Okay, I’m merging some of these topics.
We only really need TWO or THREE GOT threads, not four or five.
All discussion about GOT could easily fit in two (or possibly three if you’re being generous) threads.
I’m merging a few existing ones into this thread.
This is what is exasperating about this discussion. If you don’t agree that it was an unnecessary horrible event in the show then you must enjoy rape as a form of entertainment. :smack:
The conversation will never progress unless we get beyond the idea that the basic complaint is that some X-type of event happens, whether that X is murder, torture, rape, or anything else.
As Roger Ebert said about movies, it’s not a question of “what” it’s about but “how” it’s about what it’s about.
And we can’t progress further without casting aside the idea that someone is saying “you’re not allowed to enjoy entertainment that has some X-type event in it”
Sherrerd, IS saying that.
It’s also legitimate to realize that some other people are concerned about how it was presented and also not think those concerns are justified or that they’re applied unfairly.
How fucking tedious these GoT threads have gotten with all the rape discussions. Some of us enjoy having a show and books that are grittier than traditional fantasy genre. If you don’t want to see bad things happen to good people, then you are watching the wrong show.
That is also a strawman argument.
I have read all the books and have seen all the episodes so far. Does that mean I can have no criticisms? On the contrary, I criticize everything I read or watch, particularly if I like it. If I dislike something, then I tend to criticize it less, because it fails to hold my interest for long.
If you are allowed to talk about things you like about the show, why should I be invited to quit watching because I have some criticisms, even perhaps some major ones?
This is an ongoing problem in almost every Cafe Society discussion in which there is a lot of interest. Finding fault is a legitimate component of consuming entertainment. People who find fault should not face constant suggestions to quit watching or reading something or otherwise invited to leave the discussion.
So why does every criticism get lumped in with that?
There’s a difference between “I disagree” and the kind of defensive reaction that’s showing up here.
When I enjoy something, I’m most moved to voice my criticisms than my praise. That’s just how I enjoy something, at least partly because a work’s weaknesses, missteps, and errors are often more interesting to talk about than its successes.
When I don’t enjoy something, I eventually tire of talking about it at all.
I think it’s rather wrong-headed and passive-aggressive to keep suggesting to people with criticisms that they should either quit watching or quit discussing.
What did people think of Littlefinger’s bid to go north with the knights of the Vale? It made me wonder if that’s how they’re going to resolve the Stannis/Bolton mess that we have at the end of Dance. I think he and Sansa have been missing long enough in book time that they could turn up outside Winterfell in the near future.
Seems ambitious. I get that he’s the regent until Robin comes of age, but I imagine there’d be a lot of push back against using Vale soldiers for that purpose.
Wrong. You’ve made a false claim, here.
I agree with all these points. In general, comments such as
[ul]
[li]you can’t talk about this because it’s inappropriate[/li][li]it’s stupid to talk about this[/li][li]there’s something wrong with people who talk about this[/li][/ul] …are red flags, indicating a weak position.
(I believe we see these outbreaks of rage against discussion of particular topics most often when the topic touches on matters of hierarchy and inherited status. But that’s definitely a different thread.)
Speaking of different threads: the Mad Men finale ended up just where a lot of people had predicted it would. The showrunner was apparently not bothered by the fact that many had guessed his eventual series-ender–he went ahead and used it, anyway.
But for other story-ends, the creator has seemed to take note of public speculation, and made changes to contradict the guesses. (See “Jossed” at TV Tropes for many examples.)
So: do readers of the books believe that GRRM is going to come up with something contradicting the ‘the three heads-of-the-dragon’ theories that are widespread among the readership? Or will he just go with it?
I suspect the latter, but I’ve been wrong before. And he does seem at least as ornery as Whedon.
nm
This episode has little surprises for book readers. Though show folk are going to flip out at the Cersei in jail plot.
It seems to me that the BIG Ep 9 thing this season will be the Battle of Winterfell, which is why they appear to be draaaaaging out the story of Stannis getting to Winterfell (I mean if they wanted to have a bit of waiting have him liberate Deepwood Motte and get Theon’s sister).
Is Asha/Yara imprisoned? I thought she was hanging out at Pyke with Balon, who I think is still alive?
I assumed she was still holding Deepwood Motte. Not imprisoned, but the Ironborn still holding the Stony Shore.
Sure seems like we’re running out of time to see:
Dany and Drogon
The rescue of Sansa
The battle of White Harbour
Jon’s denouement
Jorah’s fate
Tyrion’s fate
Stannis’s daughters fate
Will we see a battle of Winterfell?
Ceresi’s walk
Whatever happens with LF and the Tyrells
Varys returning to Kings Landing and will anyone get crossbowed? (My money is still on Tommen)
Whatever the hell is going to happen in Dorne
Arya kills Trant and loses her sight this season?
Half or all of the participants of CLEGANEBOWL?
I dunno, that doesn’t seem like a ton.
Is there any reason you think there’s going to be clegane bowl?
I think…we need to see the Mountain side at least or the audience is just going to forget about the guy.
Maybe that will be Ceresi’s last line for the season, “I choose as my champion…” (reveal Frankenmountain)
Ah, I thought cleganebowl meant both of them.
I feel they’ve not done enough to really show who the Sparrows are within the context of this world and this Kingdom. The difference between the show and the book is massive here and the changes leave me quite confused.
In the show they allude to the discontentment of the poor and the money problems of the kingdom, mainly in the context of the Tyrells holding the purse strings. But in the books, the kingdom is flat broke, people are starving in the streets, and soldiers can’t be paid.
In the books, The Sparrows hold 1 million gold against the Kingdom and leverage that to create the Faith Militant. In the show, it’s basically on the whim of Cersei.
And were I solely a tv watcher, I’d be scratching my head right now. Hell, I still am. Tommen’s a pussy. We get it. He won’t act when his BIL is imprissoned. Or his wife. But seriously, now his mom? You don’t need an army, like Cersei was saying. Take 5 Kingsguards, go to the Sept, and kill every fucking person that stands in your way. It’s really not that hard.