Any Game of Thrones Fans?

[the 'stache]

And by the way, gang, while George hasn't written a novel to cover the narrative as we're seeing it in season six, be absolutely sure that none of the story lines being written for the show are not meeting his final approval. For instance, the shocking ending of Hodor's life, while clearly not covered in any of Martin's ASOIAF novels, was told directly to David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

George is still very much involved in the creative process. While the writers have been given some leeway, this is still very much George RR Martin's show.

[packs]

You can defend it all you want. The scenes at Riverrun were a disaster in my opinion. The whole show has been moving towards turning Jamie into a better version of himself (i.e. the scenes with him and Tyrion / his daughter / niece and the original scenes with Brienne) only to have him throw all of that away for a blind allegiance to Cersei that seemed thrown in just to drum up some drama. The ancillary things you mention about the keep and the soldiers mean nothing to the overall story. That's all surface and no substance. Who cares about Edmure or his soldiers?

The same is true of Arya. The idea of her losing her identity and reclaiming it is a good storyline. But using Bravos to accomplish that was not a good choice in my opinion. Those scenes were painfully dull. The play scenes between the Starks and the Lannisters were great but it was too little too late if you ask me. There was a ton of time that could have been cut, especially since it seems like Bran is the real power player of the story and has received a fraction of the screen time.

[the 'stache]

How the hell do you know what the scene with the soldiers, and the keep, are going to mean going forward? Are you clairvoyant now?

"Who cares about Edmure, or his soldiers?"

Um, Jon Snow and Sansa Stark just might, if those soldiers come to aid their retaking of Winterfell. It might not happen, as there may be insufficient time for them to get there, even if that was their aim. But the point is, you don't know.

You completely whiffed in your assessments of two key scenes. Now, instead of attempting to refute either of the statements I made, you're left with "you can defend it all you want. the scenes were a disaster, in my opinion."

Yes. Your opinion. And your opinion is, seemingly, pretty ill-informed.

And as for Bran receiving a fraction of the screen time...if he'd been receiving more time, you'd be complaining "oh, all Bran does is sit in a tree, and visit things that happen in the past. Nothing really advancing the narrative. Boring!"

If you're enjoying the show so little, stop watching. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by packs

You can defend it all you want. The scenes at Riverrun were a disaster in my opinion. The whole show has been moving towards turning Jamie into a better version of himself (i.e. the scenes with him and Tyrion / his daughter / niece and the original scenes with Brienne) only to have him throw all of that away for a blind allegiance to Cersei that seemed thrown in just to drum up some drama. The ancillary things you mention about the keep and the soldiers mean nothing to the overall story. That's all surface and no substance. Who cares about Edmure or his soldiers?

The same is true of Arya. The idea of her losing her identity and reclaiming it is a good storyline. But using Bravos to accomplish that was not a good choice in my opinion. Those scenes were painfully dull. The play scenes between the Starks and the Lannisters were great but it was too little too late if you ask me. There was a ton of time that could have been cut, especially since it seems like Bran is the real power player of the story and has received a fraction of the screen time.

[packs]

Haha ok dude settle down. I already said the concept behind the scenes were things I enjoyed but the execution of them was poor. They pumped the Blackfish for like 3 episodes, gave him 20 minutes of screen time, passed on a battle, and then killed him off screen. That's not compelling to me. Jamie and Brienne could have had their reunion in a much more effective way and the total 180 of Jamie's character out of nowhere let me down tremendously. And that's what I think. I don't care if you agree. This thread isn't about everyone sharing your opinion. I'm free to have my opinion and you're free to have yours.

[the 'stache]

You absolutely are entitled to your opinion, and I welcome reading it. But when you make a statement that has no basis in fact (basically saying Brienne's arrival had no bearing on the outcome), that's a different matter.

Jamie has very strong feelings for Brienne. What other rational is there for his not only giving her Oathbreaker, one of perhaps ten swords in the world made of Valyrian steel, but letting her go when he had every justification for having her captured? Sansa, the woman Brienne serves, is wanted for King Joffrey's murder. If, indeed, he cares very deeply for her, a 180 degree turn is not at all surprising.

"The things we do for love."

Remember Jamie uttering that in the very first episode of season one, right before shoving Bran out of the tower window for seeing he and Cersei in a very compromising position? If his feelings are truly as deep as they seem to be, I don't think his actions are at all surprising.

Originally Posted by packs

Haha ok dude settle down. I already said the concept behind the scenes were things I enjoyed but the execution of them was poor. They pumped the Blackfish for like 3 episodes, gave him 20 minutes of screen time, passed on a battle, and then killed him off screen. That's not compelling to me. Jamie and Brienne could have had their reunion in a much more effective way and the total 180 of Jamie's character out of nowhere let me down tremendously. And that's what I think. I don't care if you agree. This thread isn't about everyone sharing your opinion. I'm free to have my opinion and you're free to have yours.

[packs]

The 180 I was talking about with Jamie was that his character was on an arc of redemption. He begins the series as this cruel, warrior-type that has a blind faith in his name and family. But throughout the series he's wavered in key moments, like when he allowed Tyrion to escape or when he initially came to Brienne's aid. When he lost his hand he seemed to lose some of what he was in the past as well. He goes on this great mission to rescue his daughter and tries to mentor her as a father shortly before she dies, something he wouldn't have done in the past. And then we get to Riverrun where he simply decides he will just continue to be the same Jamie he had always been, with a blind allegiance to Cersei.

[chaddurbin]

for being just a support character who probably won't be there 'til the end, jamie's arc has been one of the most fleshed out of the show. it's fascinating to see him go from the show's biggest villain in season 1 ("the things i do for love") to slowly turning face and becoming a hero in the eyes of many. i feel his struggle (losing his hand), sorrow (loss of his daughter), rejection by cersei, hopelessness etc etc moreso than my attachment with many other main characters like daenerys or jon snow tyrion (is he a lannister or targaryen?). the show is intentionally ambiguous with the old good guys/bad guys trope so in the end it's up to the viewers to identify who they root for.

[the 'stache]

So, he's conflicted?

How many people in real life, or how many characters have you seen on television that were clearly good, or bad? I don't know why you're surprised that one of George RR Martin's focal characters is unpredictable. Most of the main characters on the show have displayed inner conflict of some kind. Ned Stark was a moral man, his loyalty to the King was unquestionable. Yet, when called upon to be the King's Hand, he was incredibly conflicted. He wanted to stay in Winterfell with Catelyn and his family. And as strong as his loyalty to was, he refused to have Danerys killed on the King's order. He relinquished his position as Hand because it conflicted with his principles.

Catelyn felt conflicted by Jon Snow. He was a constant reminder of her husband's infidelity. Yet, towards the end of her life, she admitted feeling shame for the way she treated him. Yet, she could still never embrace him.

I could go on. The point being none of the characters on this show are one dimensional. They might revert to one path, but they will do things that surprise you. Tyrion Lannister is portrayed, early on, as a miscreant, a drinking, womanizing little monster that embarrasses his father, Tywin. But he's also wildly intelligent, and he is wise beyond his years. He also has a very clear sense of right and wrong. He has surprised me time and time again. Then, he kills his father with a crossbow.

If one thing should be clear after six seasons, it's that nothing is ever really clear.

Originally Posted by packs

And then we get to Riverrun where he simply decides he will just continue to be the same Jamie he had always been, with a blind allegiance to Cersei.