Game Of Thrones Season 5 (1 Viewer)

[ann post]

DRAGONS

 

[hermie]

no-one gave a shite when the two farm boys were burnt

Actually there was quite a bit of guff about that only the show wasn't so ubiquitous back then. But would you not differentiate between boys burned off-screen by a desperate man (Theon) being goaded by a psychopath (Ramsay) compared with last night's very visceral father burning daughter? Also the farm boys served a very definite plot. The execution of Shireen it has been argued (although it sort of remains to be seen) is largely unnecessary and quite probably gratuitous.

 

[hermie]

and here, while we're giving out, why do sansa and arya speak like plummy southerners when the rest of the family have geordie accents?

Probably being noble and female they got elocution lessons as part of their education. Along with sewing etc when the boys were studying history and archery

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Shit. I realise now that this is what I was trying to say.

 

[chris d]

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

That soup line got a chortle

 

[nooleen]

Also the farm boys served a very definite plot. The execution of Shireen it has been argued (although it sort of remains to be seen) is largely unnecessary and quite probably gratuitous.

it's obviously a major plot point. stannis is completely stalled in a battle for control of the north, which would also free sansa, who looks like becoming a major player. the whole point of it is to move him forward.

the whole series is characterised by brutal violence; bemoaning the frightfully unpleasant universe the writers have created is fairly bizarre five seasons into proceedings.

 

[HMD]

it's just... someone needs to sit these CGI lads down and tell them if you have a great idea for a visual, but you can't do it justice, then you don't have to do it.

That's what they get for going out foreign with the post production. *










*the stuff in season 1 wasn't much better.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Jon is challenged.”

Is it politically correct to say it like that?

 

[hugh]

I thought the child burning was gross and unnecessary. I take the point that it moves the plot forward but there are a myriad other ways that could have been done. My main objection though is that it's unbelievable. The only way Stannis would do that is if he is a complete psychopath, he clearly isn't and we are supposed to believe he did it because of his ambition and/or because he is bewitched by the witch - neither of which are credible. So, in other words, the writers didn't have to do this. They decided to in some misguided mission to out gross and outdo what's gone before, get the Internet in a tizz etc. Bullshit.

And yes, the dragon CGI was embarrassing. 1940s "scene shot in the front seat of a supposedly moving car" bad. I would have laughed had I not just watched a child being burned to death earlier on.

It's jumped the shark. Do people still say that?

 

[ann post]

it's obviously a major plot point. stannis is completely stalled in a battle for control of the north, which would also free sansa, who looks like becoming a major player. the whole point of it is to move him forward.

Snow is gonna want Ramsay and stannis United, little finger wants them divided.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

I thought the child burning was gross and unnecessary. I take the point that it moves the plot forward but there are a myriad other ways that could have been done. My main objection though is that it's unbelievable. The only way Stannis would do that is if he is a complete psychopath, he clearly isn't and we are supposed to believe he did it because of his ambition and/or because he is bewitched by the witch - neither of which are credible. So, in other words, the writers didn't have to do this. They decided to in some misguided mission to out gross and outdo what's gone before, get the Internet in a tizz etc. Bullshit.

And yes, the dragon CGI was embarrassing. 1940s "scene shot in the front seat of a supposedly moving car" bad. I would have laughed had I not just watched a child being burned to death earlier on.

It's jumped the shark. Do people still say that?

This guy makes a very similar point. More or less saying it was reverse-engineered.

Ask the Maester: Dragons, Human Sacrifice, and More Dragons «
how I explain Benioff and Weiss dropping a “When George told us about this …”1 as a way to explain how they arrived at the scene from “The Dance of Dragons” in which Stannis Baratheon has his daughter Shireen burned at the stake to gain the favor of the Lord of Light. Because, OK, apparently that will happen in the books. But it doesn’t happen on the march to Winterfell in the books, and the timing matters because context matters.

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 alive2 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.

 

[nooleen]

he already killed his own brother with a shadow demon-baby, cut off the fingers of his most trusted wingman for a minor crime, and burned his own men for not converting to his new religion. he previously planned to sacrifice his own nephew (a child) until davos helped the lad escape.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

None of that gear was anywhere near cruel enough to alienate Twitter though

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

He may win the battle with the Boltons, but if he's lost social media people that post at 1 in the morning, was it even worth it?

 

[nooleen]

they love it really

 

[chris d]

I thought it was believable. The red woman has been in his ear for ages about burning the little girl and they did a reasonable job of showing a) how much she meant to stannis and b) how desperate he is to take winterfell, with his story arc this year. Plus stannis isn't a normal fella.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It's only a bit of craic in the end. And it least it made me feel something in this cruel unforgiving world.

Ive been getting into youtube loops of the hound and arya. Their scenes were so good. Great acting, cursing and scenery.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[hermie]

This guy makes a very similar point. More or less saying it was reverse-engineered.

Ask the Maester: Dragons, Human Sacrifice, and More Dragons «
how I explain Benioff and Weiss dropping a “When George told us about this …”1 as a way to explain how they arrived at the scene from “The Dance of Dragons” in which Stannis Baratheon has his daughter Shireen burned at the stake to gain the favor of the Lord of Light. Because, OK, apparently that will happen in the books. But it doesn’t happen on the march to Winterfell in the books, and the timing matters because context matters.

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.

He makes some great points there. The context is key. The show this season has purposely built up the relationship between Stannis and Shireen, presumably to give more emotional punch to events in the most recent episode. But that's counter-intuitive to the story because now his actions are even more out of character for "show Stannis" compared with "book Stannis". Also the sloppy scene in which Ramsay infiltrates the camp, it's very laziness makes it's use as a tipping-point enraging. They're putting shock factor above the narrative.

 

[hermie]

he already killed his own brother with a shadow demon-baby, cut off the fingers of his most trusted wingman for a minor crime, and burned his own men for not converting to his new religion. he previously planned to sacrifice his own nephew (a child) until davos helped the lad escape.

I take all your points but I still see a massive difference between his daughter and those you mention. 1) a brother in open rebellion against his legitimate claim to the throne 2) a bloke who certainly wasn't his most trusted wingman at the time but a common criminal who got him out of a jam, and low-born to boot 3) a bastard of Flea Bottom, son of a whore, of absolutely no consequence to him. And yet he's still torn in reaching those decisions.

 

[hermie]

He makes another good point in the footnote

Stannis may be rigid, but he isn’t blind to politics. In burning Shireen, he may have won the battle, but he’s lost the Throne. None of the lords of Westeros would back a kinslayer.

 

[nooleen]

well i disagree with all of that but this is more than i really want to be arguing about game of thrones