Game of Thrones begins....

[Habbaku]

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.

[viper37]

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.

[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 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).

[Habbaku]

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?

[garbon]

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.

[Siege]

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

[Razgovory]

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

No more posting drunk.

[Jacob]

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]

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.

[Brazen]

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]

Sean Bean?

[Brazen]

Sean Bean?

Oh yeah  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.