learn that Rickon was taken to Winterfell and is under Bolton control or something like that.
CopperPuppy
Member
This. It would be a different story if we were talking about Joffrey, for instance, who, while also being monstrously cruel, was a well-portrayed antagonist who acted in accordance with his character's clearly established proclivities. He was reasonably well-written, as far as the show is concerned; he made sense. The same is true for Tywin.
Ramsay, on the other hand, acts only if, when, and as the plot dictates. He is generically vile and cruel, to be sure, but he exists to fill a void left by the show's now-deceased prior antagonists, his actions dictated by what the writers view as necessary to push the plot forward. He is "generic evil force," or the antagonist the showrunners clearly believed to be missing from this portion of the books. So, here he is. The only problem is that, because of his ill-conceived shoehorning into the plot, nothing around him makes sense.
I don't think Quaithe prophesied anything in the show, though it is interesting that she talked to Jorah about preparing a man to face the Doom in Valyria, given what eventually happened to him.
They still need to resolve Mel's prophesy that she'd meet Arya again. Don't know how or when that will happen.
LegendofJoe
Member
In that scenario Jon wouldn't be able to attack Winterfell unless he wants to sacrifice Rickon. There doesn't need to be a relative in captivity for him to go after Ramsay. There wasn't in the book and he was set to march there anyway. He who controls Winterfell controls the North, it doesn't matter who Ramsay has hostage or not.
I think Jon's mission now will be to unite the North to prepare for the Walkers. He conveniently has the exact same guy who was sent to do that under Stannis under the same roof with him.
ChaosZeroX
Banned
Wasn't fake Arya used to get him to want attack Winterfell? I forgot. Haven't read Dance with Dragons in a while.
- Status