Game of Thrones

[Van Buren Supernova]

I think the timing and the genre influence a lot in that.

GoT is some sort of war, medieval like time, where human life is cheap, woman right is almost non existent, violence is daily occurrence, and the law is determined by the strongest and crimes go unpunished. All sort of characters, occupations do undesirable things for survival.

 

While Sherlock is set in modern peaceful time, when supposedly more civilized world, there are laws,  rules, protection of equal human right. And Sherlock did not do it for survival.

[Boton]

I also would argue that human beings are inherently violent.  Peace is a veneer put on by civilization, but it is easy enough to scratch the surface and get down to the violent reality that lives inside all humans. Shows like GoT allow viewers to process through some of those impulses in a safe way, without doing anything that their morals and civilized selves would regret later.  But the lizard brain is always in there.

[T.o.b.y]

I also would argue that human beings are inherently violent. Peace is a veneer put on by civilization, but it is easy enough to scratch the surface and get down to the violent reality that lives inside all humans. Shows like GoT allow viewers to process through some of those impulses in a safe way, without doing anything that their morals and civilized selves would regret later. But the lizard brain is always in there.

So watching GoT serves the same purpose as playing a first person shooter?

 

I certainly don't think people who enjoy either or both are more violent in real life!

 

Maybe it doesn't work as an outlet for me because I most often take on the victim's perspective, not the aggressors. So all it does for me is give me an opportunity for vicarious pain and I don't really need that.

[Boton]

 

I also would argue that human beings are inherently violent. Peace is a veneer put on by civilization, but it is easy enough to scratch the surface and get down to the violent reality that lives inside all humans. Shows like GoT allow viewers to process through some of those impulses in a safe way, without doing anything that their morals and civilized selves would regret later. But the lizard brain is always in there.

So watching GoT serves the same purpose as playing a first person shooter?

 

I certainly don't think people who enjoy either or both are more violent in real life!

 

Maybe it doesn't work as an outlet for me because I most often take on the victim's perspective, not the aggressors. So all it does for me is give me an opportunity for vicarious pain and I don't really need that.

 

 

Yeah, I think for some (me included), watching GoT is similar to playing a video game or doing anything else that is a proxy for releasing violent impulses.  I don't think that means those people are more violent in real life; if anything, I think finding a socially-acceptable outlet for those impulses makes you a more peaceful person in real life.  

 

For example, I take a sparring class at a dojo, and the people who are there training in this particular style of martial art (which I know little about, because I'm on the periphery) are some of the most outwardly peaceful people I've ever met. I've watched some of them on the mat, and I am quite certain that if their families were threatened, they could break every bone in an assailant's body, and they will even talk about the fun of their respective kinds of combat (some of which is indeed full contact).  Then, they come off the mat, and they are polite, respectful, and gentle.  Part of it is that the discipline is obviously created to pair physical combat skills with social respect and reverence, but I do think part of it is that they have a release.

 

But back to GoT, the deaths I've cheered have been the ones where the victim is also an aggressor and just got beaten at his own game.  I enjoyed Joffrey's death quite a bit, thankyouverymuch, and 

 

I could have watched Arya get her revenge on Walder Frey over and over.

 

[J.P.]

Okay, before I read about S7 just some shorties:

Mark G looks like Mycroft on another undercover mission. Watch your back, Myc!

Am I the last person on earth realizing that Lady Olenna is played by Diana Rigg?

But I did recognized Jim Broadbent aka Scottie from London Spy, the only character I liked in the show.

 

Night. Binge watching is exhausting.

[Arcadia]

Okay, before I read about S7 just some shorties:

Mark G looks like Mycroft on another undercover mission. Watch your back, Myc!

Am I the last person on earth realizing that Lady Olenna is played by Diana Rigg?

 

Nope. I didn't realize it either until you mentioned it just now.

[Surelock]

 

However, I'm speaking mostly from book pov.

 

 

I have to ask as someone familiar with the books, do you agree with this criticism of the TV adaption?

 

 

 

 

I think this is right. This is one of the reasons why I hope (and am quite certain) that the series will get re-adapted one day and stay more loyal to the books.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

 

However, I'm speaking mostly from book pov.

 

I have to ask as someone familiar with the books, do you agree with this criticism of the TV adaption?

 

 

 

 

I think this is right. This is one of the reasons why I hope (and am quite certain) that the series will get re-adapted one day and stay more loyal to the books.

Thanks for linking to that video!

 

Wow, that was very interesting. Almost makes me think I should give the books another chance (but then I remember how the first one alone made me feel awful).

 

I love what he's got to say about Lord of the Rings. I love LoTR for the same reason. Without the Hobbits, it would be a meaningless violent bore - and isn't it sad how many later fantasy worlds borrowed Tolkien's fighting people, the orc, dwarves, elves, but left the little ones out?

 

That said, I must confess to enjoying a good badass very much. If you're going to create a dirty, evil, violent world, at least make it fun, imo. At least give me Furiosa and some good metal soundtrack and if there's some semblance of a happy ending and plenty of humor along the road, I'm on board.

 

I think my favorite scenario is a combination of celebrating the peaceful, vulnerable, little character and introducing a hardened, cynical, badass character who finds purpose in keeping the little guy safe and navigating him or her from A to B. Call that cheesy if you will but I like it.

 

Now, I see neither a Tolkien-style reverence of the good and peaceful and life-giving (born of Tolkien's faith, I suppose) or a rock'n roll style celebration of audacity and swagger and fun in Game of Thrones. What I read of the books was depressing and what I saw on screen was disturbing.

 

Btw, why is Dany getting so much hate? I went to YouTube just now to see some clips of her riding around on Drogon and setting fire to everything because it's something I enjoy as being in the "badass fun" category and I like her and I like dragons. Anyway, the comments were vile and not for the first time. (I know I shouldn't read comment sections but sometimes curiosity gets the better of me). What is wrong with people? The number of times I saw her called the word that rhymes with "blunt" exceeds the number of fingers that I have.

 

And let me guess, if this was a male character, half the criticism / hate would not exist. Ha, guess this is what some guys think feminism looks like, we'll all come riding in on our genderfluid dragons and kill you. Yeah, right.

 

Besides, the story won't let her get away with it. Before it's over she will loose at least one of those beasts I bet if not all and she'll either go crazy or die a horrible death or both.

 

I hope they'll be happy then.

[Boton]

 

Btw, why is Dany getting so much hate? I went to YouTube just now to see some clips of her riding around on Drogon and setting fire to everything because it's something I enjoy as being in the "badass fun" category and I like her and I like dragons.

 

...

 

Besides, the story won't let her get away with it. Before it's over she will loose at least one of those beasts I bet if not all and she'll either go crazy or die a horrible death or both.

 

 

 

 

I loved the scene of Dany on Drogon, especially if I didn't think too hard about the fact that shouting "Dracarys" (or whatever it is) apparently tells the dragon not just to let loose with fire, but also where to aim it and where to stop.  :-)  Man, if you've got a dragon, you should bloody well use it in battle!

 

My worry is that Dany is going to "win" this whole thing.  I don't want to see her on the Iron Throne with Jon Snow as her right hand and liege.  I want to see them, at minimum, split the entire landmass in half and let Jon continue to be King in the North. If Jon doesn't wind up on a throne of his own after all this, I will be very disappointed indeed.

[T.o.b.y]

I don't really care much about Jon, he seems fairly boring to me.

 

If anybody "wins" at all, it will most likely be a very hollow victory. And who really wants to sit on that ugly, uncomfortable chair anyway? Being king in Westeros looks like a pretty unpleasant job from over here.

[Boton]

I would actually be fairly happy if they just flipped everything, Cercie killed Dany, and she wound up on the Iron Throne all by herself with her entire family gone and murderous rage continuing throughout the kingdom.  But who knows.  

[Arcadia]

Sounds like a plan ... leaves it open for sequels. :p

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

 

However, I'm speaking mostly from book pov.

 

 

I have to ask as someone familiar with the books, do you agree with this criticism of the TV adaption?

 

 

 

 

I think this is right. This is one of the reasons why I hope (and am quite certain) that the series will get re-adapted one day and stay more loyal to the books.

 

 

It's interesting, I'm not sure I'm fully agree but I could see his point.

(I like his term about using his power of insufferbility for good, will borrow that for every excuse in my life :D)

 

If he was talking about losing the spirit of the book (I hope it's correct actual term, watch this couple of days ago just didn't have time to reply) I don't think it completely loses that. Well yes, we need some good ass XD, but the journey for almost every character is still visible (and I think a lot of that thanks to good actings).

For example, I could still see a lot of Tyrion's struggle in trying to do the right thing and burden of his scar from the past. And the reason why I appreciate Jon Snow while previously I couldn't stand him because his internal struggle is one of the most visible and true to the spirit of the character, so as Dany's and Jamie.

Yes, the bad-assness is everywhere but it's not just that.

 

However, I understand actually that the badass is probably overshadow the characters way too much in the show, at least that is what most people see. I hardly hear reason about why someone likes GoT other than: Dragons, Exciting, Interesting, because everyone else watches it, the hype etc. I barely hear reasons like what I read in this forum for example.

There is a new colleague at work who is an avid fan and she is show watcher only. What I considered the best season (3 & 4) are meh for her because "a lot of talks, not much actions" and season 5 & 6 are the bestttt, especially 7. It could be either because she has different preferences with me, or because the spirit of the show (with intriguing politics and power plays) is lost to the action, action, action. While I was complaining that they make Arya impossibly too good she is very happy that she kicks ass left and right so easily. While I was b*tching about the horrible execution of Dorne (that one definitely has wrong spirit) she is happy it's gone because it's boring (which I have to agree though from the way they show it).

 

So I don't  really know, for me, it's easy to say this: that ever since they ran out of book materials, they create stories based on bullet points, and lost a lot of original soul along the way.

That's how I feel about it honestly.

 

However, if I put myself in the show runner's shoe, basically what they have to do, is to write and produce the whole season in a year and it's impossible task to make it as good as original as we know the original need unlimited time. I also have to admit some things in the show are better than the book too especially for action driven scenes (because I like Bronn's badassery in the lastest episode and I always like him anyway)

Furthermore, TV adaptation can never be too loyal to the book because it's just different media. A lot of things need to be adjusted, cut or even detoured I agree but it is always possible to get the core right, which for now, I think the axis has shifted here and there way too much for certain storyline while some stay true.

 

Basically for my happiness, I'd enjoy it as separate entity, although it's never clean cut because of what I know from the book.

My concern is, the showrunner seem to go to the direction that new/most fans want which is action and bad-assery and at the end of the day, GoT show is basically two chunks of different spirit, split in middle seasons.

To me, even the fandom seems like split into two; older fans and new fans defined by what attracted us to the series in the first place. (not by age), if that makes sense.

[J.P.]

Ok-kay, regarding the today's ep.

Last time I thought that Goldie learned to read - and that's maybe a sign she will find something important in those books. And she actually did, having no idea. That's the reason why trivial facts are important, Sherlock! :P

 

I liked the last line of the ep.

[Boton]

What was the last line?  I can't quite remember.

 

I like Goldie learning to read and just being fascinated by everything, and Sam getting frustrated by the maester's 15,732 (or how many ever) shits.  :-)

 

[J.P.]

Yes, but there was something very important in the things she read. :D

[Boton]

Oh, goodness.  You are expecting me to *pay attention* aren't you?  My GoT watching is more like:

 

Oh, dragons!  Hope they destroy an army.

Crochet

Crochet

Oh, there's Tyrion.  I like him.  He's a smart aleck.

Crochet

Crochet

Ewwww!  Now that's just gross!

Crochet

Crochet

Oh, good, that one's dead.  I didn't like them anyway.

Crochet

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, goodness. You are expecting me to *pay attention* aren't you? My GoT watching is more like:

 

Oh, dragons! Hope they destroy an army.

Crochet

Crochet

Oh, there's Tyrion. I like him. He's a smart aleck.

Crochet

Crochet

Ewwww! Now that's just gross!

Crochet

Crochet

Oh, good, that one's dead. I didn't like them anyway.

Crochet

:-D That sounds wise. Maybe I should learn to crochet.

[J.P.]

So you practically miss all the fun :P

[Van Buren Supernova]

I didn't know what crochet means so before I checked it with google I read it as ricochet (the closest one I know :p, eventhough I was pretty sure it's not that) but it made your GoT watching sounds very interesting. :D :D

 

Goldie XD..

I know they meant to be tricky and save budget, but how I wish it's done in Tower of Joy style, that would make a lot of audience spray water to their spouse's faces.

Heck, I almost missed that!

 

Anyone think to catch a zombie is a super crappy plan too?

And that the pregnancy is fake?

[Boton]

So you practically miss all the fun :P

 

Guilty confession:  I almost never watch TV for the plot of the show.  Sherlock has been a very enjoyable and rare exception.  Mainly, TV is a time for me to sit under quilts with my hubby and crochet and relax, so I basically want something vaguely interesting to look at.  Most of the time, if it is a plot-driven show, I will read a synopsis online the next day to make sure I got the information to continue on.  I like finding reality shows to watch because they have very simplistic plots that are great for crocheting through; I'm on The Great British Baking Show right now, and then when hubby shows up we switch back over and watch Luther.  :-)

 

 

I didn't know what crochet means so before I checked it with google I read it as ricochet (the closest one I know :P, eventhough I was pretty sure it's not that) but it made your GoT watching sounds very interesting. :D :D

 

...

 

And that the pregnancy is fake?

 

Yes, it's ricochet.  I shoot the wall like Sherlock when I'm bored.   :D 

 

I don't think the pregnancy is fake. I do think they're setting us up for a boring, predictable take-down of Cersie and Jaime, because those two will keep reproducing like cockroaches and they need to eliminate House Lannister, or at least let it devolve onto Tyrion, who seems poised to let it become a minor house serving Dany.  Yawn.

[J.P.]

Ey, but if Rhaegar's(sp?) marriage was annula…things, there might be some other player we don't know yet. Suddenly the world becomes full of Targaryens. :P
Then I ask myself if Jon is also a "dragon" aka fireproof, being only a half Targaryen. Or is he more than half?   The dragon liked him.

[Caya]

Is (fake?) Aegon in the series? I don't watch, so I'm not sure, but I think they cut him out, right? So there's still just two of them, maybe three if either Aegon's around somewhere or the Tyrion theory turns out to be true after all.

 

And I envy everybody who has the confidence to predict where GoT is going - I gave that up midway through the first book when a certain head came a-rolling. :D That being said, Maggy's prophecy spoke of three children for Cersei, so I don't see a bright future for her pregnancy, if it exists at all.

 

Sidenote, I stumbled upon this and found them hilarious:

 

 

 

 

 

[J.P.]

[T.o.b.y]

So... From my limited perspective, it looks as if the rumors for this season have been true so far, hm?

 

That makes me wonder whether those related to S8 will be similarly accurate. Ugh, I hope not!