Game of Thrones Season 5 General Discussion and Comparison to Books

Deftones said:
I don't know who to blame for this season leaving so much out and diverging from the books as much as they did, but they can go fuck themselves! Shittiest season yet by far. I don't even read the books but this season probably wouldn't have sucked so much ass if they just followed the fucking story as it was laid out for them. I don't give a shit about the deaths either but I've heard about some of the stuff they changed or left out completely.

Are they going to wait for the next book to come out before filming the next season? Probably not and I guess that explains the amount of diverging we saw from the books we saw even if I still don't like it. This is going to be like Full Metal Alchemist all over again.

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.

Tensho said:

I think rr martin said something about how he hopes for the books and tv show to converge again by the ending.

Royalirishman said:


Yeah but GRRM has no power in the tv show.

keragamming said:
I think there is a chance that John snow will survive. Don't you guys find it weird that he died right after melisandre came back from the war? Isn't there a possibility that she will use her black magic to save John snow before he die?

I'm just throwing this possibility out there, and since the TV series has caught up to the books, book readers don't know as well. ;)

Also what will be Melisandre purpose now? She already showed some interest in snow, and if my theory is right that she does save him. Snow would probably follow her since she save his life, plus he couldn't stay in the nights watch anymore. Melisandre will probably say that she made a mistake and that snow is the true chosen one, or something like that. And from there, those two will start their journey together.

I also don't think Stannis is dead, Game of thrones always shows us that they killed a character.

Ramkec said:


Well its true that pretty much everyone and their grandmas is jumping on that "Melisandre will revive Jon, we ain't got no worries" theory, but in reality its a pretty weak one.

Now I'm not saying it won't happen, but in the whole 5 seasons thus far, we've never seen Melisandre resurrect anyone, nor even her mention that she can resurrect people. After all not all red priests of the Lord of Light may have the same powers. Melisandre in the show has been established to have the power to see visions in the flames/fire, and give birth to shadow babies, while on the other side, we have Thoros of Myr, another red priest, who showed us clearly in S3 that he can resurrect people.

Then again they can easily drop a full 180 on us and say she can revive people too, and bring him back that way, which would be pretty stupid. Also there are other ways for him to stay alive aside from this theory.

Congress said:
http://share.gifyoutube.com/yD9L93.gif
If only.

Ramkec said:


Well its true that pretty much everyone and their grandmas is jumping on that "Melisandre will revive Jon, we ain't got no worries" theory, but in reality its a pretty weak one.

Now I'm not saying it won't happen, but in the whole 5 seasons thus far, we've never seen Melisandre resurrect anyone, nor even her mention that she can resurrect people. After all not all red priests of the Lord of Light may have the same powers. Melisandre in the show has been established to have the power to see visions in the flames/fire, and give birth to shadow babies, while on the other side, we have Thoros of Myr, another red priest, who showed us clearly in S3 that he can resurrect people.

Then again they can easily drop a full 180 on us and say she can revive people too, and bring him back that way, which would be pretty stupid. Also there are other ways for him to stay alive aside from this theory.

keragamming said:
How about she save him before he actually dies? I don't think he died instantly.

Ramkec said:


I think they already confirmed him dead in an interview, and told the actor that's it.

Unless they're lying to build up the hype ofc.

MAEC3894 said:
I hope that Jon Snow stays dead, he's finally free from that cruel world, If anything it would be cruelty to bring him back to life.
People need to understand that this is more of a history than an actual story, there are no main characters, anyone can die just like in real life.

Lash_ said:
Game of Thrones, the coldest show ever.

I thought there was no difference between Darth Vader and Stannis but then I remembered, Darth Vader stepped up and saved his son despite all the bad he had done. Stannis is a demon.

Cersei has the strongest man protecting her now and she's the mother of the king, I'll be very surprised if she doesn't go ham on those spiritual people.

Candor said:
Jon brought the death upon himself, he pissed off most of the Night's Watch, this shit was obvious. People were looking and how cool Jon Snow is but they forgot all the assholes lingering behind him. Eddard Stark fucking beheaded a crow in the first episode of the series because he did something against the Nights Watch traditions and mentality. It was still pretty badly executed though.The 4th and 5th books were worse than the show. People won't know how good the show actually is compared to the books until they read the damn books. Like honestly, if you thought the first 7 episodes were so uneventful then imagine 2 fucking thousand pages of nothing, that's how bad the books were.

Also, this whole "they didn't adapt the original material word by word that's why the show is bad" mentality should stop. Both are different mediums and adapting the source material word by word means your series is fucked.

Waqalamo said:


Stannis - A selfless person. Would let someone he cares more about die so 2+ other people he cares less about can live. This person usually acts out of a sense of duty or justice. Commonly justifies his actions by saying something along the lines of "It's simple math" or "It's my duty/destiny".

Stannis has been that person from the start. Melisandre foretold he would betray his whole family, that thousands of his own men would die at his command. He accepted it. He was ready to throw it all away if it meant he could rule the Seven Kingdoms. I do not blame him for being who he is.

The outrage by the fans was merely people realizing they were just fooling themselves. I'm sure a lot of people were rooting for Stannis, but a lot of them also didn't realize what kind of person he was, or decided to ignore it, until this final sacrifice.

And I don't agree about this "right decision" judgement people are having on Stannis. There is no right or wrong unless the subject is science. People do what people feel they need to do. Nobody can predict the outcome.

Would I have done what Stannis did if I was in his shoes? No, I would've been "The King Who Ran". Since Davos mentioned there was not enough resources to march the whole army back to Castle Black anymore, I would've grabbed Shireen, Davos, Melisandre and Selyse in the middle of the night, grabbed a few horses and run back to Castle Black. That would've been my decision. What would've happened next? I don't know. And neither did Stannis when he made his own decision.

I dislike Stannis because I disagree with a lot of the decisions he made. But he is an interesting character nonetheless.

Waqalamo said:


Stannis - A selfless person. Would let someone he cares more about die so 2+ other people he cares less about can live. This person usually acts out of a sense of duty or justice. Commonly justifies his actions by saying something along the lines of "It's simple math" or "It's my duty/destiny".

Stannis has been that person from the start. Melisandre foretold he would betray his whole family, that thousands of his own men would die at his command. He accepted it. He was ready to throw it all away if it meant he could rule the Seven Kingdoms. I do not blame him for being who he is.

The outrage by the fans was merely people realizing they were just fooling themselves. I'm sure a lot of people were rooting for Stannis, but a lot of them also didn't realize what kind of person he was, or decided to ignore it, until this final sacrifice.

And I don't agree about this "right decision" judgement people are having on Stannis. There is no right or wrong unless the subject is science. People do what people feel they need to do. Nobody can predict the outcome.

Would I have done what Stannis did if I was in his shoes? No, I would've been "The King Who Ran". Since Davos mentioned there was not enough resources to march the whole army back to Castle Black anymore, I would've grabbed Shireen, Davos, Melisandre and Selyse in the middle of the night, grabbed a few horses and run back to Castle Black. That would've been my decision. What would've happened next? I don't know. And neither did Stannis when he made his own decision.

I dislike Stannis because I disagree with a lot of the decisions he made. But he is an interesting character nonetheless.

Zergneedsfood said:


tfw you're criticizing the universe that popularized almost everything you see in fantasy

I can't fathom how anyone can say that LOTR is "badly" laid out. The universe is extremely intricate that spans four ages of complex and consistent history. Each race has long running family lineages, history, culture, social norms, and internal conflicts with different social, economic, and political issues. There are even quizzes on the flowers and flora in Lord of the Rings because that's how closely Tolkien paid attention to the details of his world.

Tolkien based off a lot of the geographical qualities of Middle Earth on Europe. While they are not "consistent" with our modern maps, Tolkien always intended Middle Earth to be set on Earth in a imaginary historical setting long before our time. Hence why the term Middle-Earth is an old English word that refers to the "Habitable Lands of Men." It is not called Middle-Earth because it's supposed to be some fairytale land. It's what makes Tolkien's history richer in the sense that he binds it, partially, to reality.

In fact, Tolkien also discussed longitudes, latitudes, and the book shares explicit similarities with various places in the world we know today (the most obvious being the Shire is reminiscent of rural England). Once again, this reflects Tolkien's wish to ground Middle Earth in a sort of semi-reality, especially as a partially relevant allegory for the wars of Tolkien's time.

Furthermore, the geography of Tolkien's world has actually changed. Bro, do you even War of Wrath, when the armies of Valinor fought against Morgath at the end of the First Age and destroyed a good portion of Middle Earth, causing the landscape to change forever. Like.....how can you not say that Tolkien didn't "think" about the geography of Middle Earth unless you haven't read any Tolkien?

In addition, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking for when you say "good geography." Like...what the fuck?

The world of Game of Thrones

Middle Earth

How do you tell which is better? Please, oh master cartographer.

Do you know which author started these race factions? Don't answer. It's obvious. It's Tolkien.

Trolls? Ogres? Orcs? Elves? Men? Dwarves? Wizards? Goblins? These are all, without exception, ALL of them popularized into tropes by Tolkien. This is a fact. Saying that Tolkien used "pre-made" race factions is disingenuous because it was Tolkien who started it all. Fantasy novels, the MMOs you play, Warcraft, whatever else that utilizes anything remotely resembling elves, all have the Tolkien stamp of influence on them.

This doesn't even begin to describe the divisions within each race and the nuances in them. You think Tolkien just made human skins and gave them no history? Did you just watch the movie? Did you read Tolkien? Did you read the Silmarilion? The History of Middle Earth? Hell, not even those questions, did you even read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings?

Oh, and I forgot. Tolkien gave the Elves their own language. A REAL language, as in people can SPEAK Elvish if they wanted to. And people do.

nalyë úpa

Orcs? You think they're just random enemies that just pop up out of nowhere? You'd be wrong again. They were bred by Morgoth in the First Age and, in later books, were crossbred to form the Uruk-hai. They also had relatively complex quirks given that they were supposed to be the sort of black/white evil enemy (living away from light, prone to torture machines and building clever instruments).

And let's not even talk about the Balrogs, Ents, Ringwraiths, Shelob, and mother fucking Hobbits (those dank pot smokers and yolo'ers)

"Present events." What present events are you talking about? Are you talking about the Third Age? The Fourth Age? I'm sorry but at this point I don't expect you actually know much lotr lore to give this statement any respect.

Oh wait, you can. Just fucking read the books!

Mikasa said:
Let's see, how many times did GRRM use eagles and intangible ghosts to wrap up the entire story? None.

The ghost of the Dundenlings were only involved in driving away The Corsairs. And we don't even know if they were intangible. The Corsairs fled in fear. The ghosts themselves had no weapons. How do you know they're intangible?

Oh wait, you watched the movies didn't you? Fraudulence alert.

You know who Aragorn brought to the battle? The Knights of Amroth. The Dunedain. And the folk of Lebennin and Lamedon and the fiefs of the South! I assume you'll forget that since I don't think you've actually read the books.

And the Eagles? Please. They've been around for Ages. Pun intended. Maybe you should read up on their history.

At this point, it's quite clear that you don't know much about lotr, whether by not reading the books or reading the books and not having enough comprehension to understand it (how that's possible, I don't know. I understood that shit in 4th grade). I'm going to assume that Tolkien's use of older English conventions turned you off because you're a pleb.

But Tolkien is good with prose. I don't care enough about GRMM because his first book was average and his prose was what you find in generic fantasy authors as opposed to actual quality high fantasy. In fact, his usage of modern lexicon (the occasional use of the word fuck, cunt, shit, etc) juxtaposed with his moderately successful attempts at using "older English" broke the immersion of his fantasy world, which is more often than not a greater problem than most other genre fictions.

People often criticize Tolkien's writing while elevating his world building abilities, which is markedly absurd. I think those people are just too narrow minded in their understanding of what good writing is, especially because good world building and being a good writer are intertwined. Tolkien was a good writer because his world building was good.

In addition, His dialogue had great flow, not to mention his use of the Elvish language as well as creating local accents and dialects among English speaking folk was impressive in its own right. Tolkien's writing is great for an epic fantasy tale because his use of diction and syntax really helps and is conducive to the atmospheric and epic vibe of Lord of the Rings. In addition, he has great wit and humor in his depiction of hobbits and overall the Lord of the Rings expresses a great balance in Tolkien's wide abilities as a writer. He is no prose stylist by any imagination but he certainly isn't lacking in ability.

People need to stop separating style and substance. I've come to hate the term "style over substance" because it assumes that the two can be separated. There can be distinctions but they cannot be fully cleaved in two. They both make up writing and the originality of substance and the creation of great substance is not to be easily disregarded.

Anyway, I know Mikasa will not be able to levy any intelligible response, so I'll stop here. I've now hit 8000 posts on MAL, something I never thought I'd do just one or two years back. This has been a great year for shitposting and feigning pretention, but I need to take a break, and Mikasa's abhorrent posts about Lord of the Rings, while not necessary anything important (come on guys, who the fuck is this guy?), just reminded me that I'm writing walls of text about Lord of the Rings to a person who has probably not even read the books while I could be sucking the dicks of great authors who have more to say than I could ever imagine.

DarkStarr96 said:
Is Mikasa serious or?

Kokko said:
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, "If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately." Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- "Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because Mikasa's post gave me cancer anyway.