News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Game of Thrones begins....

Started by Josquius, April 04, 2011, 03:39:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Habbaku

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:25:33 AM
Killing and resurrecting anyone is suggestive of dubious writing.  It's a way to get the dramatic effect of a death without the cost of losing the character.  Doing it once gets a pass.  More than once, not so much.

Resurrection without consequences would, indeed, be suggestive of dubious writing.  It has happened in the show but a single time, by my recollection, and that one was planned from the outset.  In the books, a resurrection without consequences has happened precisely zero times.
The medievals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.

Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people.

-J. R. R. Tolkien

viper37

Quote from: Habbaku on June 15, 2016, 03:46:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:25:33 AM
Killing and resurrecting anyone is suggestive of dubious writing.  It's a way to get the dramatic effect of a death without the cost of losing the character.  Doing it once gets a pass.  More than once, not so much.

Resurrection without consequences would, indeed, be suggestive of dubious writing.  It has happened in the show but a single time, by my recollection, and that one was planned from the outset.  In the books, a resurrection without consequences has happened precisely zero times.
Lord Beric is resurected to permit the resurection of Caytlin. It is quite circular.  Lady Stoneheart does not serve any purpose in the books so far.  Hanging Lannisters could be done by anyone.
Some Targaryen boy is found in hiding after being presumed dead.  This I think serves no purpose, other than to bring another plot twist.
The Mountain was brought back for a purpose... that has now been defeated in the series.  We'll see about the books.
Mance Rayder, in the books.  What purpose does he serve precisely?  The series has done fine without him around...

And I might have forgotten a few.

Even if they serve a purpose, at some point, it becomes redundant.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

The Minsky Moment

The author's/showrunner's willingness to knock off characters is one of thing that gives the story edge.  But its reached the point in both where every time there is a death I have to ask myself is he/she maybe dead or dead dead.  That's not a good thing.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

The Brain

The dead-doesn't-mean-dead-not-really is the most annyoing thing about the books IMHO (haven't seen much of the TV show).
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Habbaku

Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 04:34:46 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 15, 2016, 03:46:22 PM
Resurrection without consequences would, indeed, be suggestive of dubious writing.  It has happened in the show but a single time, by my recollection, and that one was planned from the outset.  In the books, a resurrection without consequences has happened precisely zero times.
Lord Beric is resurected to permit the resurection of Caytlin. It is quite circular.  Lady Stoneheart does not serve any purpose in the books so far.  Hanging Lannisters could be done by anyone.
Some Targaryen boy is found in hiding after being presumed dead.  This I think serves no purpose, other than to bring another plot twist.
The Mountain was brought back for a purpose... that has now been defeated in the series.  We'll see about the books.
Mance Rayder, in the books.  What purpose does he serve precisely?  The series has done fine without him around...

And I might have forgotten a few.

Even if they serve a purpose, at some point, it becomes redundant.

Resurrection without consequences now includes Catelyn Stark being brought back as a murder-zombie at the cost of another character who, having been resurrected multiple times, essentially lost his entire identity?
The medievals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.

Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people.

-J. R. R. Tolkien

garbon

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 04:43:39 PM
The author's/showrunner's willingness to knock off characters is one of thing that gives the story edge.  But its reached the point in both where every time there is a death I have to ask myself is he/she maybe dead or dead dead.  That's not a good thing.

:yes:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Siege

GRRM lost me when he killed Tywin Lannister. The show is just not the same without him.


"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"


Razgovory

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2016, 05:44:06 PM
GRRM lost me when he killed Tywin Lannister. The show is just not the same without him.

No more posting drunk.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Jacob

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:25:33 AM
Killing and resurrecting anyone is suggestive of dubious writing.  It's a way to get the dramatic effect of a death without the cost of losing the character.  Doing it once gets a pass.  More than once, not so much.

Yeah, that was the final straw for me... with the second resurrection in the books I stopped reading.

grumbler

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 04:43:39 PM
The author's/showrunner's willingness to knock off characters is one of thing that gives the story edge.  But its reached the point in both where every time there is a death I have to ask myself is he/she maybe dead or dead dead.  That's not a good thing.

I quite agree, but don;t agree that these resurrections are signs of the "plotting ability of writers (book and tele) getting weaker."  At least some of these resurrections were planned from the start, so the weakness was always there.  The show had to show Dondarron resurrected so the Jon resurrection (the key one) wasn't so deus ex machina.  Mercifully, the show hasn't done more than that (the Mountain wasn't necessarily even resurrected so much as he was prevented from dying by "mad science").  Lady Stoneheart was completely unnecessary and the show wisely skipped her.

In the books, I feel as you do.  The whole resurrection thing makes death kinda meaningless.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Brazen

#7255
Help me settle an argument at work. Which Game Of thrones actor was the most famous before they were on the show? My entirely UK-centric shortlist is:

Charles Dance, Sean Bean, Diana Rigg, Jonathon Pryce, Ian McShane, Richard E Grant, Mark Gatiss and Jerome Flynn.

I've probably forgotten more than I remember.

katmai

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

Brazen

#7257
Quote from: katmai on June 16, 2016, 03:19:31 AM
Sean Bean?
Oh yeah  :blush: Edited :)

Gratuitous:

The Larch

Sean Bean for sure, he was the main draw for the show when it was launched after all.

katmai

I know when it first debuted it was Bean, Dinklage as two most recognizable names.

Then Addy, Headey and Coster-Waldau.

For me I mean.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son