Author Topic: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS  (Read 22057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Okay enough of us are watching this we might as well have a thread.



here's my high content OP




spoilers for those who haven't watched it start here

Spoiler:
I'm pretty sure Ned Stark is screwed, the Lannisters have suction with the king and the king isn't gonna back him up when he explicitly said do NOT antagonize Tywin Lannister and rein your wife in. But maybe Tyrion will get back to King's Landing in time to head off disaster?

I do not have any godly idea where the Dothraki storyline is going but I assume King Robert's hit on Danaerys is gonna go down soon. possible baby death yes/no?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 01:04:54 pm by General Battuta »

  

Offline Nohiki

  • 28
  • Graf von Kaffeetrinken
    • Steam
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
I've read the book after i saw the first episode, couldn't resist. Tyrion and Arya FOR THE WIN.

 

Offline Topgun

  • 210
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
book spoiler


Please no book spoilers. If it hasn't happened in the TV show, it hasn't happened yet. Please keep this discussion focussed on the TV Series. Thank you. -- The E
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 01:27:16 pm by The E »

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Battuta, is that princess Leia in the background of your gif? I don't know what GoT is, so sorry for my stupid question ;)

 
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Spoiler:
I think the Lannisters had the previous Hand of the King assassinated because he knew Joffrey wasn't the king's son and was instead his uncle's son due to the Queen being an incestuous whore.  Something tells me the Lannisters will try to kill Ned Stark again because he's too close to the truth.
17:37:02   Quanto: I want to have sexual intercourse with every space elf in existence
17:37:11   SpardaSon21: even the males?
17:37:22   Quanto: its not gay if its an elf

[21:51] <@Droid803> I now realize
[21:51] <@Droid803> this will be SLIIIIIGHTLY awkward
[21:51] <@Droid803> as this rich psychic girl will now be tsundere for a loli.
[21:51] <@Droid803> OH WELLL.

See what you're missing in #WoD and #Fsquest?

[07:57:32] <Caiaphas> inspired by HerraTohtori i built a supermaneuverable plane in ksp
[07:57:43] <Caiaphas> i just killed my pilots with a high-g maneuver
[07:58:19] <Caiaphas> apparently people can't take 20 gees for 5 continuous seconds
[08:00:11] <Caiaphas> the plane however performed admirably, and only crashed because it no longer had any guidance systems

 

Offline mxlm

  • 29
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
I'd suggest that not only should there be no book spoilers, but no discussion of the books should be permitted, period. Every other forum I've seen that permits it, it gets out of hand.

So, book readers: No one cares that you read them. No one cares how they compare. No one cares that we ain't seen nothin' yet. Thanks :)
I will ask that you explain yourself. Please do so with the clear understanding that I may decide I am angry enough to destroy all of you and raze this sickening mausoleum of fraud down to the naked rock it stands on.

 
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Quote
No one cares that you read them.

But we do care that you don't! :P.

Honestly, they are very good.

 

Offline Nohiki

  • 28
  • Graf von Kaffeetrinken
    • Steam
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
No one cares that you read them.

You're just jealous :P But as far as the series go, i'm really glad it is on HBO, because it has fairly good chance of NOT being cancelled, right? *cough*Sy-fy*cough*

 

Offline Pred the Penguin

  • 210
  • muahahaha...
    • EaWPR
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Personally I don't like the HBO series that much. It might be because I read the books 2 times over and I have my own ideas about what it should look like.
That's as much as I'll say about the books I promise.

eh, I have nothing much to say actually. I'll be gone from this thread then.

 

Offline Ransom

  • M. Night Russel
  • 210
  • It will not wait.
    • Rate of Injury
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
This show has its ups and downs (the fourth episode was kind of awful) but so far it's a great adaptation. I'm impressed by both how faithful it is and how often the adjustments they've made have been for the better.

also,


 
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Honestly, I shudder with the thought of how seeing that scene...

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
I quite like the fencing master teaching the young Stark girl. He makes me laugh every time he's on screen. :D

Dead..
Dead..
Very Dead...
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
I've been watching this show alongside Season 1 of The Wire and it creates the most peculiar dreams.

 

Offline Ravenholme

  • 29
  • (d.h.f)
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Battuta, what I will post in my spoiler box is an episode 1 based book spoiler, it's just about one part of the adaptation I didn't like.

Spoiler:
So, Drogo and Daenerys, I didn't like how the whole thing was implied to be somewhat more brutal than it was, as at the end [or beginning] of their wedding night she was actually willing to bed Drogo because he was surprisingly tender with her. They emphasised the brutal barbarian aspect too far in my opinion.
Full Auto - I've got a bullet here with your name on it, and I'm going to keep firing until I find out which one it is.

<The_E>   Several sex-based solutions come to mind
<The_E>   Errr
<The_E>   *sexp

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Yeah, there are a number of weirdly misogynistic changes from the already kinda misogynistic books. I wish I could dug up the article that enumerated them well.

 

Offline Ravenholme

  • 29
  • (d.h.f)
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Yeah, there are a number of weirdly misogynistic changes from the already kinda misogynistic books. I wish I could dug up the article that enumerated them well.

Yeah, I think that's my problem with the TV series and why I prefer the books (Which are a good read, if really quite misogynistic). Not to say that the series isn't good, it's rather excellent.
Full Auto - I've got a bullet here with your name on it, and I'm going to keep firing until I find out which one it is.

<The_E>   Several sex-based solutions come to mind
<The_E>   Errr
<The_E>   *sexp

 

Offline Pred the Penguin

  • 210
  • muahahaha...
    • EaWPR
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
I just stopped watching after the first episode. :lol:

 

Offline Ransom

  • M. Night Russel
  • 210
  • It will not wait.
    • Rate of Injury
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
Misogyny is part and parcel of the setting. I'm not sure I would say that makes the books or the series misogynistic. Wouldn't the role and strength of the story's women be a better metric?

I don't think that change was necessarily a bad one, anyway. They didn't really have the time to play their relationship like the book did without it feeling contrived.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
I don't have any problem with misogynistic settings (hell, I like Scott Bakker), but friends I trust in the parsing of gender have described increasing discomfort with the books that speaks more to the narrative or the author than the setting.

I can see the argument for that change, but it's part of a pattern of alterations from the book to the series that make Cat look dumber or rob Daenerys of her agency - if I recall the list of changes right, she stood up to Viserys a lot more firmly in the book in scenes like
Spoiler:
his attack on her during the horde's transit through the grasslands.

 

Offline Topgun

  • 210
Re: Game of Thrones NO BOOK SPOILERS YOU LUNKS
The only thing I find weird is that everyone is older than they should be. I mean, Bran is supposed to be 7, but looks at least 10, Joffre is also supposed to be 7, but in the show the kids look much older. Jon and Robb are supposed to be 14, they look at least 20. Though then again, since GoT has very different seasons then we do, with summer and winter lasting years, then maybe their years are longer than ours I just haven't picked up  on that in the books yet.