ChiefsPlanet - Movies and TV Game of Thrones (spoiler-free zone)

Yes. The source material is THE problem, imo. I feel like a broken record, but GRRM is, ultimately, an author who writes "books with imaginary maps." Fantasy authors are so freaking obsessed with world/culture creation and all the cool stuff they think up that they forget to write a story. They'd rather spin off some excuse of a side plot that will allows them to get some crap like the Sand Snakes (and if you've read the book, it's even worse with the number of stupid, meaningless spinoffs he creates) because they're "cool."

When the story was character driven, it was interesting. It's become culture/world driven now, imo. It's just about him fleshing out the world in tedious detail. Robert Jordan did the same crap with the Wheel of Time.

I actually think the show writers have done an excellent job of winnowing down some of the freaking plotlines and condensing/combining others so that it makes a tighter, more coherent story.

rep

RustShack

06-16-2015 12:28 AM

The fire God lady resurrects Jon in the fire and we find out his mother was a Targaryen.

MagicHef

06-16-2015 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewChief (Post 11550262)

The Watch and their actions, while illogical, are a microcosm of what's going on in all of Westeros. People are concerned with their political bullshit when the real threat that could wipe them all out is marching on their asses.

I mean, all of Westeros is acting illogically and idiotically (and the books do a much better job of showing this) in that they are aware of reports from beyond the Wall that "Winter is Coming," but they aren't concerned with that. They're just worried about their own myopic political gains.

I feel like you didn't really understand what you read?

In the books:

A) The only person that has ever seen a White Walker is Sam. Even the wildlings admit to never having seen one. It's similar to your crazy cousin claiming to have killed Bigfoot.

B) Jon not only admits their sworn enemy to protect against Bigfoot, he then decides to abandon the wall to march the Night's Watch against Winterfell.

A mutiny was far from an illogical action.

MagicHef

06-16-2015 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy Cheeks (Post 11550225)

I really couldn't say. As a non-book reader of GoT, I can see Alliser wanting to be top dog. I can understand the kid seeking only revenge on the Wildlings for his village being butchered by Wildings.. all the while not seeing the big picture of humans vs WW/undead.

That's about all I can appreciate about killing Jon.. from a non-book reader POV. :shrug:

It's sad, because the best explanation for what they did in the show is "they're kind of dumb and didn't really think it through."

In the books, Jon's death is completely his own fault. He continually puts himself in worse and worse positions for the benefit of everyone else. All of his actions are set up to benefit everyone in the long run, at the expense of his own current position. He sends away Sam, Gilly, and Aemon to Oldtown. He sends Tormund and his other wildling supporters away to Hardhome. He decides to risk marching against a foe who threatens to destroy the Watch rather than "take no part".

In the end, it all got him killed.

frankotank

06-16-2015 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 11550179)

The characters in the books actually have a reasonable motivation for killing Jon.

yes I've seen this comment in the the spoiler thread.
so basically from what I've read in these threads.....
they ****ed this all up. the books made it much more palatable in that they gave the reader good reason/reasons why this came to pass.

but the TV show ****ed it up.

so....I really want to know WHAT they ****ed up. would you please use a spoiler if need be and tell us why jons death/assasination makes so much more sense in the book than it does in the TV version?

EDIT - welp....looks like you already covered this in the post just before this one! hahaha. anything else?

MagicHef

06-16-2015 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankotank (Post 11551387)

Sorry, maybe it should have been a spoiler, but I figured none of that information will ever be in the show, since they decided to do it differently.

GRRM made Ned, Robb, and Jon all great leaders in some aspects, but their downfalls were all self-made through their individual weaknesses:

-Ned was blinded by his honor, refused to play the game.
-Robb was a great military tactician, but was hopeless in political scheming.
-Jon was completely focused on the long term enemy to the detriment of his immediate personal situation.

In the books, Jon's killers were pretty well justified. As far as they know, they were preventing the desertion of the wall, which was their protection from the wildlings.

In the show, they were just kind of stupid jerks who were mad at Jon. (Really, why did they let the wildlings through the wall if they were going to kill Jon for it the next day?)

KevB	06-16-2015 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 11550069)

Rational decision making isn't necessarily these mother****ers strong suit.

Exactly. More decisions are made on this show out of anger, passion and irrationality than the opposite. Let's not forget that many/most of the men on the wall got there as penance for being awful people to begin with. Add to that the men have likely all lost "brothers" and other family during their battles with the Wildlings, so there's a deep hate for them. Jon getting in bed with the Wildlings (literally and figuratively) appears to them to be an act of treason. They weren't there to see the White Walker army, so they don't necessarily understand the dire threat that army poses to The Wall and Westeros.

I hate that he was killed, because I thought they'd really set up his story to be interesting over the next couple of seasons. That setup seems to all have been for naught.

allen_kcCard

06-16-2015 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 11550928)

The fire God lady resurrects Jon in the fire and we find out his mother was a Targaryen.

Mother was a Stark you mean. Daddy was Targ...speculatively.

Buehler445

06-16-2015 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allen_kcCard (Post 11551417)

Mother was a Stark you mean. Daddy was Targ...speculatively.

Stark kind of has to be the dad.

MagicHef

06-16-2015 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 11551432)

Stark kind of has to be the dad.

So... this brings up an interesting question about spoilers. There are a lot of theories out there that depend on evidence in the books, but they have not been explicitly spelled out in either the books or the show. However, a show watcher would not have any idea about such a theory, because the hints weren't present in the show at all.

Given that it affects future things in the story (both show and books), should those theories be discussed here?

Buehler445

06-16-2015 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 11551458)

I'm for it if you throw it in a spoiler. I'd like to read it, but I'd probably drop it in a spoiler to be sure.

MagicHef

06-16-2015 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 11551467)

I'm for it if you throw it in a spoiler. I'd like to read it, but I'd probably drop it in a spoiler to be sure.

Ok:

Spoiler!