|Game of Thrones Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Honestly, I don't think...
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 at 01:50:11 pm EDT (Viewed 198 times)
Reply Subj: Re: If you can read books, you can read lengthy replies too!
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 at 12:22:19 pm EDT (Viewed 217 times)
...it will happen myself, I'm just arguing that I don't see any reason why it shouldn't.
Quote:Assuming Rhaegar and Elia's marriage was annulled in the books, I wondered whether their children would be bastards. They were married after all. And weren't the children born before the annulment? So would they be bastards? Not sure how that works.
I can't imagine the show making a change this big without something being there in the books. And since that marriage was voided, it's like it never happened, so it doesn't matter when the children were born.
Quote:At this point, the show and books are pretty distinct. It's possible the Golden Company and Aegon have an important story in the books. Doesn't mean that they will in the show. So when you say the show writers would try to include it because it's a pivotal part of the books, I guess I just disagree. Here's another way I look at it. If Martin had Elia's son Aegon winning the Iron Throne in the books, the show writers would have introduced him already. Martin's last book came out in 2011. They have had plenty of time.
Yeah, but my point earlier in the argument was that if Martin does nothing important with them till the very end, it would have been a waste of screen time to have introduced them earlier just to have one prior scene of them existing. Maybe if the GC were to win it all, the show could have at least alluded to the survival of the bastard. But playing a key role in the final events does not just mean them prevailing. More importantly, as I've tried to point since the beginning, there's still plenty of time for character development. It took most of my favorite characters of the show just a few scenes to attain that status, so with about 3-4 times the average length of a movie left in the show, they can absolutely have people invested in new characters. Heck, the entire theatrical trilogy of LOTR could fit in this season!
Quote:It's possible that Martin will end Game of Thrones as setting up a sequel of sorts. In that instance, I get the sense that the character would be more important for that theoretical sequel, not so much the here and now. And with the way TV works, who knows it the TV show would touch on that.
They did not start this with the intention of making their own version of it. If Martin had all his books finished by now, most everything would be closer to his story. Since he must have given them rough guidelines about where he's going with it from the very start, they probably aimed to end it in a similar fashion. And were Martin setting up a sequel, after seeing early on they had a hit, HBO's guys would definitely want to leave their end open for it, trust me...
Quote:I actually do consider it objectively bad to have the end of one's storyline significantly influenced by characters not previously featured. We go on journeys with these characters. Get personally invested in their struggles. So why should I want another character not before seen to be significant in the end? For characters to be significant in the climax of a story, I want to experience their journeys in a significant way. If not, then the end is cheapened.
I could say that treating all your characters as disposable and robbing your plot of major and interesting ones early on for shock value is bad writing as well, cheapening the entire story for a lot of people who were "personally invested in their struggles". But that, much like your points above, is subjective. And it's subjective because it's the execution that really matters. I'm not saying that including new, important characters will necessarily improve the story, but you're saying that it will make it worse no matter how it's done.
Quote:And my objection to it isn't even really based on what I think is good or bad writing. Or right or wrong for the characters. I just don't think they will bring in Aegon because it would feel very weird for your average show watcher. Of all my friends/family that watch Game of Thrones, I know the most about it by far. Most of my friends/family just watch the show. Every once in a while they will read stuff online about what's going on. But that's pretty much it.
When Lyanna was revealed to be Jon's mom, I had to remind them about Lyanna's backstory. And they didn't get who the father was. I was even asked if Ned was the Dad. When I said it was Rhaegar, I can't tell you how many times I have had to walk them through who Rhaegar was. They thought he was the Mad King, Dany's father. Remember when Ned said "The Mad King is dead. Rhaegar lies beneath the ground." That confused them. When I explained Rhaegar was her brother, they said "That psycho brother who had the melted gold poured over his head?"
That's exactly why, if you introduce them earlier and then forget about them till last season, you still end up confusing the average person on top of losing the chance to surprise attentive viewers. Right now they have the bonus of you and others like you having explained to your circles last season who Rhaegar was, so they can just introduce his first son now with minimum confusion. And really, we're in the last season, it's not like they'll be losing any viewers now...
Quote:So introducing Aegon now? With a line like "Oh, he's Elia's son." You think that will fly with your average TV watcher?
It will. You know why? Because the average viewer's inability to remember all the little details comes from the simple fact that they just don't care enough. What seems detrimental to you is a non-issue to them. They may be confused for a bit, but they'll just shrug it off and continue watching. Again, and this is a major point against your view, Captain Marvel!
Drax the Legend, Captain of the Fist, The Starwalker, The Jade Slayer
Posted with Opera 9.80 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|