Jango Wes
Sr Member
Best thing I have read in a while!
Game of Thrones
- Thread starter Husker75
- Start date
Best thing I have read in a while!
firesprite
Master Member
LOL. It matches up with his Not A Blog pretty well, actually. He's pretty foul-mouthed and irreverent when it comes to casual writing.
Additionally, I tend to agree with the sentiment in the letter. Yes, people who would be considered 'heroes' like Robb get killed in brutal ways, but they generally bring it on themselves through their poor decision making. The only real exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are Shireen and Myrcella. They're both innocents who suffer for the actions/decisions of their parents; the whole "sins of the father" scenario.
Additionally, I tend to agree with the sentiment in the letter. Yes, people who would be considered 'heroes' like Robb get killed in brutal ways, but they generally bring it on themselves through their poor decision making. The only real exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are Shireen and Myrcella. They're both innocents who suffer for the actions/decisions of their parents; the whole "sins of the father" scenario.
The site linked above itself is dated June 2014
smoothrat
Well-Known Member
You make a good point. The spear would make more sense for the Unsullied if they used a Zulu-style short spear (assegai/iklwa) as a stabbing weapon.
Solo4114
Master Member
I don't actually care about most of the main character deaths. My real concerns are twofold:
1. Death should not be used to shock. That's the "Whedon Way," and it's one of my greatest criticisms of Joss' style. If you kill a character, you do it not to shock, but for narrative purposes. As in, the death has to alter the characters and events around them, and should occur specifically so that you can move the characters and the story to a different place. Robb dying doesn't bother me, because this story wasn't really about him. Although, to be fair to Joss, while he does kill characters to shock you and make you think no one is safe (which is a stupid reason), he also pays off those deaths later, and shows how they impact people (which is a good reason and moves the narrative/characters).
2. Death should not be used to "make a point." Like, I see a lot of people defend Martin's deaths as "Well, it's a medieval world and it's cold and cruel, and he's just showing us that." No. People who assume that miss the point. The deaths in the books matter and usually in a big, big way. Ned Stark's death is basically what allows the war itself to occur. Robb's death ends the North as a threat to any of the other major players, and refocuses the war. Stannis' death (assuming it happens) will end the war and secure the throne for the Lannisters from any Baratheon pretenders. Same with Renly's death.
So far, the only death I'm not sure about is Jon's death, and that may play out any number of ways. I don't, however, expect it to have no narrative meaning or import beyond "Life in Westeros is cruel and heroes die! Screw your happy endings, losers!" I think it's far, far more likely that Jon's death will -- if it's actually permanent -- have major implications for the future of the story. If it isn't permanent (e.g. he's resurrected by Melisandre or something), then I expect Jon will end up leaving the Watch (since, upon his death, his watch is technically ended). Like I said, major implications.
1. Death should not be used to shock. That's the "Whedon Way," and it's one of my greatest criticisms of Joss' style. If you kill a character, you do it not to shock, but for narrative purposes. As in, the death has to alter the characters and events around them, and should occur specifically so that you can move the characters and the story to a different place. Robb dying doesn't bother me, because this story wasn't really about him. Although, to be fair to Joss, while he does kill characters to shock you and make you think no one is safe (which is a stupid reason), he also pays off those deaths later, and shows how they impact people (which is a good reason and moves the narrative/characters).
2. Death should not be used to "make a point." Like, I see a lot of people defend Martin's deaths as "Well, it's a medieval world and it's cold and cruel, and he's just showing us that." No. People who assume that miss the point. The deaths in the books matter and usually in a big, big way. Ned Stark's death is basically what allows the war itself to occur. Robb's death ends the North as a threat to any of the other major players, and refocuses the war. Stannis' death (assuming it happens) will end the war and secure the throne for the Lannisters from any Baratheon pretenders. Same with Renly's death.
So far, the only death I'm not sure about is Jon's death, and that may play out any number of ways. I don't, however, expect it to have no narrative meaning or import beyond "Life in Westeros is cruel and heroes die! Screw your happy endings, losers!" I think it's far, far more likely that Jon's death will -- if it's actually permanent -- have major implications for the future of the story. If it isn't permanent (e.g. he's resurrected by Melisandre or something), then I expect Jon will end up leaving the Watch (since, upon his death, his watch is technically ended). Like I said, major implications.
Riceball
Master Member
Not necessarily. The problem with the Zulu style spear is that you lose the big advantage that a spear has, reach, with the short spear you have something more like a sword and you'd probably be better off with a proper sword vs. a short spear. A proper spear allows the Unsullied to fight in nice shield wall formations and it makes it harder for opponents with shorter weapons to get in and attack them. The problem was not that they had spears, the problem was that they were depicted using poor tactics, tactics that the Unsullied wouldn't be using if they were real.
Here's a video that helps illustrate of how well a long spear can work. It's not the exact same as the Unsullied because they don't use shields in this video but it helps give you some idea of what it can do, around 4:02 mark you can see how well it works with you back against a wall.
Here's a better video showing a spearman with shield vs. an opponent with a long sword. It should be noted that the none of the fighters in this video are particularly experienced with sparring using shields but I figure it helps to illustrate just how effective a spear and shield can be.
[video]https://youtu.be/WYKjoosrRRI?t=19m37s[/video]
Last edited by a moderator:
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
I don't see how Jon Snow can come back after being repeatedly stabbed in the chest like that and then obviously bleeding out... I'm bummed because Jon Snow and his story, was a favorite of mine. The male hero ark of the (STARK) family story has been severed...
firesprite
Master Member
For me, I feel that the greatest strength of the show to date has been where it excises and streamlines the storyline from the novels. Although some of the additions have been fantastic (Hardhome and the Night King, for example), I have to agree with an author I follow on twitter that much of what the show writers have added just seems to be gratuituous brutality. We could have been subjected to about half of Theon's storyline, for example, and still come away with a very clear indication that Ramsay is a raving psycho who needs to die.
Yes, the book and the early seasons have featured some SERIOUSLY brutal deaths... but they all furthered the story. The Red Wedding, for example, left me a blubbering, weeping mess, but it was an important step to the progression of the story. A good deal of what we've been exposed to this season just felt like it was played for shock value, particularly the sacrifice of Shireen and the brutalization of Sansa.
Yes, the book and the early seasons have featured some SERIOUSLY brutal deaths... but they all furthered the story. The Red Wedding, for example, left me a blubbering, weeping mess, but it was an important step to the progression of the story. A good deal of what we've been exposed to this season just felt like it was played for shock value, particularly the sacrifice of Shireen and the brutalization of Sansa.
crabra comander
Master Member
Well, Mountain came back no problem. Guy
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
Yea so HOW do Reek and Sansa survive that fall? Forgot about that.
Sansa at the hands of Ramsay...didn't shock me. He's beyond SICK. Shireen's murder was horrific! I still can't beleave Stanis allowed that.
Sansa at the hands of Ramsay...didn't shock me. He's beyond SICK. Shireen's murder was horrific! I still can't beleave Stanis allowed that.
SmilingOtter
Master Member
It was more clear in the book that the accumulated snow next to the outer castle wall was deep enough for them to survive the fall.
kibosh
Sr Member
If Jon is truly dead, and not coming back, his death has somewhat the same effect as Robb's; it negates the Night's Watch as a force in the North in regards to the coming of the Others. Jon is the only one that believes them to be a real threat. With him dead, the Watch will concentrate on the wildlings
Sir Donadarrion (sp?) is brought back numerous times with far worse wounds by the Red Priest. He is basically cleaved in half by the Hound.
In the book at least, snow drifted up against the wall breaks their fall.
I laughed heartily...
Solo4114
Master Member
Shireen was not just for brutality's sake. I think that death had two very important points. Possibly three.
First, it made clear just how ruthless Stannis was and how far he'd be willing to go to achieve what he believed was his destiny. Second, it was necessary as a plot point for why his army would so desert him at the 11th hour when they'd been through everything else. Third, it helped highlight that Melisandre was WRONG or at least not infallible. In that sense, Shireen's death really shook things up in a major way. Stannis sacrificed everything...and lost. In spite of the Red Woman's promises that he'd sit on the throne.
Sansa's story, I think, was not anywhere near as brutal as it could've been, but I think they didn't have enough time to spend on showing how it changed her or hardened her. Of the two, that was the less effective tale. In the books, Theon's story is the point there, and Jeyne Poole is just a catalyst for him to get moving.
I think what's happening with the show, however, is that they've done other things in the past that screwed stuff up (e.g. handling Drogo's first time with Dany; the scene between Jaime and Cersei in the sept; sexposition; the HBO CEO of t**ts; etc.) and they haven't quite paid any of them off as effectively as they should've. As a result, the stuff with Sansa came across as needless and overly dwelt on...and didn't amount to much in the end except for her and Theon kind of jointly escaping. Maybe it'll pay off next season? I dunno.
I do think, however, that the showrunners have done stuff both for shock value and for actual character/plot development purposes. For example, the Red Wedding and the killing of Talisa. That was brutal, gruesome, and probably didn't need to be shown that way. E.G, they could've just slit her throat. Instead they stabbed her in the abdomen where her baby was in as brutal a manner as possible. Now, partially, that was done to remove the open question that fans have about Robb Stark having an heir with Jeyne Westerling, but it also served the purpose of shocking and horrifying the viewers, perhaps unnecessarily. I think the producers walk a very fine line with this, and often err on the side of shocking rather than caution or substance. It's an issue with an otherwise terrific show.
We need a betting pool on if Jon's actually dead - I say he'll be back ins one form or another...
Meanwhile, this cracked me up:
http://www.theonion.com/article/game-thrones-fans-shocked-after-some-little-goblin-50606
Meanwhile, this cracked me up:
http://www.theonion.com/article/game-thrones-fans-shocked-after-some-little-goblin-50606
In an interview with the producers they talked about how far things go sometimes. There were times in the show where they wanted to leave no doubt something had happened. Like Ned's beheading for instance. They spent 2 hours going back and forth on which frame to cut the scene at. They wanted to leave no doubt in viewers minds that he was dead.
Same thing with the Jon Snow scene. Unlike the book where it is a little more open ended regarding Jon
I am sure it was the same thing with the Red Wedding scene. They wanted people to know, yes, this really is how it just went down. Very black and white
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I saw that one. I get why they did it. My point was more that some of their choices on what happens can hew towards shock value when a less shocking thing would work just as effectively. That's why I cited the red wedding example. Did they have to stab Talisa in the abdomen in such a brutal manner? No, not really. They could've stabbed her in the back or slit her throat like they did to Catelyn. That's why I say they sometimes do shock value. I mean, I get it, they're creating "watercooler moments" and such, and they want the emotion of the scene to play as truly horrifying (it worked), but they've gone to that well quite a bit in the show.
That said, I think you can make the same argument about several shows. Spartacus, for example, was chock full of shocking stuff for the sake of shocking stuff. It didn't generally diminish the quality of the show, though, and I don't think it really diminishes the quality of the show here. It's just something I notice that I think could be better.
