You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
My only reason for not thinking Mel dies next week is she hasn't met Arya again. When Mel found Gendry in season 3, she told Arya they'd meet again.
And while what Melisandre did to Shireen was horrible, Stannis ordered her to do it. She was following her King. I know the show and books have little left in common, but her role in the books against the others seems much larger, and knowing that, I don't think she'll die. Jon doesn't have Dragons. Jon doesn't have Bran. The only magic he has is his sword and Mel. He needs everything he has against the coming battle.
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
My only reason for not thinking Mel dies next week is she hasn't met Arya again. When Mel found Gendry in season 3, she told Arya they'd meet again.
And while what Melisandre did to Shireen was horrible, Stannis ordered her to do it. She was following her King. I know the show and books have little left in common, but her role in the books against the others seems much larger, and knowing that, I don't think she'll die. Jon doesn't have Dragons. Jon doesn't have Bran. The only magic he has is his sword and Mel. He needs everything he has against the coming battle.
I agree, but the show doesn't work on logic. They really do have a quota of characters to kill off each season too. D/D literally bragged last year about killing off at least 1 character per an episode in season 5 (like it was the only reason people watch the show).
As for Mel meeting Arya, they had Arya drop Mel from her list. Arya actually dropped a few people from it randomly in season 5 like Ilyn Payne. They're not stickers for continuity.
Again though, I'm not saying Mel is deffinitely going to die next week... she's a candidate though. It's easy to predict though characters that definitely are goners before the credits roll (I'm not even talking ADWD epilogue ones).
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
My only reason for not thinking Mel dies next week is she hasn't met Arya again. When Mel found Gendry in season 3, she told Arya they'd meet again.
And while what Melisandre did to Shireen was horrible, Stannis ordered her to do it. She was following her King. I know the show and books have little left in common, but her role in the books against the others seems much larger, and knowing that, I don't think she'll die. Jon doesn't have Dragons. Jon doesn't have Bran. The only magic he has is his sword and Mel. He needs everything he has against the coming battle.
Stannis wife was the driving force of burning Shireen also, right?
I don't think Jon will kill Mel, either, for a few reasons.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
They will lay into her and get pissed but she has value and they know it. Then I hope Jon fucks the shit out of her. She is FINE.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
It's hard to imagine he knocks her off after she brings him back, he does have a curiosity about why he was brought back.
There is no point in killing her. It would be pointless.
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
In the books LF is setting up quite the powerful land masses...he is lord of the fingers, Lord of harrenhal lord of the eyrie and trying to marry Sansa to become lord of the North as well as being master of coin in Kings landing
All that intrigue is gone in the show...to anticipate the books I would say that LF/Alayne travel to winter fell and happen to save Jon from certain doom...
I think that Jon will certainly have to be freed from being a bastard Snow and being granted either the Stark or Targaryen surname at some point when it is found out that he is not Ned's son...I assumed it would be Stannis in the books...perhaps the letter from Ramsay is a ruse to Jon and Stannis, not Rickon, is his captive
I didn't really give a shit about Ramsay in the show...I fuckin hated Joffery
The battle scenes were excellent last night...tho the Jon getting trampled part was kinda weird to me...just how it was filmed...Ramsay getting the killing shot on the giant was pretty dumb/predictable
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
Little Finger is the sneaky one for sure. Snow may have to kill him.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: HBO's A Game of Thrones
I hesitate to say this as it's going to sound controversial, but is it me or has the tone of the show massively shifted since the public outrage over the Sansa rape last season? I've not read the books so I don't know how accurate it is - but the subtext seems to have got more prominent.
For the record I have nothing against strong female characters, and certain characters such as Daenerys and Ayria were obviously designed from the outset to shake up the male-dominated world they live in - which is no doubt going to be a source of a lot of great entertainment.
That said, I feel like Sansa's character has underdone a fairly massive transformation - she was basically ignorant to the perils of the world and a victim to both jeoffrey and ramsey's abuse - and previously manipulated by littlefinger easily and also could have been by Tyrion where he not somewhat kind to her.
Suddenly she's standing up to littlefinger, she's outclassing John in matters of strategy and warefare, she's the one who finally kills Ramsey...
I guess some would respond to abuse by learning independence and 'toughening up' and defending themselves and so on, but i've known both men and women in rough situations and it's also quite common for them to become more like Reek sadly. I guess my real issue isn't even with her experiencing these changes - it's the execution of it - her dialogue as sounded a little forced to me - like I feel that the speaches she gave to John about Ramsey's abuse were designed to pacify the outrage of the audience - and most of her dialogue in the past few episodes feels like it's from a political rally and designed to get a pop from the audience. They could make her strong but it's like they're pointing out the feminism in every line just incase we're too dumb to get it. It just feels obtuse to me.
Obviously in shows it is normal for there to be a character ark and characters to grow and change - but I think my problem with Sana's development is there's already so many other warrior females on the show that it's starting to feel unrealistic even for a fantasy world. I've liked how with the male characters some are mentally strong, while others are physical champions, some are loyal, some are not, some are brave others are not - but the females don't seem to be showing so much diversity of character this season - it just seems everyone is a badass.
In itself they're all small things...but I kind of notice...you add sansa to this context
*Ayria's whole character is about challenging stereotypes since season 1 - and her only real threat of late has been the waif assasin who was female.
* Daenerys has basically destroyed anyone she comes into contact with and humiliated a bunch of powerful men. I don't mind this in itself but it's sort of more than enough when combined with Ayria - you add in Sansa and it's like a show with 5 terminators.
* The women from the play knowing medicine because she frequently stabbed her husband and patched him up. Small thing I know but it fits with the theme - there's no female version of Samwell for instance.
* Yara Greyjoy - again a cool character in herself - and quite plot logical given where she was raised - but again it's about the delivery. I felt the scene with Daenery's was a bit awkwardly written - like because they are both females they have to instantly be friends and stand around bagging men - when you think actually they may not get on so well given the level of ambition both of them seem to have.
Anyway, I guess this sounds prejudiced, like I say I don't mind strong females happening, but I just feel the show has moved from cleverly written to being VERY VERY unsubtle about what it's trying to portray.
Am I alone?
