Fishslap
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Fishslap
-
-
19 minutes ago, RCharter said:
Weak how is my question? Many of the female characters have weaknesses, but I would say its bad for any writer to write a completely one dimensional character that is "weak." I think that is just unfortunate writing, because people are generally strong at times/places, strong at times/places. And that goes for men AND women. Brienne has her weaknesses, just as Bronn has his weaknesses.
I think one dimensional characters are probably more boring than strong women with human flaws, and depth....but thats just me.
Sure Brienne has weaknesses, she charged in to get Sansa and damn near got herself killed. She has an adherence to pride and doing the "right thing" that...much like Jon, can often get her into trouble. So unless you're going to tell me that Jon doesn't have any weaknesses, I don't think you can say that of Brienne. Brienne is written in both mediums as a total badass, with a lack of self-worth based on the fact that she is not attractive. I have no idea what books you are reading, because I didn't get that at all from the books (although won't go any further, other than to say that book brienne and tv brienne are pretty close)
FrankenMountain gets about 2 minutes of screen time because he is boring. Dead, undead, almost dead, he was a one dimensional character and always will be. A story really based on him as a character would always be boring and tedious.
No obviously Jon is weak. But that's the point I was trying to make: It's fine for male characters to be weak you see. It's fine for them to be anything, which is perhaps why 99,99% of all rapists, serial killers, murderers and child abusers in TV entertainment are men. Whatever you want to write as an author you can always trust a male character to be depraved enough to do it, and no one will think it weird or inappropriate. I almost wish Martin had written Ramsay as a female character just to challenge this stale stuff. The problem comes when it is forbidden to make a female character weak, or really to have negative qualities at all, because it upsets people. I'm speaking generally of course, and this isn't the case on GoT or I wouldn't be watching it. But this is really what bothers me with a lot of TV these days, which is why I watch very little TV. If you write a female child abuser it becomes sensitive almost automatically so writers apparently shy away from it. What I want, as someone who is genuinely interested in story telling rather than people's genitals, is for female characters to have a much wider range of behaviors and qualities than either strong or unacceptable and male chauvinist, gender stereotype-reinforcing yada yada, which seems to be the only two available categories presently. Insisting that they must be strong is therefore the opposite of facilitating good female characters to me. I think what needs to happen is that people have to take the good with the bad. If feminists want strong, invincible female characters then they must also accept female child abusers, female sadists, female cowards and female idiots. You can't have one without the other without it becoming very boring very quickly.
But you said it better than I have above anyway. Any character needs to be more complex for a story to be gripping: weak at times, strong at times etc, while having a core personality, or at least appearance/function, to give it a sense of direction..And that needs to apply regardless of gender is all I'm saying. So to me both the Mountain and Brienne could be off the show and I would be very happy about it. I consider them the two most one dimensional characters on GoT by quite a margin.
-
Just now, RCharter said:
Well, then by your own account there are cruel women (Cersei), stupid women (Lady Arryn) and strong women. I don't see how strong women are tedious at all, but I guess they would be if you don't really like strong women? But perhaps you can tell me how you find strong women tedious, because I'm not sure where that comes from. If you're saying that a show should have strong characters, but you don't care about the genitals, why would you care that the strong characters are women?
Its not like demanding that all male characters be sly, because there are a million different representations of male characters on TV shows...however, historically and even now, its not the same way for female characters.
Again, I would have to disagree with you on the matter of book Brienne and TV Brienne....I think they aren't that different at all. But again, this is the "no book talk" area, so I won't go any further.
GoT isn't supposed to be an advertisement for women ruling, but even if it was, it only shows that women can be strong and cruel rulers, the same way men can be (Cersei), or they can be strong and crazy....which is the way people think Dany is going.....I personally don't see it with her, but I think she is constantly thinking of who her father way.
And these aren't the only two strong women on the show -- you have Sansa, you have Brienne, you have Lady Bear, you have Arya, you have Yara, you have Olenna, you have Margery, you have Meera.
Well quite, and no I don't find strong women boring, although what makes someone strong, regardless of genitals, can be debated. What I find boring is to misguidedly force strong female characters into stories just cuz feminism, because it makes all the female characters one dimensional. I feel I was very clear about this above so please stop projecting things on me. As I said, it's like demanding that all male characters in a story be sly, sadistic, effeminate, stupid, weak etc. And no one would read such a story because it would have one dimensional characters. If it's a natural part of the story for a woman to be strong then it's fine. It is with Cercei but it's certainly not with Brienne, who has been turned into a caricature.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:
Could you provide a link? I've been searching all night and, I cant find anything that shows Edward I habitually using a tactic of firing arrows into his own men.
Most of the accounts that I found basically mirror this take
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/battleoffalkirk/
It's not a big deal historically and anecdotes tend to be skipped by serious historians these days, which is of course why they are so insufferably dull and boring. But on Wikipedia's page for the Battle of Falkirk it says "the knights were ordered to retreat and the longbowmen brought forward". This is allegedly when Ol' Ed simply had them fire into everyone indiscriminately. I must confess that my non-Gibson source for that is from a contemporary historian who wrote about the battle afterwards, and I can't find it right now, or indeed remember his name. Regardless, some people hated him and some people loved him so that needs to be taken into account with things like this. You never really know what is true and not in history when it comes to details like this because people lie and propagandize and they always have. All we really know is that he won the battle and that some people died fighting over a field. If he had lost I wouldn't be surprised if the stories about him had been even worse than they are now. But if you press me I will give you the point. Like I said though, it might not be a huge deal whether he actually said it or did it. Far worse has been done than shooting down a few of your own men in a battle.
In general though, militarily it is what is known as a gambit and is very common. It works in chess too. Some forces are sacrificed to draw the enemy out of a favorable position, to confuse him or make him chase. One might argue than Ramsay did all three, and would have succeeded if not for LF and Sansa. In all such cases the losses are deemed acceptable as long as the enemy is hurt more by it than you are. This is basically what Churchill's various early continental landings were in WWII. For example, by throwing thousands of Canadians into the fire at Dieppe the Germans were successfully misled regarding the planned actual landing site for the allied invasion in Normandy. Like I said, it looks bad on TV but it's very common. There might be a reason why Hollywood has shied away from Dieppe as it makes for a very uninspiring tale. And it is so common that it might be the reason why historians usually skip even mentioning it. So it seems safest to blame Hollywood, as it usually does in my experience. You almost never see friendly fire in Hollywood movies, but it is a major source of casualties in any war, whether it is intentional or not.
Regarding Gibson though he mangles the source material deliberately in order to make people realize that he is being allegorical, which is a point his many, and loud, critics, seem to have missed entirely. He's not really, or at least not primarily, talking about Wallace, Christ and the Mayans but about political power and oligarchy vs freedom and truth. To inform us of this he blends Aztec and Mayan culture and places it in the wrong time period, focuses more on the truth telling of Christ than his divinity and turns Wallace into a cartoon character. He's trying to be helpful with this but apparently he's still too subtle for some people. I mention this just in case this is another Gibson bashing intro. I'm not his greatest fan but the dude knows how to tell a story as more than a simple narrative. And I respect that.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, RCharter said:
I agree.....I think the idea that LF may see "wanting to make things right" and "taking advantage of someone who needs him" as mutually exclusive ideas is not the Littlefinger we've seen. Maybe he does want to make things right, and maybe he knows exactly how to reconcile him taking advantage with making things right. I think he could likely justify anything to himself.
They made it pretty clear early on that he is obsessed only with power. And whether she likes it or not, he has now saved Sansa with the forces he controls, not she. People who are backing Sansa in a confrontation with LF are in for a rude awakening I believe. Wiser she may be but she has little to no real power as long as LF controls the Vale, which he does. Maybe she can change that but it doesn't seem very probable to me based on everything that has happened. He's supposed to be a master schemer. it would be awful writing to have a master schemer outschemed by a girl.
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, SimoneS said:
I am confident that isn't going to happen. Littlefinger might temporarily install Robin on the Iron Throne with the Vale army, but there is no way that he will be sitting there.
There's always a way. If everyone else is dead, who will stop him? The Lannisters are down to Mr and Mrs Incest and their soon to be dead son, the Baratheons are already extinct, excepting Robert's bastards, and the Starks are down to two girls, a cripple and an undead bastard, neither of whom seems very likely to rule anything for long. Anyway, I never said he'd sit there long. It's just that you need a villain on the throne when Daenerys arrives in KL. Otherwise you'll have her killing Tommen, who is after all an innocent in all this and fairly likable compared to most of the rest of the cast. Clearly it can not be Dany vs Tommen. That's like Stalin vs Dan Quayle.
-
8
-
-
3 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:
Is that legit? I was under the impression that was more Braveheart then real history.
It's what's known as a historical anecdote I believe, and is based on accounts from that battle. Obviously though there weren't any microphones present to record him saying it, so it's not like there's iron clad evidence. But as far as I know Braveheart lifted that quote from real life. And it's beyond question that he did in fact order his archers to fire into a melee at least once,. It was one of the things he became so infamous for in Britain even while he was still alive.
-
3
-
-
Just now, AlliMo said:
I think he's been pulling a lot of strings and definitely playing the long game, but he's also not infallible. Like everyone else, there are things he can't control and he has his weaknesses, his obsession with Sansa's mother being one of them. I don't think Sansa's marriage to Ramsay turned out he he was planning, for one.
Well, it depends on what he wanted, which I'm pretty sure is the throne. The question now is who will sit on that when Daenerys finally manages to find a boat, and my money is on LF. Unless the show has a complete change of character I rather suspect that Sansa will be dead before that happens. Then you'll have Mr Doofus in the north and the Mother of Titles in the south against the loyalists in the middle perhaps. And since he's probably her nephew anyway they can then marry in violation of the laws of nature and fight the walkers together. The end!
Needless to say I'm approaching the moment when I will start cheering for the walkers. I can smell the perverse happy ending coming here.
-
47 minutes ago, AlliMo said:
Littlefinger came to Sansa pretty much begging to make things right with her.
I keep telling you you're underestimating LF. This has been his war from the start; the Lannisters, Starks and Baratheons just puppets on his strings since season one.
-
9
-
-
22 hours ago, SimoneS said:
Ramsey really is the worse. He didn’t even care about hitting his own men.
This is based on Edward Longshanks in his war against Scotland. He ordered his archers to fire volleys into the melee then and when someone pointed out that they would hit their own men he supposedly said "Yes, but we'll hit theirs as well." It looks bad on TV obviously but it wasn't unheard of in Medieval warfare.
-
6
-
-
On 6/13/2016 at 5:20 PM, MrWhyt said:
it's an adaptation not a recreation.
But season one wasn't an adaptation. It was almost word for word like the book it was based on. If you have seen the TV show season 1, reading book 1 would be the most boring activity ever, because nearly everything is the same. GoT only became an adaptation later when they decided to make some warped feminist statement with Brienne, and even that didn't derail until after she got Jaime to KL. But the rest of the show quickly deteriorated after that decision: dead Stannis killed by someone who should be dead, Sansa marrying Bolton to make another feminist statement, no Stoneheart and Berric still alive instead, Dorne a very embarrassing sideshow, Blackfish killed off when we know he's alive and so on.. Once you've taken a dump on the story you're telling it gets easier to do it again, and in worse ways. I'm not going to apologize for not liking it. And it started with Brienne.
I mean back to the Incredible Feminist Hulk: Jaime is most definitely not in love with her in the books. He simply pities her and probably admires her honor while at the same time finding it utterly contemptible. The whole waving at each other thing was like the last scene in ET here.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Maximum Taco said:
Huh. I did not even think of that. That actually makes a lot of sense.
I still don't like the explanation they used though that it's "a scheme devised by corrupt rulers to avoid true judgement by the gods" I mean the High Sparrow himself would be the first one to say that men could be bought, even most septons (like the previous high septon.) He should've just said that it was brutish and barbaric, or something like "the gods wouldn't want others to suffer or die, only the ones being judged." I could at least buy that, because everything before this point it's been said that trial by combat is the way to let the gods decide.
Corrupt people like Pycelle, Cercei and Tywin Lannister have been saying that, which was the point Tommen made. It's bad enough that we have to suffer with Zombie Greg now if people can't counter Cercei's cheating by banning trial by combat.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, placate said:
I get why they'd have Drogon destroy the ships off-screen, cgi and budget and all, but how dare they kill Blackfish off-screen!
Personally I have stopped expecting adherence to the books the show claims to be based on. And of all the warped caricatures available on this decomposing TV show you can't get worse than Super-Brienne; the magical woman who has no weaknesses of any kind, quite unlike Brienne in the books. I'm still waiting for her to have half her face bitten off before she and Pod are hanged, so naturally I wasn't expecting much when it came to offing Blackfish. Why not have him run over by a lorry while we're at it? Never mind that they have no cars, who cares about plot !?!
Oh well, I'm sure that was just an accident when the author wrote all those things in the books. Let's just up and make Brienne like the Invincible Hulk why not! I DEMAND GREEN PAINT FOR BRIENNE!
sigh...
-
2
-
-
49 minutes ago, Tikichick said:
I agree that bit of karmic justice has been set up with backstory from the beginning. I've begun to realize how and when the confrontation must occur and shudder to think what the Hound will face in order to undertake this battle -- and Gregor's size, strength, fighting acumen, viciousness and the fact he is questionably alive will be the least of his worries IMO. It will be a poetic battle for sure.
Right. Well some of these fateful episodes are painfully obvious, and if we are confused it's simply because we haven't figured out the purpose of a character. Personally I was stunned when Sean Bean was offed in season 1, not having ready the books at that point and believing him to be the main character of the show. But I realize now that he died simply because he was done as a literary character. Through his oafish stupidity and honesty he helped cause the war and nearly destroy his own family and country. There was really nothing more he could do at this point, short of telling Jon about his heritage. But if he had done that Jon Snow would not have gone to the wall and might even have claimed the Iron Throne, making him what Robb became and then some; and probably just as dead. Jon's ignorance was essential to the entire story at the Wall, so Ned really was done even though he took that secret with him to the grave. And Stannis is basically the same, as unhappy as I was about his final scene. He had burned his followers, lost a major battle due to his own pride and finally burned his own daughter so his army deserted him and his wife hanged herself. It is not possible to be more done as a literary character than Stannis was, so you kill him off.
As for the obvious things, as soon as Mel was moved along with Stannis to the wall I knew that someone would die and be resurrected by her. What else was the Beric Dondarrion episode in season 2 about, if not to foreshadow this? First I though it might be Stannis who was brought back, but as season 5 unfolded I became more and more convinced it would be Jon, which it was. And this was completely predictable right away with Mel at the Wall. And the Hound now is the same thing. The only two obvious things about him are that he will kill the Mountain, now as a champion of the Sparrows and the Seven, and that he will be burned to death, probably by the fire people or even dragons. There is too much buildup of both things, not just on the show but in the books, for this to not take place in some way. The only question is how they take place.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, J----av said:
Just like Oberyn had to kill the Mountain lol. Don't get your hopes up. People rarely get justice against those that wronged them
This is literature, not reality, just in case there's any confusion. The reason Oberyn failed is that the Hound is the one who kills the Mountain in this work of fiction. I repeat that point just so it's nice and clear.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, aslightjump said:
Except...no? After the first season when she was thirteen, Sansa has moments of being cruel under stress, like when she bit Shae's head off after some talk with Cersei, but generally Sansa's pretty normal. Sansa was bitchy to Arya but Arya gave as good as she got, and Sansa was rude to her father after Ned had to kill Lady. But 'always needlessly bitchy' is not a trait I would apply to Sansa. She was a friend to Shae, nice to Tyrion when she didn't have to be, courteous to the Hound even when he intentionally frightened her, she helped the ladies in Blackwater, she apparently forgave Theon, ever polite to the Tyrells. There's more evidence of Sansa's compassion than there is her bitchiness. In fact, this was the first episode this season where I was like "whoa, reign it in, Sansa." (adding to the acting debate, I think Sophie's a little better than Isaac and a little worse than Maisie and they're all very talented. She was quite charming as Jean in X-Men Apocalypse and I totally bought that she could kill me with her mind.)
The Arya stabbing scene had such a dream like quality to it my sister still isn't convinced it actually happened.
Unpopular opinion, but the Hound scenes were boring. After a season and a half of listening to High Sparrow give weekly lectures on how to live life, I did not need to hear another guy give his own version. Necessary, but boring.
This is on the TV show though. Book Sansa was not the slightest bit nice to Tyrion.
-
On 6/6/2016 at 4:00 AM, dizzyd said:
OMG, the fucking Hound is ALIVE!!!! Didn’t see that coming at all.
I knew our Marge was still in there and playing the long con.
Damn, Leanna Mormont is a firecracker, a smarter ruler than any of the Starks were at Winterfell. I’m glad she called Sansa out on the technicality of not being a Stark by name, lucky Rickon is still alive and Davos the voice of reason.
Wow, Braavos is tough, not a soul to help Arya.
What do the Brotherhood have against the free folk? At least I’m guessing that’s who massacred them.
That episode was too short.
I have thought that the Hound was alive all along because he's not done. He has to kill the Mountain. The Brotherhood are following the Lord of Light, so consequently the Septon who was hanged in this episode was considered a heretic for worshiping the Seven. They were not "free folk" but essentially Sparrows building a congregation. There are three religions and two groups of intolerant religious fanatics here, the Sparrows in KL and the Brotherhood and the red priests in the Riverlands and on the Wall..
Anyway I expect that the Hound will now show up and fight his brother in Cercei's trial by combat, as the champion of the Seven. He has obviously found God in some way here and is no longer the same guy. This sets him up nicely for being burned at the stake by the red priests of course, which is cruel but makes sense literary. The only thing he's afraid of is fire, so obviously that's how he will die.
-
1 hour ago, Isazouzi said:
Jaquen seems so superpowerful, I'd like to know how he was made prisoner by the Kings Landing guards when Arya let him free...
Regarding Dany, the Dothraki were already following her because she'd burnt all the dudes. I thought her speech came out of nowhere. Why did she need to give it now? Because she wanted to show them her dragon? Because she never knows when Drogo is going to show up, so she seized the moment? It's like she'd forgotten to tell them some elements, like "By the way, I'm not choosing 3 khalasaars, I'm choosing all of you". She could have made the same speech after burning the others, right?
Everything of importance this character has done so far wouldn't fill half an episode. I'm so tired of her not-Mongolian rants that I very nearly skip over her scenes now. Nothing remotely interesting has really happened on the eastern continent since she hatched the eggs, and obviously nothing will until she gets to Westeros. If Martin had known how this part of the TV show would end up I feel pretty sure he would have kept Viserys alive, just to give Daenerys some meaningful antagonist, which she really hasn't had since he was killed off. For two and a half seasons we've had spoiled, entitled girl with white hair vs amorphous social institution. It's just never going to work on TV. Hell it barely works in the books.
-
1
-
-
On 5/30/2016 at 3:58 AM, SimoneS said:
OMG, this season has been outstanding so far.
Drogon! The CGI of Daenerys on the the dragon is so well done. She is getting better at communicating her Drogon. Next time, obey your queen, Darrio.
Yay, Arya! Needle! She decided to be who she is, “Arya Stark!” As I predicted, murdering for a cult of fanatics never ends well. I wasn’t surprised that Jaquen is willing to let the “other girl” kill her.
Benjen! He intends to take Bran and Meera to the Wall. I cannot wait for him to reunite with Jon.So Bran is the three eye raven. I cannot get over my poor sweet Wyllis sacrificing himself for Bran and Meera.
Go Sam! He took the sword. I love Sam. He is so funny. He cracked me up when he came storming back in for Gilly and the baby. Baby Sam is adorable. Gilly was near unrecognizable after her makeover. I like Sam’s mother. Sam’s father reminds me of Tywin. Damn, Sam lost a lot with his inheritance. He would have been rich as hell.
Fuck, the High Sparrow. He is so pathetic. He reminds me of every religious homophobic zealot who ever walked the earth. Margaery is a good actress. She is trying to save Loras whose is only sin is being gay. The Tyrell father looked ridiculous in armor on that horse.
Watching Tommen come down those stairs cracked me up. Cersei must be so proud of her handiwork. I was glad that Tommen sent Jaime away, anything to get him away from Cersei who is fucking delusional. The Lannisters are weaker than they have ever been thanks to her failed schemes.
I like the HS. He's the long overdue reaction to all the filth that has been going on for five seasons and change. As for zealotry, isn't it just as much zealotry to insist that everyone likes the same things as you do? Aristotle once wrote that tolerance was the death of culture, meaning that a loss of moral guidelines leads to weakness, decadence and collapse. History seems to be more on his side than yours I think.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, stagmania said:
Except in this case, apparently not. The writers and actor who portray him have apparently said that he had no knowledge of how Ramsey is, and therefore no complex or subtle plan involving using his cruelty to mold Sansa one way or the other. Of all the interesting possibilities the posters here have come up with to fanwank it, the show went with the least thoughtful (or plausible). It doesn't inspire much confidence in their handle on characterization.
So the same people who said when asked last year that Jon Snow was not going to be resurrected told you so and you believe it? They are not going to spill the beans on upcoming episodes and plot developments now either, and we therefore have to rely on the large, glandular organ between our ears.
-
1
-
-
It's always hard to move something from one medium to another though. Sansa is supposed to be like...13 at this point. Meanwhile Sophie Turner is 20 and about 6'3. So it all felt a little weird when this huge woman was acting like a little girl in season 1 and 2. And it feels weird whenever you accidentally remember the age of the character that a 13 year old girl is acting like a grown woman. Turner really can't win here between the book readers and the people who compulsively pay attention to detail. It's just all off somehow, whichever angle you approach it from.
Personally I am taking the same approach I tried to take with the Lord of the Rings movies. Just close my eyes and hope they don't give Orlando Bloom more dialogue than absolutely necessary. I really liked Legolas and the elves in the books, but waited in vain for six movies for him to die to a stray arrow when he was moved on screen. All those orcs and not one of them managed to hit him... Anyway, and if possible, just forget you ever read the books while watching the show. If you can do that it is possible to enjoy GoT I find. To me personally it is a great help that nothing has thus far been bungled as badly as Parth Galen was bungled by Peter Jackson. Compared to that, all is well with the world.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Cherpumple said:
I agree that LF is motivated, in part, by a hatred of the Starks, but I've never bought the idea that he actually loved Catelyn. I'm sure he was attracted to her and would have loved to marry her for his own personal gain, but I've never seen a drop of real affection for her in anything he's said or done in either the books or the show. It seems that D&D are accepting that his love was real, but it really rings false to me. He just seems like a typical sociopath (or psychopath, I get them confused) who is incapable of true love or compassion for anyone.
No that's true. But sociopaths often simulate emotions, and they do often believe in these simulations. And I'm not so sure LF actually is a sociopath so much as he is driven by vengeance. His affection and empathy was killed along with his attempt to marry Kat and now he hates the world. The only thing left for him is power. Anyway, whether his emotions are real or not, loving Kat and hating the Starks is his self-narrative and what motivates him. LF's relationship with Sansa can't be understood in a vaccum here, not least because this is fiction. And his motives have been spelled out in detail throughout the show so you'd think the writers would stick to that. To him Sansa is Kat. Or rather, he hopes, the woman Kat would have been if she had never married Ned and become a Stark. If she becomes something else, Sansa will be just one more enemy to be destroyed I think. And a Stark enemy at that.
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, screamin said:
That was a good article.
I suppose one way to retcon Littlefinger's actions so that they SORT of fit what we know of him is that he likes to take bigger risks for higher stakes every time he wins...to prove to himself how much sharper he is than everyone else. He's attached to Sansa but the temptation to use her as a playing piece is greater than his attachment, so he tosses her into the game, marrying her to Ramsey - while knowing what Ramsey is like - as a challenge to himself to prove that he can win big and STILL keep Sansa as an obedient pawn.
Perhaps his plan was to rescue Sansa from Ramsey's clutches, betting that the trauma of Ramsey's torments would cause her to cling to him as her savior instead of the engineer of her suffering. And if Ramsey went too far and killed her - well, at least LF would be free of an emotional attachment he probably considers a weakness. Win-win. But Sansa did the one thing he didn't expect her to do - get away from Ramsey without his help. Now she's still alive - still tormenting him with the desire to possess her - while she's moved far beyond his reach.
Or, yeah, the showrunners were just idiots. Never mind.
His main motivation is hatred of the Starks though. The only way his recent actions make sense to me is if sending Sansa to Ramsay was his reenactment of Kat's wedding to the hated Ned; a young Riverlands girl sent to languish with the smelly barbarians. He may have wanted to make her hate Winterfell, the north, her own Stark heritage and to see her father, the Lord of Winterfell, in Ramsay. The more sadistic and reprobate Ramsay behaved towards her, therefore, the better. Then he can "rescue" her from "Ned" and she can become the Tully princess LF has been longing for his whole life. His lifelong love for Kat will then be vindicated by Sansa's hatred of the north, and obviously he can then also use her to control the north, which he has to if he wants to rule Westeros. If she rebels against his manipulation and becomes his enemy though he will destroy her, which is the silent threat from him during their encounter in episode 5. He has the only intact army in Westeros under his command and can back Sansa against Ramsay or the other way round, as he sees fit. If she chooses to be a Stark that is precisely what I think he will do. He hates the Starks, including her if she makes the wrong choice.
Everything LF does is subtle on this show. Blink and you miss it.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, sumiregusa said:
Preach the goddamn truth.
I said almost exactly this to a couple of my mates that I always talk about GOT with. Like really. I'm at my wit's end with this show. I'll watch because Stockholm but I really can't be bothered to believe that D&D can consistently produce amazing and compelling content. I just don't have faith anymore. I'm over it.
It's a misleading show is the thing. It wants you to invest in characters that are, obviously, doomed because of the WWs and the Layer of Eggs. Nothing in Westeros is as it seems and nothing really matters, regardless of who comes out on top. Despite this, most of the story has been set in Westeros, a soon to be graveyard. So at its core the show misleads the viewers about what is important. When you think about it the show made us believe for about four and a half seasons that the Lannisters were just the worst villains ever. Everyone on the show blamed them for everything; killing Jon Arryn, poisoning Robert, pushing Bran from the window, executing Ned, getting Robb and Catelyn murdered. Just anything bad and it was the Lannisters, and no one ever said otherwise. Then we find out that it was Lisa Arryn and LF who killed Jon. And the reason he did that was to get Ned Stark to KL so he could be set up and killed to start the war LF needed to take power. And then you have to ask whether it was also LF who leaked information about the Lannister incest to Jon, so this material would be in KL as bait for Ned when he got there. And consequently all three families have been nothing but witless pawns in LF's schemes for going on six seasons, including the Lannisters, who are now in second place among families who have lost the most out of all this. The Barathions are extinct and take first place while the Starks at least have a few living members of reproductive age left and take third place. Once Tommen and Lansel go, which they will, the Lannisters will be finished as well. And it's all because of LF, by all accounts a minor character for most of the show. Presently he is Lord of the Vale, the deciding factor in wars between north and south, and the key to him seizing the north and then the Iron Throne. He has used the Tyrells to kill Joffre, which will obviously lead to the Tyrells and what remains of Lannisters destroying each other once this dawns on Cercei. I even suspect him of setting off the High Sparrow in KL before he left. At least the Sparrows appeared in KL the second LF left town, which is suspicious all in itself.
The only people who have ever found LF out are Catelyn, who is dead, and Varys, who is exiled. It is possible that Sansa is getting close now, but the question is whether she will kill him or he will kill her. My money is on Balysh all day long. He might even ally with the Boltons this season if Sansa refuses to be his tool. And she will. The mistake is becoming attached to anyone or anything on this show. That is bound to end in disappointment and cynicism.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Argenta said:
I doubt many viewers find the flaying and genital mutilation fun or 'entertaining' as such.
But taking Theon as an example of someone this has happened to: the direwolves are beautiful, loyal creatures who will sacrifice themselves to protect the Stark family. In short, they're everything the treacherous and selfish Theon is not. He has started to redeem himself now with his newfound humility and support of Yara, but traditionally the wolves have been the more likeable and sympathetic characters, in themselves and in what they mean to the Stark children.
As for the wolves having no lines - obviously not, since they're animals.
I don't think it changes the curious fact that a lot of people seem more upset over animals dying than people. I don't think the DWs are any more beautiful than any other animals, or people for that matter. And they are not meaningful characters on the TV show was my point with saying that they have no lines. They're like amateur Tolkien eagles, occasionally swooping in to rescue some hopeless situation, but otherwise not contributing anything of note to the story. Apart from symbolism that is, which is why they are dying in the first place. Personally I barely notice them, except when I come here and then remember that there were dogs on the show I just watched because people are so upset that one of them died again.
-
2
-
S04.E10: The Last Ship
in Vikings
In a sense you could say that Rollo died I suppose. At least the one who was Ragnar's brother.
Well this is the wrong show for them then. Just the fact that Lindisfarne was attacked in 793 and the siege of Paris took place in 845 should have driven purists away a long time ago. Unless of course we pretend that Ragnar and Rollo were in their late 60s while attacking Paris.
Well there is also of course the historical fact that Rollo, or Gange-Rolf as he became known, was effectively the first Duke of Normandy and that his great great great grandson was William the Conqueror. Rollo had to win the battle so he could reproduce at least.