|
|
Comiccon
Jun 24, 2015 16:24:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by morgantayler on Jun 24, 2015 16:24:07 GMT
So Kit has an actual reason not to show up to Comic Con, he just signed onto the movie "Brimstone" and it's already started principal photography. They're shooting on location in Romania, Spain, and Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2015 16:26:40 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Comiccon
Jun 24, 2015 16:43:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by morgantayler on Jun 24, 2015 16:43:23 GMT
Oh I didn't know she was apart of it but Kit's playing the male lead right? I imagine he will have quite a bit more filmingto do than she will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 20:01:30 GMT
AdmiralKyrd says in his post that they never actually said those things btw. I clarify that because I saw you'd posted it on your tumblr as if it were an actual quote from one of them.
And now, I've posted four times in a row in the same thread. Sorry y'all.
They DID say the things about Stannis being "a bad man" and " burning people since his first scenes".I recall them saying that but not the "bad man" part. Unless you're referring to that "inside the episode" back for s2 but even then neither of them said "bad man". |
|
|
|
Comiccon
Jun 24, 2015 20:44:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Nezzer on Jun 24, 2015 20:44:20 GMT
They DID say the things about Stannis being "a bad man" and " burning people since his first scenes".I recall them saying that but not the "bad man" part. Unless you're referring to that "inside the episode" back for s2 but even then neither of them said "bad man". Yeah, I remember them saying that he was never a "good guy", but not that he was a bad guy or a villain. Still, it was pretty embarrassing how Benioff couldn't remember his own work and say that Stannis was burning people alive in his very first scene when the first time we ever see him doing it is in season 4. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 20:54:01 GMT
I recall them saying that but not the "bad man" part. Unless you're referring to that "inside the episode" back for s2 but even then neither of them said "bad man". Yeah, I remember them saying that he was never a "good guy", but not that he was a bad guy or a villain. Still, it was pretty embarrassing how Benioff couldn't remember his own work and say that Stannis was burning people alive in his very first scene when the first time we ever see him doing it is in season 4. They certainly don't rewatch the show as often as we all do. I doubt they do at all tbh, I think after working exhaustively on something like that you wouldn't have much interest in seeing it and it'd be a script supervisor or assistant who'd double-check those kinds of details anyways, if they were going to refer to it in another episode.
Talking about ep. 201 though, I just saw a good observation on IMDB about Stannis-foreshadowing in that episode. "She will lead him into a war he CANNOT win." Cressen was right.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralKyrd on Jun 24, 2015 23:23:34 GMT
They called Jaime a bad guy in the Oxford Union stuff. Weiss said something somewhere that Stannis would be an absolute disaster as King (in a different older vid) . As far as I know they've never directly said they see Stannis being a bad guy but I mean... I'm pretty sure they see him that way given how he's been portrayed outside of a few early scenes this season and losing most of his nuances for blind religious ambition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 23:25:54 GMT
They called Jaime a bad guy in the Oxford Union stuff. Weiss said something somewhere that Stannis would be an absolute disaster as King. As far as I kno they've never directly hinted at Stannis being a bad guy but I mean... I'm pretty sure they see him that way given how he's been portrayed outside of a few early scenes this season. Weiss said that "he'd be a bad king" bit in the "inside the episode" for ep. 204. And though people on AFOIAF like Le Cygne like to say that they think Jaime is a piece of shit, there's plainly more nuance in their thinking about him than that. Nothing for instance in his writing in s5 would point to them thinking he's "a bad guy". I know most of y'all think his s5 arc wasn't very good but it certainly wasn't at all defined by him being villainous. Quite the opposite.
As for Stannis. He wasn't an out-and-out villain at any point in the season. He took no joy in the burning of Shireen and he met his death with dignity, realizing that he'd destroyed himself with that decision. He's not a completely good guy obviously and he certainly never was in the books. But a bad guy or villain is a stretch and doesn't relate with anything they've said about him. Particularly not in the "inside the episode" for 510.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 3:34:41 GMT
Do you think we'll get a casting announcement from the first casting call at comic con or would it be too early?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 3:40:08 GMT
Do you think we'll get a casting announcement from the first casting call at comic con or would it be too early? I hope so. Either through SDCC or through EW. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2015 4:18:53 GMT
Yeah, I remember them saying that he was never a "good guy", but not that he was a bad guy or a villain. Still, it was pretty embarrassing how Benioff couldn't remember his own work and say that Stannis was burning people alive in his very first scene when the first time we ever see him doing it is in season 4. They certainly don't rewatch the show as often as we all do. I doubt they do at all tbh, I think after working exhaustively on something like that you wouldn't have much interest in seeing it and it'd be a script supervisor or assistant who'd double-check those kinds of details anyways, if they were going to refer to it in another episode.
Talking about ep. 201 though, I just saw a good observation on IMDB about Stannis-foreshadowing in that episode. "She will lead him into a war he CANNOT win." Cressen was right.
Is that meant to be an excuse? Because it's not...they are grossly incompetent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 4:58:49 GMT
They certainly don't rewatch the show as often as we all do. I doubt they do at all tbh, I think after working exhaustively on something like that you wouldn't have much interest in seeing it and it'd be a script supervisor or assistant who'd double-check those kinds of details anyways, if they were going to refer to it in another episode.
Talking about ep. 201 though, I just saw a good observation on IMDB about Stannis-foreshadowing in that episode. "She will lead him into a war he CANNOT win." Cressen was right.
Is that meant to be an excuse? Because it's not...they are grossly incompetent. I don't think many showrunners rewatch their own shows. I mean they have to a bunch in post-production but beyond that, that sort of thing is the duty of a script supervisor to keep up on the minutia.
The "inside the episodes" are obviously more off-the-cuff though, so I'd hardly call conflating two similar scenes on one of those grossly incompetent. GrrM does the same thing; he forgets little details and mixes certain things up, hence his need for people like Elio and Linda who are better at recollecting minutia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2015 6:01:07 GMT
Is that meant to be an excuse? Because it's not...they are grossly incompetent. I don't think many showrunners rewatch their own shows. I mean they have to a bunch in post-production but beyond that, that sort of thing is the duty of a script supervisor to keep up on the minutia.
The "inside the episodes" are obviously more off-the-cuff though, so I'd hardly call conflating two similar scenes on one of those grossly incompetent. GrrM does the same thing; he forgets little details and mixes certain things up, hence his need for people like Elio and Linda who are better at recollecting minutia.
That is not a tiny detail. They are getting the entire characterization wrong. I have very low opinion of them as writers but this just makes them look like clowns. If they don't know their own show and what happened in it, perhaps they should shut up about it instead of stroking their dicks in those videos every week. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 12:14:36 GMT
Stannis did end up burning people in the books and on the show. I don't think it's such a huge deal that D&D didn't quite remember when exactly it happened first during an "inside the episode", which is clearly filmed on the spot without much preparation. It is completely normal to forget such details, IMO. In addition, I honestly don't think that they got Stannis' characterization that wrong. Again, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but IMO Stannis has always been a much more morally ambiguous character than his fans seem to believe and yes, even in the books. When I first read the books, I wasn't aware of all the Stannis The Mannis-hype, which meant that I was quite unbiased in regards to him. What I encountered was an interesting, morally grey anti-hero who wants to do the right thing, but ends up making quite questionable decisions. He and Melisandre are both utilitarians, but while Mel is more motivated by her faith, Stannis is guided by his overly distinctive sense of justice and his will to rule the seven kingdoms. This was my impression of him from the books, without having seen an episode of Game of Thrones. So yeah, D&D got Stannis just right, IMO. The only quibble I have is how fast they had Stannis go from not burning Shireen to burning her in 5x09. His struggle to do the right thing should have been more apparent. But that is a storytelling problem and not a characterization problem. The sole fact that he was able to burn his daughter for the greater good was completely in-line with book Stannis for me. D&D just didn't do a very good job conveying that it was indeed for the greater good. Nevertheless, I would never say that show!Stannis is a villain. He is clearly a man with good intentions doing bad things, but that is hardly the same as him being a straight-up villain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2015 12:20:38 GMT
Stannis did end up burning people in the books and on the show. I don't think it's such a huge deal that D&D didn't quite remember when exactly it happened first during an "inside the episode", which is clearly filmed on the spot without much preparation. It is completely normal to forget such details, IMO. In addition, I honestly don't think that they got Stannis' characterization that wrong. Again, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but IMO Stannis has always been a much more morally ambiguous character than his fans seem to believe and yes, even in the books. When I first read the books, I wasn't aware of all the Stannis The Mannis-hype, which meant that I was quite unbiased in regards to him. What I encountered was an interesting, morally grey anti-hero who wants to do the right thing, but ends up making quite questionable decisions. He and Melisandre are both utilitarians, but while Mel is more motivated by her faith, Stannis is guided by his overly distinctive sense of justice and his will to rule the seven kingdoms. This was my impression of him from the books, without having seen an episode of Game of Thrones. So yeah, D&D got Stannis just right, IMO. The only quibble I have is how fast they had Stannis go from not burning Shireen to burning her in 5x09. His struggle to do the right thing should have been more apparent. But that is a storytelling problem and not a characterization problem. The sole fact that he was able to burn his daughter for the greater good was completely in-line with book Stannis for me. D&D just didn't do a very good job conveying that it was indeed for the greater good. Nevertheless, I would never say that show!Stannis is a villain. He is clearly a man with good intentions doing bad things, but that is hardly the same as him being a straight-up villain. And that is something Benioff and Weiss never understood (like a 2 year old stacking things, hitting fists on the floor and yelling that it's too hard) so how could they possibly get characterization right (which they didn't do). |
|
|
|
Post by Nezzer on Jun 25, 2015 16:49:40 GMT
Stannis did end up burning people in the books and on the show. I don't think it's such a huge deal that D&D didn't quite remember when exactly it happened first during an "inside the episode", which is clearly filmed on the spot without much preparation. It is completely normal to forget such details, IMO. In addition, I honestly don't think that they got Stannis' characterization that wrong. Again, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but IMO Stannis has always been a much more morally ambiguous character than his fans seem to believe and yes, even in the books. When I first read the books, I wasn't aware of all the Stannis The Mannis-hype, which meant that I was quite unbiased in regards to him. What I encountered was an interesting, morally grey anti-hero who wants to do the right thing, but ends up making quite questionable decisions. He and Melisandre are both utilitarians, but while Mel is more motivated by her faith, Stannis is guided by his overly distinctive sense of justice and his will to rule the seven kingdoms. This was my impression of him from the books, without having seen an episode of Game of Thrones. So yeah, D&D got Stannis just right, IMO. The only quibble I have is how fast they had Stannis go from not burning Shireen to burning her in 5x09. His struggle to do the right thing should have been more apparent. But that is a storytelling problem and not a characterization problem. The sole fact that he was able to burn his daughter for the greater good was completely in-line with book Stannis for me. D&D just didn't do a very good job conveying that it was indeed for the greater good. Nevertheless, I would never say that show!Stannis is a villain. He is clearly a man with good intentions doing bad things, but that is hardly the same as him being a straight-up villain. And that is something Benioff and Weiss never understood (like a 2 year old stacking things, hitting fists on the floor and yelling that it's too hard) so how could they possibly get characterization right (which they didn't do). Yeah, they say that he burned Shireen for his ambition to be king. If they said that Stannis did it for the greater good, that from his view the entire world depended on him being king, then I'd have more respect for them, but they treated him as a shallow character, just saying that he chose ambition over love. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 16:57:18 GMT
D&D failed to understand the character of Stannis Baratheon. Period.
Meanwhile they ignore the negative traits and faults of Tyrion and Daenerys and to lesser extent Cersei and Jon. Cersei is still an asshole, but not as much as in the books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:10:26 GMT
D&D failed to understand the character of Stannis Baratheon. Period.Meanwhile they ignore the negative traits and faults of Tyrion and Daenerys and to lesser extent Cersei and Jon. Cersei is still an asshole, but not as much as in the books. Not to press this too much further because we're not likely to agree...but then how do you explain all of the show-only Stan scenes and lines that they wrote that most Stan-fans seem to like? Much of his dialogue in eps. 205 ("most of those lords should consider themselves lucky I don't hang 'em for treason"), 208 ("I do like dogs, good animals, loyal...but we ate them"), 210 ("I see fire..."), 301 ("heard you were dead...), 303 ("I'm not so easily killed men have been trying for years") was original to the show and written by them. Not to mention his scenes in 410, 501, 502 and 503 were largely made up of original dialogue.
I always felt that D and D were good at writing dialogue for Dillane and understood the particular brusque rhythm that he brought to the character. A line like, "Why should I spare the son of some tavern slut Robert bedded one drunken night?" from ep. 308 is a perfect example of this. As they do with actors like Charles Dance and Lena Headey, this line was designed for Dillane's unique line delivery and fit with Dillane's reading of the character of Stan perfectly.
So I don't think it's quite so easy to say something like that and just settle it by saying "period". Particularly if you rewatch past seasons with his later actions in mind, you'll find they've been setting it up for some time. "You will betray your family, you will betray everything you hold dear. But it will be worth it..." was in ep. 210 remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:19:11 GMT
D&D failed to understand the character of Stannis Baratheon. Period.Meanwhile they ignore the negative traits and faults of Tyrion and Daenerys and to lesser extent Cersei and Jon. Cersei is still an asshole, but not as much as in the books. Not to press this too much further because we're not likely to agree...but then how do you explain all of the show-only Stan scenes and lines that they wrote that most Stan-fans seem to like? Much of his dialogue in eps. 205 ("most of those lords should consider themselves lucky I don't hang 'em for treason"), 208 ("I do like dogs, good animals, loyal...but we ate them"), 210 ("I see fire..."), 301 ("heard you were dead...), 303 ("I'm not so easily killed men have been trying for years") was original to the show and written by them. Not to mention his scenes in 410, 501, 502 and 503 were largely made up of original dialogue.
I always felt that D and D were good at writing dialogue for Dillane and understood the particular brusque rhythm that he brought to the character. A line like, "Why should I spare the son of some tavern slut Robert bedded one drunken night?" from ep. 308 is a perfect example of this. As they do with actors like Charles Dance and Lena Headey, this line was designed for Dillane's unique line delivery and fit with Dillane's reading of the character of Stan perfectly.
So I don't think it's quite so easy to say something like that and just settle it by saying "period". Particularly if you rewatch past seasons with his later actions in mind, you'll find they've been setting it up for some time. "You will betray your family, you will betray everything you hold dear. But it will be worth it..." was in ep. 210 remember.
I agree that D&D made good dialogue for Stephen and created many good Stannis-esque lines, but I still think they didn't understand his character completely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:22:06 GMT
Not to press this too much further because we're not likely to agree...but then how do you explain all of the show-only Stan scenes and lines that they wrote that most Stan-fans seem to like? Much of his dialogue in eps. 205 ("most of those lords should consider themselves lucky I don't hang 'em for treason"), 208 ("I do like dogs, good animals, loyal...but we ate them"), 210 ("I see fire..."), 301 ("heard you were dead...), 303 ("I'm not so easily killed men have been trying for years") was original to the show and written by them. Not to mention his scenes in 410, 501, 502 and 503 were largely made up of original dialogue.
I always felt that D and D were good at writing dialogue for Dillane and understood the particular brusque rhythm that he brought to the character. A line like, "Why should I spare the son of some tavern slut Robert bedded one drunken night?" from ep. 308 is a perfect example of this. As they do with actors like Charles Dance and Lena Headey, this line was designed for Dillane's unique line delivery and fit with Dillane's reading of the character of Stan perfectly.
So I don't think it's quite so easy to say something like that and just settle it by saying "period". Particularly if you rewatch past seasons with his later actions in mind, you'll find they've been setting it up for some time. "You will betray your family, you will betray everything you hold dear. But it will be worth it..." was in ep. 210 remember.
I agree that D&D made good dialogue for Stephen and created many good Stannis-esque lines, but I still think they didn't understand his character completely. I'm sure that's the closest we'll come to agreeing on this. So let's just  and leave it at that, I suppose. |
|
and leave it at that, I suppose.