A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones thread: A Clash of Threads

[Etrurian emperor]

4 hours ago, Logos said:

the way they killed off Littlefinger

Poor, poor Littlefinger. I recognize a recurring trend in his death where the writers just kill off a character because they don't know what to do with them anymore or to hype up the ones taking that character down.

Little finger's plot wasn't done. He still pretty much owned an entire region of Westeros that hadn't been affected by the war and it seems weird that for all his plotting he would just faff about in Winterfall, waiting for some brats to kill him.

I think a similar motive was reason to kill off Stannis and Olena. Stannis stood in the way of John fighting the Boltons so he just had to be written out of the show and Cersei needed an unrealistic boost in competence to ensure her bad planning last season didn't make her to easy an enemy, so Olena just had to go.  

[Ae†her]

10 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Poor, poor Littlefinger. I recognize a recurring trend in his death where the writers just kill off a character because they don't know what to do with them anymore or to hype up the ones taking that character down.

Little finger's plot wasn't done. He still pretty much owned an entire region of Westeros that hadn't been affected by the war and it seems weird that for all his plotting he would just faff about in Winterfall, waiting for some brats to kill him.

I think a similar motive was reason to kill off Stannis and Olena. Stannis stood in the way of John fighting the Boltons so he just had to be written out of the show and Cersei needed an unrealistic boost in competence to ensure her bad planning last season didn't make her to easy an enemy, so Olena just had to go.  

They reduced the complexity of the characters, and now the show has been reduced to the good guys vs the bad guys, the exact thing  Martin say's he hates, and has never incorporated into his books.

[Etrurian emperor]

On 19-11-2017 at 10:28 PM, Logos said:

They reduced the complexity of the characters, and now the show has been reduced to the good guys vs the bad guys, the exact thing  Martin say's he hates, and has never incorporated into his books.

For the most part I agree but I Cersei seems to be an exception to that rule. She's a horrible person and has perhaps become even more evil then the Cersei from the books but she's also somewhat more nuanced. 

Show Cersei has at least some humanizing moments, one with Robert surprisingly while the book one just seems vile all the time. In the show they at least tried and there isn't any indication Cersei killed their son because she hated Robert so much. Show Cersei's evil seems to stem more from very, very deep issues while the one in the book is just evil.
Though book Cersei does have something interesting that the show decided to skip. In the books she becomes somewhat like Robert and she's more inept. The show's rise of the Faith militant was also one of her plots backfiring(again) but she's more of a victim and they omit other screw up like her appointment of a captain of ships who's quickly betrays her and becomes a pirate. 

[Ae†her]

59 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

For the most part I agree but I Cersei seems to be an exception to that rule. She's a horrible person and has perhaps become even more evil then the Cersei from the books but she's also somewhat more nuanced. 

Show Cersei has at least some humanizing moments, one with Robert surprisingly while the book one just seems vile all the time. In the show they at least tried and there isn't any indication Cersei killed their son because she hated Robert so much. Show Cersei's evil seems to stem more from very, very deep issues while the one in the book is just evil.
Though book Cersei does have something interesting that the show decided to skip. In the books she becomes somewhat like Robert and she's more inept. The show's rise of the Faith militant was also one of her plots backfiring(again) but she's more of a victim and they omit other screw up like her appointment of a captain of ships who's quickly betrays her and becomes a pirate. 

In the books she's like Catelyn Tully except she's somewhat not as awful at helping herself and her family (children), while show Cersei does have some humanizing moments, she still was essentially for the most part a terrible person deep down just like her book counterpart. The show messed up her plot by using as her as a means to end all the serious political conflicts right before the White Walker War starts.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Logos said:

In the books she's like Catelyn Tully except she's somewhat not as awful at helping herself and her family (children), while show Cersei does have some humanizing moments, she still was essentially for the most part a terrible person deep down just like her book counterpart. The show messed up her plot by using as her as a means to end all the serious political conflicts right before the White Walker War starts.

Boi what did you say about my main girl Cat?

8 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

For the most part I agree but I Cersei seems to be an exception to that rule. She's a horrible person and has perhaps become even more evil then the Cersei from the books but she's also somewhat more nuanced. 

Show Cersei has at least some humanizing moments, one with Robert surprisingly while the book one just seems vile all the time. In the show they at least tried and there isn't any indication Cersei killed their son because she hated Robert so much. Show Cersei's evil seems to stem more from very, very deep issues while the one in the book is just evil.
Though book Cersei does have something interesting that the show decided to skip. In the books she becomes somewhat like Robert and she's more inept. The show's rise of the Faith militant was also one of her plots backfiring(again) but she's more of a victim and they omit other screw up like her appointment of a captain of ships who's quickly betrays her and becomes a pirate. 

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Show Cersei is a better person than book Cersei, but book Cersei is very much human. Her desire for power very clearly comes from having so little control as a result of being married to Robert combined with having her narsiccism nurtured by Tywin. It's not moral, but it's very human. In one of my favorite scenes in the series Cersei sleeps with Taena Merryweather and is upset that Taena doesn't resist her, because she wants the feeling of dominating someone like Robert dominated her.

[Moblin Major General]

I can only wonder if Westeros would've started better off if Tywin had taken the Iron Throne instead of Robert. Granted, that might've kicked off a succession crisis because the choices for the throne would be between a dwarf, a woman, and a high traitor (in medieval terms, at least), not to mention the Lannisters have a bit of an incest problem that isn't mitigated by a powerful lineage like the Targaryens (physically, as Aerys wasn't called the mad king for no reason).

[blah the Prussian]

15 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I can only wonder if Westeros would've started better off if Tywin had taken the Iron Throne instead of Robert. Granted, that might've kicked off a succession crisis because the choices for the throne would be between a dwarf, a woman, and a high traitor (in medieval terms, at least), not to mention the Lannisters have a bit of an incest problem that isn't mitigated by a powerful lineage like the Targaryens (physically, as Aerys wasn't called the mad king for no reason).

Well, Tywin would have had no claim and would have been facing the Rebel army that just won the Trident and are veterans. The Westerlands would have been alone against at least four Kingdoms and that's assuming the Reach does nothing. Not a good idea.

[Ae†her]

Yeah, I wonder actually. What were to happen if both Robert and Rhaegar killed each other on the battlefield? Of course Robert's forces would still prevail. Stannis surely wouldn't get the throne because he's unrecognized as being a crucial force in Robert's Rebellion. Would Tywin still sack the city eventually, if Robert died, and the Mad King's forces were destroyed? And of course who would then sit on the Iron Throne?

[blah the Prussian]

I've seen a scenario like this where Tywin does sack the city but places Aegon, Rhaegar's eldest son, on the throne.

[Ae†her]

I've always thought Genealogy had similar story elements as Game of Thrones. And I'm not saying that one might've ripped off the other because they most likely and probably certainly did not, but I just found out that the first GoT book and Genealogy were released on the same year, 1996. Lol Also ASOIAF only came out 2 and a half months after Genealogy was released. I think that's pretty cool.