Game of Thrones, tv only, books don't exist, no backstory...NERDS already ruining a series that hasn't started (5 Viewers)

[El Floppo]

Did anyone else turn down the volume during the Shireen burning? That was hard to listen to.

As I mentioned yesterday, once she started screaming, I put it on mute until the scene was over.

that screaming was the most unsettling thing to me so far in the series. red wedding and ned beheading, right behind.

 

[The Ref]

Did anyone else turn down the volume during the Shireen burning? That was hard to listen to.

As I mentioned yesterday, once she started screaming, I put it on mute until the scene was over.

that screaming was the most unsettling thing to me so far in the series. red wedding and ned beheading, right behind.

As a father of a 7 year old... Yeah.

But as a father of a 7 year old girl..... Not a chance. Not for all the gold in the world.

 

[TenTimes]

When you watch the show over again you catch a lot of stuff its seems like.

Probably nothing, but last night I rewatched the S3 episode where Hound faught in a trial by combat vs. Beric Dondarrion. Ended with Beric telling Hound a couple times that "the Lord of Light is not finished with you".

Technically, we don't know that Hound is dead yet, right? Just left for dead by Arya? Still holding out hope that he's the one to take down Mountain, farfetched as that would be at this point.

Good catch. Definitely seems as though the Hound is set up for a re-appearance after being resurrected by the Lord of Light.

That, or Brienne is the Lord of Light

 

[kentric]

When you watch the show over again you catch a lot of stuff its seems like.

Probably nothing, but last night I rewatched the S3 episode where Hound faught in a trial by combat vs. Beric Dondarrion. Ended with Beric telling Hound a couple times that "the Lord of Light is not finished with you".

Technically, we don't know that Hound is dead yet, right? Just left for dead by Arya? Still holding out hope that he's the one to take down Mountain, farfetched as that would be at this point.

Good catch. Definitely seems as though the Hound is set up for a re-appearance after being resurrected by the Lord of Light.

That, or Brienne is the Lord of Light

Or the LoL's right hand man.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

In warfare, weapons and tactics have strengths and weaknesses. No matter how well trained you are if you are or how well you do one thing- if you are asked to do something else, you will struggle. This is the Unsullied. I can understand not knowing this type of stuff. I have grown up with an interest in military history thus I know more about the subject that I likely should. But if you are unwilling to learn then I am not sure how to help you understand and thus you migth as well stop discussing the topic.

You can argue that they'd be better at combat in formation than an all out melee, but that doesn't mean that the most fearsome warriors in all the land, people trained from birth for nothing other than combat, would be pathetically useless outside of formation. This nonsense you're trying to rationalize is the equivalent of saying that LeBron spends almost all of his practice time playing team basketball, so obviously some scrub off the street wearing flip-flops could take him in a game of 1-on-1.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

When you watch the show over again you catch a lot of stuff its seems like.

Probably nothing, but last night I rewatched the S3 episode where Hound faught in a trial by combat vs. Beric Dondarrion. Ended with Beric telling Hound a couple times that "the Lord of Light is not finished with you".

Technically, we don't know that Hound is dead yet, right? Just left for dead by Arya? Still holding out hope that he's the one to take down Mountain, farfetched as that would be at this point.

As a big fan of his character, this gives me hope.

 

[shadyridr]

Enough of the phalanx #### ####### herbs

 

[El Floppo]

When you watch the show over again you catch a lot of stuff its seems like.

Probably nothing, but last night I rewatched the S3 episode where Hound faught in a trial by combat vs. Beric Dondarrion. Ended with Beric telling Hound a couple times that "the Lord of Light is not finished with you".

Technically, we don't know that Hound is dead yet, right? Just left for dead by Arya? Still holding out hope that he's the one to take down Mountain, farfetched as that would be at this point.

As a big fan of his character, this gives me hope.

given how they made a point of showing him still alive in his last scene when Arya could have killed him- I always thought he was still alive.

somebody remind me about those guys who resurrect people- the work for the LOL? who did they show being resurrected?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

somebody remind me about those guys who resurrect people- the work for the LOL? who did they show being resurrected?

Their leader fought The Hound, The Hound killed him, and he was resurrected. Another member made mention that he had been resurrected many times before.

 

[El Floppo]

somebody remind me about those guys who resurrect people- the work for the LOL? who did they show being resurrected?

Their leader fought The Hound, The Hound killed him, and he was resurrected. Another member made mention that he had been resurrected many times before.

I remember the latter part- didn't remember who it was or who he fought. whatever happened to that crew?

 

[GregR]

Thoros of Myr is the priest. Beric Dondarrion is the guy who was resurrected. IIRC, he was the one sent by Ned Stark to bring the Mountain to justice for attacking villages in the Riverlands.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

somebody remind me about those guys who resurrect people- the work for the LOL? who did they show being resurrected?

Their leader fought The Hound, The Hound killed him, and he was resurrected. Another member made mention that he had been resurrected many times before.

I remember the latter part- didn't remember who it was or who he fought. whatever happened to that crew?

they haven't been seen in awhile.

 

[Swing 51]

Thoros of Myr is the priest. Beric Dondarrion is the guy who was resurrected. IIRC, he was the one sent by Ned Stark to bring the Mountain to justice for attacking villages in the Riverlands.

Thoros and Beric are part of the Brotherhood Without Banners

 

[Super King]

When Thoros and the Red Witch are talking, he mentions he brought back Beric 6 times (I think). And the Hound is not dead. We didn't see him die.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Ned also probably not dead fwiw

 

[otello]

Davos didn't know. He was worried that Stannis was on a suicide mission, hence his effort to take her with him. He would have never allowed it to happen if he knew, which is why Stannis sent him away.

That's my take too.

 

[TenTimes]

Thoros of Myr is the priest. Beric Dondarrion is the guy who was resurrected. IIRC, he was the one sent by Ned Stark to bring the Mountain to justice for attacking villages in the Riverlands.

Exactly.

But if I remember right, Jamie put a dagger in to somebody's eye when capturing Ned (after the guard speared his thigh), and I think that was Beric, who wore an eye patch when fighting the Hound. Or just coincidence that Beric had the same wound, I'm forgetting this timeline now.

Either way, Beric was tasked by Ned to go get the Mountain, and somewhere along the way joined the Brotherhood without Banners and converted to the Lord of Light religon. I also noticed his flaming sword was legit (fueled by his blood), whereas Stannis' flaming sword was a fugazi.

 

[GregR]

Thoros of Myr is the priest. Beric Dondarrion is the guy who was resurrected. IIRC, he was the one sent by Ned Stark to bring the Mountain to justice for attacking villages in the Riverlands.

Exactly.

But if I remember right, Jamie put a dagger in to somebody's eye when capturing Ned (after the guard speared his thigh), and I think that was Beric, who wore an eye patch when fighting the Hound. Or just coincidence that Beric had the same wound, I'm forgetting this timeline now.

Either way, Beric was tasked by Ned to go get the Mountain, and somewhere along the way joined the Brotherhood without Banners and converted to the Lord of Light religon. I also noticed his flaming sword was legit (fueled by his blood), whereas Stannis' flaming sword was a fugazi.

Just a coincidence. Jory is the one you're thinking of, a leader of Ned's house guard. Beric is a noble.

 

[TenTimes]

Ned also probably not dead fwiw

Ned's head

Mountain's body

Jamie's hand

Theon's junk

Recipe for the perfect knight right there.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Ned also probably not dead fwiw

Ned's head

Mountain's body

Jamie's hand

Theon's junk

Recipe for the perfect knight right there.

My laptop has flames coming out of it right now.

 

[Super King]

Ned also probably not dead fwiw

Swingin' easy in the breeze...http://unrealitymag.bcmediagroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/got3-465x202.jpg

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Ned also probably not dead fwiw

Swingin' easy in the breeze...http://unrealitymag.bcmediagroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/got3-465x202.jpg

Fake.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that it’s based on a character acting in a way that’s counter to how he’s been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storm’s End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where he’s desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, “the greatest military commander in Westeros” per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesn’t have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army — made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better — in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I don’t buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. It’s about consistent storytelling.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that it’s based on a character acting in a way that’s counter to how he’s been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storm’s End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where he’s desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, “the greatest military commander in Westeros” per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesn’t have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army — made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better — in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I don’t buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. It’s about consistent storytelling.

ramsay didn't burn the tents, Red women did

FWI there is also a story that the Stannis burning his daughter plot came straight from GRRM himself...........so.............no.............books

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Missandei tells Daenerys: "Every day they train from dawn to dusk until they are masters of the shortsword, the shield and the three spears".

The DVD special features show the Unsullied on guard duty armed with short swords in addition to their spear and shield.

The directors are not being consistent within the show when it comes to the skill, equipping and fight choreography of the Unsullied. That Unsullied are also skilled at fighting as a phalanx in war doesn't make the complaint any less valid.

Still a good show though.

I think the problem is all of these cut scenes where Harpybro runs up from behind and slashes an Unsullied throat. They would have been better off just showing the sheer number of Harpybros was too much for the Unsullied to overcome.

 

[Super King]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that its based on a character acting in a way thats counter to how hes been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storms End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where hes desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, the greatest military commander in Westeros per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesnt have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I dont buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. Its about consistent storytelling.

ramsay didn't burn the tents, Red women didFWI there is also a story that the Stannis burning his daughter plot came straight from GRRM himself...........so.............no.............books

Ummm..... No.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

He was such a great general during the siege that everyone would have starved if it weren't for Davos smuggling in some onions to save his ###.

 

[kentric]

Ned also probably not dead fwiw

Swingin' easy in the breeze...http://unrealitymag.bcmediagroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/got3-465x202.jpg

I happen to know quite a few people in the FFA who appear to have gone through life without using their head.

 

[GregR]

Missandei tells Daenerys: "Every day they train from dawn to dusk until they are masters of the shortsword, the shield and the three spears".

The DVD special features show the Unsullied on guard duty armed with short swords in addition to their spear and shield.

The directors are not being consistent within the show when it comes to the skill, equipping and fight choreography of the Unsullied. That Unsullied are also skilled at fighting as a phalanx in war doesn't make the complaint any less valid.

Still a good show though.

I think the problem is all of these cut scenes where Harpybro runs up from behind and slashes an Unsullied throat. They would have been better off just showing the sheer number of Harpybros was too much for the Unsullied to overcome.

Agree. It's a simple fix, just mix up what they show to be more even than a stream of Unsullied deaths. More scenes of Unsullied killing Harpies before going down. Maybe a few smart enough to adapt and fight back to back before getting swarmed by sheer numbers. Can still get across the point the Harpies are ultimately getting in their kills, but won't make the Unsullied look so incapable.

 

[GregR]

Ned also probably not dead fwiw

Swingin' easy in the breeze...http://unrealitymag.bcmediagroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/got3-465x202.jpg

And right next to George W Bush.

Man that was awhile ago.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

HEY DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF STANNIS BURNING LIZARD-CHEEKS ALIVE WAS GRRM'S IDEA OR NOT?

 

[Harry Manback]

So Arya becomes the new young thing on the menu in order to get close enough to kill that guy?

This seems most likely.

Big things a poppin' for episode 10

 

[Sebowski]

HEY DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF STANNIS BURNING LIZARD-CHEEKS ALIVE WAS GRRM'S IDEA OR NOT?

GRRM DOESN'T EXIST!

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

HEY DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF STANNIS BURNING LIZARD-CHEEKS ALIVE WAS GRRM'S IDEA OR NOT?

GRRM DOESN'T EXIST!

NOBODY KNOWS

 

[Funkley]

The Unsullied lost toughness when they were given their freedom. Freedom has sullied what they were created to be.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The Hound still being alive would be fun.

If they do the Arya retending to be a prostitute thing they better have her kill him before anything bad happens to her or the internet might break with people complaining again about what happens to women and girls in this show.

 

[Gr00vus]

Did anyone else turn down the volume during the Shireen burning? That was hard to listen to.

As I mentioned yesterday, once she started screaming, I put it on mute until the scene was over.

that screaming was the most unsettling thing to me so far in the series. red wedding and ned beheading, right behind.

Also as I mentioned yesterday - that scene this week was the toughest to get through of anything they've done so far.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that its based on a character acting in a way thats counter to how hes been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storms End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where hes desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, the greatest military commander in Westeros per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesnt have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I dont buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. Its about consistent storytelling.

ramsay didn't burn the tents, Red women didFWI there is also a story that the Stannis burning his daughter plot came straight from GRRM himself...........so.............no.............books

Ummm..... No.

I think it was Drogos on his way to Mereen

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Stannis also burns his trash which is terrible for the environment.

 

[dhockster]

Stannis also burns his trash which is terrible for the environment.

Although wouldn't global warming be preferable with the long winter coming?

 

[KarmaPolice]

The Hound still being alive would be fun.

If they do the Arya retending to be a prostitute thing they better have her kill him before anything bad happens to her or the internet might break with people complaining again about what happens to women and girls in this show.

Wouldn't it be different since she saw what he was/likes and was using that against him for the kill?

Btw, the main gripe about the scene that shall not be named is still valid:

Spoiler

X episodes later, neither Sansa or Reek has changed at all, so there was really no point to it, story-wise.

 

[Gr00vus]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that it’s based on a character acting in a way that’s counter to how he’s been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storm’s End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where he’s desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, “the greatest military commander in Westeros” per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesn’t have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army — made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better — in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I don’t buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. It’s about consistent storytelling.

A) I don't understand why you (and this writer) keep saying he acted contrary to how he's acted throughout the series. He's been burning/sacrificing people throughout the course of the series to gain favors from the witch's god to further his own career. It's been a pretty obvious downward spiral for him from a man of principle to a man whose lust for power can't afford principle anymore. He murdered his own brother ffs. This is just a new low for him, not some big out of character surprise.

B) Being a great general doesn't make you proof against weather - lots of real life examples of great generals who got proper ####ed by circumstances beyond their control (like weather). His mistake was setting out in the first place.

 

[Chadstroma]

In warfare, weapons and tactics have strengths and weaknesses. No matter how well trained you are if you are or how well you do one thing- if you are asked to do something else, you will struggle. This is the Unsullied. I can understand not knowing this type of stuff. I have grown up with an interest in military history thus I know more about the subject that I likely should. But if you are unwilling to learn then I am not sure how to help you understand and thus you migth as well stop discussing the topic.

You can argue that they'd be better at combat in formation than an all out melee, but that doesn't mean that the most fearsome warriors in all the land, people trained from birth for nothing other than combat, would be pathetically useless outside of formation. This nonsense you're trying to rationalize is the equivalent of saying that LeBron spends almost all of his practice time playing team basketball, so obviously some scrub off the street wearing flip-flops could take him in a game of 1-on-1.

You are missing the point. It is their style and weapons that give them a disadvantage when outnumbered, this same style is an advantage in unit vs unit combat.

In today's weaponary it is like one man with a bolt action sniper rifle trying to take down a number of targets vs a man with an assault rifle trying to take down a number of targets. One is at a disadvantage and one is meant for that combat. Just because one would do poorly does not mean that it is worthless- it is just not good for what you are asking of it. The same of the Unsullied when asked to fight against several combatants.

 

[Gr00vus]

The Unsullied in this show may as well be wearing red shirts over their stormtrooper gear.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Stannis also burns his trash which is terrible for the environment.

Although wouldn't global warming be preferable with the long winter coming?

Global warming makes it colder.

 

[Brady Marino]

Stannis also burns his trash which is terrible for the environment.

Although wouldn't global warming be preferable with the long winter coming?

Global warming makes it colder.

Also, the white walkers are attracted to the scent of burning trash.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

In warfare, weapons and tactics have strengths and weaknesses. No matter how well trained you are if you are or how well you do one thing- if you are asked to do something else, you will struggle. This is the Unsullied. I can understand not knowing this type of stuff. I have grown up with an interest in military history thus I know more about the subject that I likely should. But if you are unwilling to learn then I am not sure how to help you understand and thus you migth as well stop discussing the topic.

You can argue that they'd be better at combat in formation than an all out melee, but that doesn't mean that the most fearsome warriors in all the land, people trained from birth for nothing other than combat, would be pathetically useless outside of formation. This nonsense you're trying to rationalize is the equivalent of saying that LeBron spends almost all of his practice time playing team basketball, so obviously some scrub off the street wearing flip-flops could take him in a game of 1-on-1.

You are missing the point. It is their style and weapons that give them a disadvantage when outnumbered, this same style is an advantage in unit vs unit combat.

In today's weaponary it is like one man with a bolt action sniper rifle trying to take down a number of targets vs a man with an assault rifle trying to take down a number of targets. One is at a disadvantage and one is meant for that combat. Just because one would do poorly does not mean that it is worthless- it is just not good for what you are asking of it. The same of the Unsullied when asked to fight against several combatants.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that it’s based on a character acting in a way that’s counter to how he’s been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storm’s End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where he’s desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, “the greatest military commander in Westeros” per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesn’t have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army — made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better — in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I don’t buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. It’s about consistent storytelling.

A) I don't understand why you (and this writer) keep saying he acted contrary to how he's acted throughout the series. He's been burning/sacrificing people throughout the course of the series to gain favors from the witch's god to further his own career. It's been a pretty obvious downward spiral for him from a man of principle to a man whose lust for power can't afford principle anymore. He murdered his own brother ffs. This is just a new low for him, not some big out of character surprise.

B) Being a great general doesn't make you proof against weather - lots of real life examples of great generals who got proper ####ed by circumstances beyond their control (like weather). His mistake was setting out in the first place.

It's definitely contrary to his recent behavior and the way his narrative was shaped by the writers. This is not really a controversial position. It's been stated in virtually every review of the episode. If you want to disagree and pretend he's been portrayed as a cold-hearted monster for whom this was merely a small step down from his usual awfulness, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that it’s based on a character acting in a way that’s counter to how he’s been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storm’s End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where he’s desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, “the greatest military commander in Westeros” per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesn’t have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army — made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better — in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I don’t buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. It’s about consistent storytelling.

A) I don't understand why you (and this writer) keep saying he acted contrary to how he's acted throughout the series. He's been burning/sacrificing people throughout the course of the series to gain favors from the witch's god to further his own career. It's been a pretty obvious downward spiral for him from a man of principle to a man whose lust for power can't afford principle anymore. He murdered his own brother ffs. This is just a new low for him, not some big out of character surprise.

B) Being a great general doesn't make you proof against weather - lots of real life examples of great generals who got proper ####ed by circumstances beyond their control (like weather). His mistake was setting out in the first place.

It's definitely contrary to his recent behavior and the way his narrative was shaped by the writers. This is not really a controversial position. It's been stated in virtually every review of the episode. If you want to disagree and pretend he's been portrayed as a cold-hearted monster for whom this was merely a small step down from his usual awfulness, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Can't we all just agree that you're wrong?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I guess the bolded was my problem as far as the storytelling goes. We've been led to believe Stannis isn't a monster and that he loves his daughter, and what we saw didn't jibe with that at all. So if that's still the case, the showrunners/writers should explain to us why it had to go down like this. If it was the blood that was important, there were lots of other options. If death by fire was necessary, why did it have to be done with all the pomp and circumstance and in front of the girl's mother? I'm not opposed to those things happening if there's a reason for them and we are told that reason, but the lack of explanation left us wondering why and created a disconnect with the character we'd known so far. Didn't need to be a long drawn-out boring buildup; a couple minutes here or there over the last few episodes would have done it. In fact it was such a disconnect that I was mostly just wondering if they had done something to explain it and I'd missed it.

FWIW the guy who writes the Ask the Maester column for Grantland agreed with my point here, and obviously said it much better than I did:

What bothers me about the scene is that it’s based on a character acting in a way that’s counter to how he’s been depicted all series. Stannis has been depicted as one of the greatest generals in the realm. He held the Storm’s End against a one-year siege by eating rats. So if the device that gets Stannis to the place where he’s desperate enough to burn his only daughter and heir alive is (1) some snow and (2) a sudden and convenient ineptitude at doing war stuff, that feels off to me. Stannis, “the greatest military commander in Westeros” per Davos, is in enemy territory, on the march toward a belligerent castle, and for some reason (i.e., to make this scene happen) he doesn’t have scouts out or watchmen guarding the camp or have his army — made up largely of professional mercenaries who themselves should know better — in the state of alertness necessary in a war.

Also: Ramsay is now a ninja. I don’t buy it.

Of course bad things happen on Game of Thrones. But when you arrive at those things through contrivances, it cheapens the shock. It’s about consistent storytelling.

A) I don't understand why you (and this writer) keep saying he acted contrary to how he's acted throughout the series. He's been burning/sacrificing people throughout the course of the series to gain favors from the witch's god to further his own career. It's been a pretty obvious downward spiral for him from a man of principle to a man whose lust for power can't afford principle anymore. He murdered his own brother ffs. This is just a new low for him, not some big out of character surprise.

B) Being a great general doesn't make you proof against weather - lots of real life examples of great generals who got proper ####ed by circumstances beyond their control (like weather). His mistake was setting out in the first place.

It's definitely contrary to his recent behavior and the way his narrative was shaped by the writers. This is not really a controversial position. It's been stated in virtually every review of the episode. If you want to disagree and pretend he's been portrayed as a cold-hearted monster for whom this was merely a small step down from his usual awfulness, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Can't we all just agree that you're wrong?

Sure, why should this thread be different than any of the others