|
Post by 7timesdamnedshewolf on Oct 19, 2015 6:02:42 GMT
If that's all they're doing I don't see why Thoros and Anguy need to show. They're not really worth a big surprise reveal on their own. They would be very useful to foreshadow the LSH reveal, having them speak to each other about "The Lady" and all. Yes, but I don't see why else they'd need to show up. Thoros and Anguy on their own are not that important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:11:02 GMT
Yes, but I don't see why else they'd need to show up. Thoros and Anguy on their own are not that important. They would still be familiar faces and add continuity to the Riverlands storyline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:13:34 GMT
Yes, but I don't see why else they'd need to show up. Thoros and Anguy on their own are not that important. They would still be familiar faces and add continuity to the Riverlands storyline. Also the BWB casting calls emphasized the religious aspect of the outlaws in particular, of which Thoros is the source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:16:32 GMT
So they are practically doing the entire story, just possibly without its key character? If they are really staying that close to the source material as you guys are speculating, I think the Lady needs to show up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:18:37 GMT
So they are practically doing the entire story, just possibly without its key character? If they are really staying that close to the source material as you guys are speculating, I think the Lady needs to show up. The one thing I don't understand is if D&D really heard all the Hype about LSH, why wouldn't they just write her in so that those fans don't keep antagonizing them. I guess it's just a question of whether it will work for the story this late in the game. There are some that say yes because they're returning to the Riverlands in Season 6, but there are some that say what's the purpose when it could have been more effective earlier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:20:31 GMT
So they are practically doing the entire story, just possibly without its key character? If they are really staying that close to the source material as you guys are speculating, I think the Lady needs to show up. The one thing I don't understand is if D&D really heard all the Hype about LSH, why wouldn't they just write her in so that those fans don't keep antagonizing them. Exactly. I just imagined that if LSH was really cut, they would drastically change the entire Riverlands storyline. But from the spoilers we are getting this doesn't seem to be the case. So I don't get why they would cut her...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:22:03 GMT
So they are practically doing the entire story, just possibly without its key character? If they are really staying that close to the source material as you guys are speculating, I think the Lady needs to show up. Well as 7timesdamnedshewolf has argued, people like me are only using book details to fill in blanks while there're still gaps in the info. But really it go in a very different direction that we've not yet predicted. So they are practically doing the entire story, just possibly without its key character? If they are really staying that close to the source material as you guys are speculating, I think the Lady needs to show up. The one thing I don't understand is if D&D really heard all the Hype about LSH, why wouldn't they just write her in so that those fans don't keep antagonizing them. Basically this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:26:22 GMT
So they are practically doing the entire story, just possibly without its key character? If they are really staying that close to the source material as you guys are speculating, I think the Lady needs to show up. Well as 7timesdamnedshewolf has argued, people like me are only using book details to fill in blanks while there're still gaps in the info. But really it go in a very different direction that we've not yet predicted. No, I know. I'm just pointing out that filling the gaps like this (meaning with book material) only makes sense if you also include Stoneheart. The story needs to unfold in a very different way if she's really cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:28:22 GMT
Basically this.
I'm not trying to talk shit, I'm just saying they were writing Season 6 when Season 5 was filming and in post-production so I'm sure they heard about the disappointment from fans when LSH didn't appear in the Season 4 finale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:30:34 GMT
So they are practically doing the entire story, just possibly without its key character? If they are really staying that close to the source material as you guys are speculating, I think the Lady needs to show up. The one thing I don't understand is if D&D really heard all the Hype about LSH, why wouldn't they just write her in so that those fans don't keep antagonizing them. I guess it's just a question of whether it will work for the story this late in the game. There are some that say yes because they're returning to the Riverlands in Season 6, but there are some that say what's the purpose when it could have been more effective earlier. But the same applies to the Greyjoys for example. Balon should have died seasons ago and that would have been much more effective too. The same applies to the RW revenge in general (LSH or no LSH) or to the return of the Freys and Tullys. All of this should have happened seasons ago. So I could ask: what's the point here? I guess D&D ran into some problems when they started to outline the entire show. It's not just LSH that should have happened earlier. It's the entire Riverlands and Ironborn storyline, too...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:32:18 GMT
I'm not trying to talk shit, I'm just saying they were writing Season 6 when Season 5 was filming and in post-production so I'm sure they heard about the disappointment from fans when LSH didn't appear in the Season 4 finale. Well the storyline was saved until now for a reason that's for sure because they gave both Bri and Jaime other things to do last year. But if the decision was made to cut her at one point I don't think they'd go back on it, popular demand or no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:32:44 GMT
But the same applies to the Greyjoys for example. Balon should have died seasons ago and that would have been much more effective too. The same applies to the RW revenge in general (LSH or no LSH) or to the return of the Freys and Tullys. All of this should have happened seasons ago. So I could ask: what's the point here? I guess D&D ran into some problems when they started to outline the entire show. It's not just LSH that should have happened earlier. It's the entire Riverlands and Ironborn storyline, too... I think because they were mainly focusing on King's Landing, Slaver's Bay, and The Wall.
|
|
|
Post by 7timesdamnedshewolf on Oct 19, 2015 6:34:26 GMT
Well as 7timesdamnedshewolf has argued, people like me are only using book details to fill in blanks while there're still gaps in the info. But really it go in a very different direction that we've not yet predicted. No, I know. I'm just pointing out that filling the gaps like this (meaning with book material) only makes sense if you also include Stoneheart. The story needs to unfold in a very different way if she's really cut. Exactly, they can't just lift her out of the story and leave all the surrounding pieces in place. What's the fucking point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:35:33 GMT
But the same applies to the Greyjoys for example. Balon should have died seasons ago and that would have been much more effective too. The same applies to the RW revenge in general (LSH or no LSH) or to the return of the Freys and Tullys. All of this should have happened seasons ago. So I could ask: what's the point here? I guess D&D ran into some problems when they started to outline the entire show. It's not just LSH that should have happened earlier. It's the entire Riverlands and Ironborn storyline, too... I think because they were mainly focusing on King's Landing, Slaver's Bay, and The Wall. IMO it was about focusing on certain places when they could afford to. But I never doubted that the Riverlands would return because of the many statements to that effect from people like David Bradley and Clive Russell. The Iron Islands was a different question because, like fAegon, it's hard to know how it figures into the endgame and therefore how truly cuttable it is. But with the focus on Theon the show's had, I think it was reasonable to expect it would be addressed again, albeit in a reduced capacity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:36:14 GMT
But the same applies to the Greyjoys for example. Balon should have died seasons ago and that would have been much more effective too. The same applies to the RW revenge in general (LSH or no LSH) or to the return of the Freys and Tullys. All of this should have happened seasons ago. So I could ask: what's the point here? I guess D&D ran into some problems when they started to outline the entire show. It's not just LSH that should have happened earlier. It's the entire Riverlands and Ironborn storyline, too... I think because they were mainly focusing on King's Landing, Slaver's Bay, and The Wall. Yes, I know. I just heard that argument a lot when people try to disprove LSH. But it really isn't a LSH specific thing, because pretty much every other storyline that isn't KL, Slaver's Bay and The Wall is affected by it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:39:13 GMT
No, I know. I'm just pointing out that filling the gaps like this (meaning with book material) only makes sense if you also include Stoneheart. The story needs to unfold in a very different way if she's really cut. Exactly, they can't just lift her out of the story and leave all the surrounding pieces in place. What's the fucking point? I guess because whatever it's impact is on the Jaime-Brienne storyline is more important in the endgame and needs to go through something comparable to the book situation? They saved that reunion for s6, it seems, so I'm pretty sure it's not small potatoes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:41:59 GMT
IMO it was about focusing on certain places when they could afford to. But I never doubted that the Riverlands would return because of the many statements to that effect from people like David Bradley and Clive Russell. The Iron Islands was a different question because, like fAegon, it's hard to know how it figures into the endgame and therefore how truly cuttable it is. But with the focus on Theon the show's had, I think it was reasonable to expect it would be addressed again, albeit in a reduced capacity. I know. I knew they would return to The Riverlands at some point, I think it could have also been that they didn't want to jump straight into either because looking at Season 4, they heavily focused on KL, Slaver's Bay, and The Wall. We only saw the Riverlands through Arya's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by 7timesdamnedshewolf on Oct 19, 2015 6:43:28 GMT
Exactly, they can't just lift her out of the story and leave all the surrounding pieces in place. What's the fucking point? I guess because whatever it's impact is on the Jaime-Brienne storyline is more important in the endgame and needs to go through something comparable to the book situation? They saved that reunion for s6, it seems, so I'm pretty sure it's not small potatoes. But why can't Jaime/Brienne have a different reunion in s6? You don't even know what the important impact would be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:45:55 GMT
Exactly, they can't just lift her out of the story and leave all the surrounding pieces in place. What's the fucking point? I guess because whatever it's impact is on the Jaime-Brienne storyline is more important in the endgame and needs to go through something comparable to the book situation? They saved that reunion for s6, it seems, so I'm pretty sure it's not small potatoes. But then they should change the entire thing up. The BWB are motivated by LSH. You can't just cut her and leave everything else as it is. It won't make sense like that. The whole conflict between Jaime and Brienne is because of their vows to Catelyn. By the way, the fact that they both swore these vows played a huge role in seasons 2-5. If you want the endgame to be satisfying, you can't just ignore the things that need to happen before. The whole thing is also about the revenge for the Red Wedding, THE most iconic scene of the entire saga. Even D&D said their goal was to adapt the RW. But the show hasn't done a very good job of dealing with the aftermath. I think that whole "it's all about the endgame"-thinking is dangerous and affects the show's quality in a really negative way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 6:53:09 GMT
Yes, I know. I just heard that argument a lot when people try to disprove LSH. But it really isn't a LSH specific thing, because pretty much every other storyline that isn't KL, Slaver's Bay and The Wall is affected by it. Yeah I think the argument is D&D put the most effort into KL (Tyrion), Slaver's Bay (Dany), The Wall (Jon), and even Arya because those 4 characters have the most POV chapters in the story.
|
|