Game of Thrones General (Non-Book Related) Discussion Thread

[DarthSkywalker]

DarthSkywalker: In our own Medieval history, I know there are scenarios where authority was assumed and wielded completely in the absence of "legitimacy".

So, where are the examples? Women, with no legitimacy, taking over.

 

[Reek]

this is getting to a weird point that isn't really part of the question 'why people think Dorne is awful'...

I mean.. just look at how Trystane died... that should pretty much sum it up completely.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Good point. Changing the subject to avoid the awfulness.

 

[DigificWriter]

So, where are the examples? Women, with no legitimacy, taking over.

Dorne is decidedly more "modern" when it comes to attitudes towards women, especially in a Medieval context, but I will try and find some historical examples of men with no authority or legitimacy assuming power.

Edit: William the Conqueror is the most famous example I could find of an illegitimate bastard* taking and holding on to authority and the leadership of a country (England).

* His parents were not considered to have been properly married, so he was viewed as illegitimate

 

[Loki882]

My problem with it is that the show removed pretty much EVERYTHING that was interesting and unique about Dorne, chucked it out the window, and replaced it with, this crap.

It completely butchered Ellaria's character to the point of being unrecognizable (hey showrunners, her speech AGAINST the idea of seeking revenge for Oberyn was one of the best pieces of dialogue that GRRM has ever written. You, turned her into a cartoonishly revenge-obsessed psycho, great job).

It completely wasted Alexander Siddig and underserved an interesting and layered character like Doran.

And it's not awful, it's just dull.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Choosing to go in a different direction from the source material is not "butchering" a character, and they've actually set up why Ellaria is doing what she's doing and why she feels the way that she does; just because people happen to disagree with the explanation doesn't make said explanation "bad writing" or invalidate the choices that have been made.

 

[Victarion]

They took what Doran said about Darkstar and gave it to Ellaria.

 

[Loki882]

^ Choosing to go in a different direction from the source material is not "butchering" a character, and they've actually set up why Ellaria is doing what she's doing and why she feels the way that she does; just because people happen to disagree with the explanation doesn't make said explanation "bad writing" or invalidate the choices that have been made.

No it's bad writing because it's bad writing. And when they take the character into a "different direction" that nowhere near as interesting as it is in the source material (and have to make her the exact opposite of what she was there), the it definitely is "butchering" to me, simple as that.

And I'm NOT some purist who cannot stomach changes. I have no problem with changing being made to the source material (it is an adaptation after all) if they're interesting, make sense, and they can sell me on those changes. And the show has made other changes in the past that I've been ok with.

The problem here however, is that NONE of this is the case.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Dorne is decidedly more "modern" when it comes to attitudes towards women, especially in a Medieval context, but I will try and find some historical examples of men with no authority or legitimacy assuming power.

Edit: William the Conqueror is the most famous example I could find of an illegitimate bastard* taking and holding on to authority and the leadership of a country (England).

* His parents were not considered to have been properly married, so he was viewed as illegitimate

So what you are saying is you have no actual answer. Knew it.

 

[DigificWriter]

No it's bad writing because it's bad writing. And when they take the character into a "different direction" that nowhere near as interesting as it is in the source material (and have to make her the exact opposite of what she was there), the it definitely is "butchering" to me, simple as that.

And I'm NOT some purist who cannot stomach changes. I have no problem with changing being made to the source material (it is an adaptation after all) if they're interesting, make sense, and they can sell me on those changes. And the show has made other changes in the past that I've been ok with.

The problem here however, is that NONE of this is the case.

How do you know that where they go with this new take on Dorne won't end up being just as interesting as what may or may not have happened in the novels, or that they're not actually building towards something that does reflect what has happened or will happen in the novels?

They're literally just starting this particular story arc, so it's beyond premature to sit here and act like it's some great travesty that's "butchered" the characters and doesn't make sense because you don't know where it's going.

So what you are saying is you have no actual answer. Knew it.

My example of William the Conqueror being a bastard and seizing and holding power IS an actual answer.

I also present the following:
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12521/bastard-children-who-became-kings

 

[MurkeNyou]

So, where are the examples? Women, with no legitimacy, taking over.

You ever hear about Queen Elisabeth of England? People of that time thought she had no legitimacy, especially if they were catholic.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ The Protestant Church also considered Elizabeth I to be illegitimate, so it wasn't just the Catholics who disavowed her claim to rule.

 

[MurkeNyou]

^ The Protestant Church also considered Elizabeth I to be illegitimate, so it wasn't just the Catholics who disavowed her claim to rule.

True as well.

The Sand Snakes Coup was kind of expected, they were tired of being peaceful, and killed the King maintaining the peace. I'm sure Dourne will suffer for their pride. It's not "bad writing", it's plot and character progression.

 

[Greens]

They're literally just starting this particular story arc, so it's beyond premature to sit here and act like it's some great travesty that's "butchered" the characters and doesn't make sense because you don't know where it's going.

Dorne existed in season 5, and it was crap then. They've had plenty of time to convince us, and so far the story set in that location has been dull, illogical and badly produced. There is no possible narrative outcome that can redeem it.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I disagree that the Season 5 Dorne stuff is any of the things you claim it was.

Also, my comment about the Dorne story just starting was in relation to the idea that having Ellaria and the Sand Snakes stage a coup isn't going to be as interesting as what was done with Dorne in the novels, so my statement that it's far too premature to start judging things still stands.

 

[Reek]

pretty bad ass episode... much much better than the premiere....

funny how that works... No Dorne... No Dany... No Tyrells... Good episode lol

 

[Drizzle]

funny how that works... No Dorne... No Dany... No Tyrells... Good episode lol

No nudity either.

 

[Rowsdower!]

No nudity either.

Heh. You know, for a moment I actually thought Melisandre was going to strip down and try and revive Jon by f***ing his corpse. It seriously wouldn't have surprised me.

 

[Verick808]

I actually thought the episode was spread a little thin.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Oh yeah, who was the Thundercat who was hanging around the Three Eyed Raven's cave? Did she ever appear in the show before? I don't remember her.

 

[Victarion]

She was one of the children of the forest. The makeup they used this season is much closer to what's in the books. Last season she looked like a human child with some leaves tangled in her hair.

 

[Reek]

yea last season she looked like something out of Zelda lol

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Reek]

that year off helped her grow up

 

[Da-Scribe]

Is that for sure the same character?