TV Series Thread

[Hydra009]

I'm literally just discovering how many people believe Daenerys is a villain in Game of Thrones, and just how... passionate... they are about how evil she is.

The show version was a lot harsher towards Dany, and yeah, there's a reason they react that way.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Their crime?  Dany thinks they might be behind the Sons of the Harpy killings.  Might be.

Before that, Dany met an envoy from Yunkai who offered her a crate of gold and jewels for her to buy a fleet of ships to leave their territory and go to Westeroes to reclaim her throne.  She declined the offer, kept the gold/jewels, and then threatened the envoy's life.  Suffice it to say that Dark Side points were gained that day.

I'm not sure if even Cersei would do what Dany has done, though Cersei seems to be growing more cartoonishly evil per episode, so I suppose anything's possible.

So yeah, a lot of show fans don't like Dany.  Go figure.

[GSOgymrat]

I read the first three books of the Game of Thrones series and gave up. I don't think I have ever given up on a series but after 3000 pages I still wasn't enjoying the story. Because so few of the characters are sympathetic and so many are killed off I stopped investing in their fates. I should have stopped after the first book but I succumb to the sunken cost fallacy. It didn't help that everyone I know insists this is on par with Lord of the Rings. My brother says the TV series is better than the books.

[Hydra009]

I read the first three books of the Game of Thrones series and gave up. I don't think I have ever given up on a series but after 3000 pages I still wasn't enjoying the story. Because so few of the characters are sympathetic and so many are killed off I stopped investing in their fates.

I don't blame you.  I wasn't a fan of how the later books kept getting more and more distant from the main characters in Westeroes.  It seemed to lose focus.

I don't hate the worldbuilding, but there's a time and a place for that.  When GRRM announced a book specifically geared towards worldbuilding/lore, I was glad.  Now that seems to be all he does.

Not even the Gods know how far that pushed back Winds of Winter. 

Of course, it's not my place to tell him what he does with his own franchise, but I can't help but point out the obvious - if this franchise hadn't have ballooned out of control, he would have likely wrapped up the main story now and GRRM could pursue any additions at his leisure without having to divide his time between different books.

My brother says the TV series is better than the books.

There's a certain appeal to the show.  It's much more easily digestible and it gives great visuals.

That said, the show skips over a ton of very interesting characters and their perspectives (Patchface, Victarion, Lady Stoneheart, Jon Connington, etc), there are major deviations from the book narrative that are rightly held in contempt (Dorne, Euron, Stannis, etc), and the latter seasons seem to suffer from poor writing - how much of that is the source material and how much of that is D&D remains to be seen.

Gods, I would have loved to hear the horn Dragonbinder in the show.  That was a magical moment in the books.

[Blackleaf]

I'm literally just discovering how many people believe Daenerys is a villain in Game of Thrones, and just how... passionate... they are about how evil she is.

I just... what? She is no saint, but she is practically Gandhi compared to any other ruler. And don't like her, fine, that's cool, but I mean... people are legit like... furious about it and will go off at you if you dare say she is anything other than the most horrible human to ever exist (lol).

I get being passionate about entertainment, but that is just taking it too far.

The show may be foreshadowing that her family curse may have been passed down to her. She's somewhat reasonable right now, but there are signs she may be turning into her father, the Mad King. If that's the case, John Snow might become conflicted about where his loyalties lie, especially if he learns he carries the same heritage as her and therefore has a claim to the throne. Hell, maybe Daenerys will learn about Snow's heritage first and try to kill him in a preemptive strike.

Also, there is one more thing to keep in mind about the series: The author. George R. R. Martin has said before that he doesn't believe the good and evil dichotomies of most stories are realistic, that most people lie somewhere in the middle. So don't be surprised if one of the characters who starts off a hero turns out to be the villain in the end, or vice versa.

[Hydra009]

Final Space 7/10

When I saw the teaser for it, I was pumped.  It looked like everything I wanted - a great mix of space action and comedy.

When I saw the first episode, I was very disappointed.  I swear to IPU, this series has amazing artists and animators who wake up every day and work magic.  It also has decent writing.  But whoever does the dialogue - both the writers and voice actors - play in a kiddie pool of their own turds.  I've never seen a bigger discrepancy of talent on a show in my entire life.

The lead makes Jar-Jar Binks look good.  Nothing he says or does is in any way funny.  I honestly hope he dies.

I couldn't watch any more.  Months later, I returned to this series and gave it another chance.  It's actually not bad.  Not amazing, but not bad.  If you can stomach the fecal stench of the first two episodes, I promise that it gets better.

*edit - I strongly recommend watching it muted with subtitles on.  Or I would if the non-dialogue sounds weren't good.  It's kind of a lose-lose situation.

[GSOgymrat]

Streaming wars.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[Sal1981]

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Or ... it'll incentivize collectivization of streaming content on a single platform ...

[Baruch]

Or ... it'll incentivize collectivization of streaming content on a single platform ...

One stream to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

[SGOS]

That's the trend in recent innovations of our system.  Instead of increasing profit by expanding market share or outdoing competitors, the new strategy is to find new ways to nickel-dime consumers.  If it works, that's great (Yay capitalism), but more and more I find myself ending my participation in the non-essentials.  If I feel like I'm starting to get fucked, I don't play.  It's amazing how easy it is to do without those things I considered addictions.  But obviously, I'm not setting any trends, and companies still seem to be able to scam enough customers to make their boardrooms happy.  They still send me junk mail.  So I know they want me to play with them, but they won't play by my rules.  So sadly, it's sayonara.  One of my favorite corporate jokes are these new services offered by companies that you can buy for a few dollars a month.  But they aren't new at all, they are just the ordinary costs of providing service that the company had to pay to do business in the first place.

My most recent declaration of corporate retaliation I'm waging on Costco.  I'm no longer paying them $75 dollars a year to shop in their store  That's not even like an extra service.  Granted their inventory is huge, but their selection is worse than the average corner deli.  For example, you want to buy soup?  They have it in warehouse quantities stacked in huge unopened crates 20 feet high.  But you only get two choices.  It's Chicken Noodle or Tomato.  I've done the math, and when all is said and done, I can save about $50 a year after I pay for the membership and the extra gas it takes to make a 200 mile round trip to their store twice a year to stock up and make the trip worthwhile.  I've taken my receipts to my local Walmart and compared prices.  I can save $25 a trip to Costco, but waste an entire day while doing it.  But then I'm not buying for a family. 

In fairness, if you ever buy hearing aides, buy a membership and get them at Costco.  Their service and professional care impressed me, and I saved about $800.  2 1/2 years later, I had a problem with one of them, and they were still totally covered by warranty.  Other things not so much.  I recently, bought a set of Michelin Tires at my local tire dealer for what Costco was selling them, and I don't have to pay him to shop in his store.

[Baruch]

But ... but ... it is unpatriotic not to shop in stores owned by squillionaire X who supports the D party or squillionaire Y who supports the R party.  Fascism means you don't get a choice.  You will be told how much health insurance to buy each month from the political corrupt monopoly ... oh, we already do that!!.  This needs to be extended to all other products.  Gotta keep the GDP high.  Don't have money?  We will give you credit to buy what you can't afford, and the prices we set, and at the interest rate we set.  Remember We Say So Corp from Dinosaurs (tv show)?

[Hydra009]

The Walking Dead:  Season 9, Episode 3 Warning Signs

I just watched an actually pretty good episode of The Walking Dead.  I'm in shock.

Plenty of character moments, some tense/shocking moments, an unexpected death, continuity nods, in-character characters, moral ambiguity, a generally coherent story throughout.  There's even a payoff.  Did they finally switch to unleaded coffee at the writers' room?

[Blackleaf]

I came across this article today: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's short, but basically it challenges the idea spread by Game of Thrones that rape was common during the "Dark Ages," which the author George R. R. Martin said he based his stories on. In the article, they say that rape was likely not common in the Nordic regions because it was a serious crime back then. They also say that the Catholic church had a vice grip on society at the time, which described sexual assault as a sin.

You've probably already spotted the obvious problems with this logic. First, just because rape was considered an evil act doesn't mean it wasn't common. Second, using the defense that the Catholic church was in power does not help their case. When Catholic priests are infamous for raping the vulnerable, including children, it doesn't really matter whether they say rape is sinful or not, does it?

They say that 1/4 women are victims of sexual assault. If that's true (and admittedly, I haven't checked the data on that), then how much more common was it in an age where women were considered lesser beings than men? Are we supposed to believe that women were treated any better when they came out as victims then than they are now?

[Baruch]

I came across this article today: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's short, but basically it challenges the idea spread by Game of Thrones that rape was common during the "Dark Ages," which the author George R. R. Martin said he based his stories on. In the article, they say that rape was likely not common in the Nordic regions because it was a serious crime back then. They also say that the Catholic church had a vice grip on society at the time, which described sexual assault as a sin.

You've probably already spotted the obvious problems with this logic. First, just because rape was considered an evil act doesn't mean it wasn't common. Second, using the defense that the Catholic church was in power does not help their case. When Catholic priests are infamous for raping the vulnerable, including children, it doesn't really matter whether they say rape is sinful or not, does it?

They say that 1/4 women are victims of sexual assault. If that's true (and admittedly, I haven't checked the data on that), then how much more common was it in an age where women were considered lesser beings than men? Are we supposed to believe that women were treated any better when they came out as victims then than they are now?

Single women are targets in any society.  In traditional culture your father or brothers would protect you, unless you were a fallen woman.  See Romeo & Juliet?  Rape was common in Rome, because any owner of either sex, could have sex at will with slave property of either sex.

So did women, in pagan society have more respect because of goddesses?  Not if you were a slave, and not if you had no male relative to protect you.

What happens in fiction today, reflects present attitudes, not actual anthropology.  That would be a lecture, not a movie.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Yes, my Scandinavian relatives ;-)  Most of my ancestors in any region were peasants or slaves of course ... but not all of them.

Here is one of my gad-about royal ancestors from 1900 years ago ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Here is another, historical, Welsh heroine ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Gerald of Wales is another relative, we both descend from Nest ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A modern view of some of Gerald's stories from his Irish trip ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[Hydra009]

I came across this article today: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's short, but basically it challenges the idea spread by Game of Thrones that rape was common during the "Dark Ages," which the author George R. R. Martin said he based his stories on. In the article, they say that rape was likely not common in the Nordic regions because it was a serious crime back then. They also say that the Catholic church had a vice grip on society at the time, which described sexual assault as a sin.

You've probably already spotted the obvious problems with this logic. First, just because rape was considered an evil act doesn't mean it wasn't common. Second, using the defense that the Catholic church was in power does not help their case. When Catholic priests are infamous for raping the vulnerable, including children, it doesn't really matter whether they say rape is sinful or not, does it?

They say that 1/4 women are victims of sexual assault. If that's true (and admittedly, I haven't checked the data on that), then how much more common was it in an age where women were considered lesser beings than men? Are we supposed to believe that women were treated any better when they came out as victims then than they are now?

I'm not super up on the statistics/records, but the general consensus is that real medieval history was pretty violent.  (Though of course that varies quite a lot by the specific place and time)  Maybe not quite as high a body count and frequent as in GoT, but it's up there.  And note rape in Game of Thrones is usually associated with war.  GRRM decided that if he was going to cover war, he had to cover rape because they're so closely connected in real life.

“And then there’s the whole issue of sexual violence, which I’ve been criticized for as well. I’m writing about war, which what almost all epic fantasy is about. But if you’re going to write about war, and you just want to include all the cool battles and heroes killing a lot of orcs and things like that and you don’t portray [sexual violence], then there’s something fundamentally dishonest about that. Rape, unfortunately, is still a part of war today. It’s not a strong testament to the human race, but I don’t think we should pretend it doesn’t exist.

I want to portray struggle. Drama comes out of conflict. If you portray a utopia, then you probably wrote a pretty boring book.” - GRRM

[Blackleaf]

I particularly like this part of the article: "He has also been criticized for using sexual assault almost exclusively to develop his male characters. The women are merely victims."

lolwut? Did they completely forget Daenerys Targaryen? Forced into a marriage by her brother in exchange for power, she kills her brother and becomes the legendary "mother of dragons," leading an army of savages and slaves. What about Sansa Stark, who after being forced into two marriages with men she hated, and dragged all across the country by Petyr Baellish, outsmarts "Little Finger," killing him and becoming one of the most influential leaders of the people of the North? Or Brienne of Tarth, the female knight who knew she was as good as any man and has consistently proved her bad ass self countless times? The author of the article seems to think that George R.R. Martin has these sexist portrayals of women, but most of his cool characters are women, and their rape or attempted rape were not defining moments for them. If anything, those moments showed how strong they were, and how much they could take and still keep fighting.