It's not uncommon for child actors to be on the small side. It allows them to play younger than their age for longer, and the directors like it because older kids take direction better than very young kids who look their age.
It also allows them not to tower over tinystars like your Robert Downey Jrs and your Tom Cruises.
Yeah, those guys really make it hard to cast against when they're playing action stars. Actresses tend to be taller than the average woman because it makes it easier to block and frame shots against their male costars, but those guys take some trickery to frame. You'll rarely see a full shot with them next to a woman.
And if you do the actress is probably in bare feet (and hopefully short shorts) like when RDJ and G-Pal shared full shots in The Avengers.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
"That's how it happens in the books" is always an essentially meaningless defence of any adaptation. If you transfer a weakness from one media to another it's still a weakness.
This should be bronzed and put on a plaque on everyone's wall everywhere.
On one end of the world there are undead ice creatures. On the other end, there are dragons. Everyone in the Seven Kingdoms is currently oblivious to both threats. In my opinion, the plots are being laid out now so that when Jon and Dany enter the main storyline again, people won't be like "WTF, dragons? Really? And undead ice monsters? Show has totally jumped the shark."
Absolutely. The fact their stories are playing out on the fringes is very likely healthy for the Uberarc of the whole story. What they need is for their stories to play out in a more interesting fashion. In service to the (non-existent) books maybe they have to play out like this, but that doesn't mean they're working as a TV show.
"That's how it happens in the books" is always an essentially meaningless defence of any adaptation. If you transfer a weakness from one media to another it's still a weakness.
They aren't playing out in service to the books though. Not exactly anyway.
Seemingly unrelated stories that will later become related are poor storytelling, because... well they just are.
It's entirely arguable, but I would like to think there's a limit to how much time you can expect of your audience to devote to plot lines that, as far as they may know, may or may not ever work their way into the over-plot.
Right now, I'm probably a lot more forgiving of Jon's subplot than I am of Danaerys', simply because it has more ties to the other plots, what with Jon having had scenes with Tyrion and Ned and being at Winterfell to start the series at, as well as the whole mystery with the Night's Watch and the Wildling kingdoms and the zombies just being generally pretty interesting. It plays like it's on a completely different show, but hey, I'm still digging the story.
Danaerys' story, however, is crap. Her character has regressed in both dynamism and purpose, and every time I see her on the show I wonder why we're watching this ridiculous plotline with stolen dragons and warlocks and spice kings yet again, while being still cut out from learning about Melisandre or watching something more dynamic than yet another scene of our heroes hemming and hawing around giant tables. That's what Season 2 has become: people talking over tables + two unrelated plotlines.
You could read the Dunk and Egg stories without ever hearing about a Song of Ice and Fire and have little idea there is a massive series of books it is based on.
Though mind, I got towards the end of the Wikipedia entry and backed out when it started talking about times those stories are mentioned during events. Ahem.
Hm? Nothing spoiled, I just read "...as in book 1, where..." and left. It is a bad habit of mine, though. One time I spoiled the ending of Half-Life 2: Episode 2, of all things.
Seemingly unrelated stories that will later become related are poor storytelling, because... well they just are.
It's entirely arguable, but I would like to think there's a limit to how much time you can expect of your audience to devote to plot lines that, as far as they may know, may or may not ever work their way into the over-plot.
Right now, I'm probably a lot more forgiving of Jon's subplot than I am of Danaerys', simply because it has more ties to the other plots, what with Jon having had scenes with Tyrion and Ned and being at Winterfell to start the series at, as well as the whole mystery with the Night's Watch and the Wildling kingdoms and the zombies just being generally pretty interesting. It plays like it's on a completely different show, but hey, I'm still digging the story.
Danaerys' story, however, is crap. Her character has regressed in both dynamism and purpose, and every time I see her on the show I wonder why we're watching this ridiculous plotline with stolen dragons and warlocks and spice kings yet again, while being still cut out from learning about Melisandre or watching something more dynamic than yet another scene of our heroes hemming and hawing around giant tables. That's what Season 2 has become: people talking over tables + two unrelated plotlines.
-snip for apparent spoilers?-
Hamurabi on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Seemingly unrelated stories that will later become related are poor storytelling, because... well they just are.
It's entirely arguable, but I would like to think there's a limit to how much time you can expect of your audience to devote to plot lines that, as far as they may know, may or may not ever work their way into the over-plot.
Right now, I'm probably a lot more forgiving of Jon's subplot than I am of Danaerys', simply because it has more ties to the other plots, what with Jon having had scenes with Tyrion and Ned and being at Winterfell to start the series at, as well as the whole mystery with the Night's Watch and the Wildling kingdoms and the zombies just being generally pretty interesting. It plays like it's on a completely different show, but hey, I'm still digging the story.
Danaerys' story, however, is crap. Her character has regressed in both dynamism and purpose, and every time I see her on the show I wonder why we're watching this ridiculous plotline with stolen dragons and warlocks and spice kings yet again, while being still cut out from learning about Melisandre or watching something more dynamic than yet another scene of our heroes hemming and hawing around giant tables. That's what Season 2 has become: people talking over tables + two unrelated plotlines.
So I just got back from work, and don't have the energy to engage you more fully on why I completely disagree with you... but something needs to be said about this business of the "main plot" vs. "side plots" that didn't get said the last time this tangent came up:
There's no such thing as a Story A vs. a Story B or Story C in the SoIaF universe. I've read all the books, and so far every plot and sub-plot has been treated basically equally, and seems equally weighty -- though frankly, the whole War of Five Kings storyline seems like something of a sideshow once you get a little more perspective in the later books. From a purely personal perspective, I would say that what's going on in the North is The Real Story, with Dany's story being second, and the political intrigue in Westeros, while fascinating strictly for its intricacies and backstabbing, coming in third.
So given this larger view of the relative importance of the various story threads in this universe, complaining that "side plots" are taking up valuable screen time from "the real story" seems kind of silly.
Why are you in this thread at all? Your insight is unhelpful and spoilery, not to mention biased against objectivity due to said spoileriness.
I give no fucks how the plots on this TV show stack up to how they're presented in the books. Fuck the books. Fuck them right out the window.
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Yeah, geez. I thought I was bad ranting about Ros, but this guy...
The worst part is he has a point and he could have done it without spoilers or referencing the books. "Really? Really? Do you really think this is the type of show where there's a main plot, like on the one hand ROMULANS and then on the other hand oh that Data, he's so cute when he's trying to be human?" Something like that.
Why are you in this thread at all? Your insight is unhelpful and spoilery, not to mention biased against objectivity due to said spoileriness.
I give no fucks how the plots on this TV show stack up to how they're presented in the books. Fuck the books. Fuck them right out the window.
So you're going to operate in some imaginary veil of ignorance then I guess ...?
A) You know based on hints in this thread (mine being the least subtle) that the Dany and Jon bits will pay off eventually. You're still criticizing them for distracting from the "main plot" (which I've made clear doesn't exist/is up to personal preference) though, and I don't understand this.
Even setting aside the books completely... logically, one has to assume that they're not showing you the Jon and Dany bits for no reason. From a storytelling perspective, it's obvious that there is some point to them, and that it will become evident at some later point in the series. The crux of your complaint, as I see it, seems essentially to be that you don't like that the Jon and Dany stories don't pay off fully within the context of one season, with a neat three act setup. I guess that's a matter of personal preference that I just don't agree with.
And, yet again, the relevance of Jon's plotline is established in the very first scene of the entire show.
Dany's is a little more self-evident one would hope.
TV, by it's episodic nature, can create issues with plotlines because what is compact in a book series (it all takes places in one volume) can seem stretched out on TV (because it takes multiple episodes/a whole season/multiple seasons).
Seemingly unrelated stories that will later become related are poor storytelling, because... well they just are.
It's entirely arguable, but I would like to think there's a limit to how much time you can expect of your audience to devote to plot lines that, as far as they may know, may or may not ever work their way into the over-plot.
Right now, I'm probably a lot more forgiving of Jon's subplot than I am of Danaerys', simply because it has more ties to the other plots, what with Jon having had scenes with Tyrion and Ned and being at Winterfell to start the series at, as well as the whole mystery with the Night's Watch and the Wildling kingdoms and the zombies just being generally pretty interesting. It plays like it's on a completely different show, but hey, I'm still digging the story.
Danaerys' story, however, is crap. Her character has regressed in both dynamism and purpose, and every time I see her on the show I wonder why we're watching this ridiculous plotline with stolen dragons and warlocks and spice kings yet again, while being still cut out from learning about Melisandre or watching something more dynamic than yet another scene of our heroes hemming and hawing around giant tables. That's what Season 2 has become: people talking over tables + two unrelated plotlines.
The nature of television is really what's bringing the issues you are talking about here. Just the nature of needing to hire, and possibly retain, a real live person causes issues with these kind of things when moving from book to TV.
I can totally understand where Atomic Ross is coming from, and my initial reaction to hearing that the show would come to be was something along the lines of "How the fuck are they going to work in Dani?" Because, as you may have noticed, two seasons are nearly over and she hasn't exactly been on a fast train to Westeros. There's been back and forth with the Wall to a limited extent - you may remember Thorne from season one being sent to King's Landing with a ghoul hand, but he hasn't shown up since that I recall; Arya had been heading to the Wall at one ooint in season two and people are generally aware that the Wall exists. But Dani? Way off on her own for the moment.
People who read Big Fat Fantasy are generally fine with the idea that what they're really reading is a set of entirely different stories, set in the same world at the same time, with the different parallel stories occasionally bumping into each other. Television viewers don't have that mindset for the most part. Game of Thrones may cultivate it.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Seems like every time I enter this thread it's always just about Atomic Ross opinions on the show, and everyone in the thread feeling the need to discuss them for pages on end
Seems like every time I enter this thread it's always just about Atomic Ross opinions on the show, and everyone in the thread feeling the need to discuss them for pages on end
Contrary opinions are fun, and the topics he brings up are generally ones that spoiled people can (carefully) discuss in here. How the show feels about feudalism, whether or not Dani/Jon's plots make sense to keep given the divide in the series to date, they're worth talking about.
If other people bring up interesting topics, I'll discuss them too!
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Seems like every time I enter this thread it's always just about Atomic Ross opinions on the show, and everyone in the thread feeling the need to discuss them for pages on end
Contrary opinions are fun, and the topics he brings up are generally ones that spoiled people can (carefully) discuss in here. How the show feels about feudalism, whether or not Dani/Jon's plots make sense to keep given the divide in the series to date, they're worth talking about.
If other people bring up interesting topics, I'll discuss them too!
Additionally, even if it is kind of the same argument multiple times, I'd much rather read about opinions on narrative structure and flaws with pacing than "OH GOD, BREASTS" and "HMMM THAT LITTLEFINGER SCENE SURE WAS _____" for 12 pages.
I can totally understand where Atomic Ross is coming from, and my initial reaction to hearing that the show would come to be was something along the lines of "How the fuck are they going to work in Dani?" Because, as you may have noticed, two seasons are nearly over and she hasn't exactly been on a fast train to Westeros. There's been back and forth with the Wall to a limited extent - you may remember Thorne from season one being sent to King's Landing with a ghoul hand, but he hasn't shown up since that I recall; Arya had been heading to the Wall at one ooint in season two and people are generally aware that the Wall exists. But Dani? Way off on her own for the moment.
People who read Big Fat Fantasy are generally fine with the idea that what they're really reading is a set of entirely different stories, set in the same world at the same time, with the different parallel stories occasionally bumping into each other. Television viewers don't have that mindset for the most part. Game of Thrones may cultivate it
No. It's in a book you often have stories that will influence each other and will, one assumes, connect or interweave or some such at some later point. The nature of a book series is that this can occur over several volumes, given that the whole thing is one cohesive story.
When you turn each book into an entire, year's long (till the next one) season of television, this stretches itself out a bit more.
I can totally understand where Atomic Ross is coming from, and my initial reaction to hearing that the show would come to be was something along the lines of "How the fuck are they going to work in Dani?" Because, as you may have noticed, two seasons are nearly over and she hasn't exactly been on a fast train to Westeros. There's been back and forth with the Wall to a limited extent - you may remember Thorne from season one being sent to King's Landing with a ghoul hand, but he hasn't shown up since that I recall; Arya had been heading to the Wall at one ooint in season two and people are generally aware that the Wall exists. But Dani? Way off on her own for the moment.
People who read Big Fat Fantasy are generally fine with the idea that what they're really reading is a set of entirely different stories, set in the same world at the same time, with the different parallel stories occasionally bumping into each other. Television viewers don't have that mindset for the most part. Game of Thrones may cultivate it
No. It's in a book you often have stories that will influence each other and will, one assumes, connect or interweave or some such at some later point. The nature of a book series is that this can occur over several volumes, given that the whole thing is one cohesive story.
When you turn each book into an entire, year's long (till the next one) season of television, this stretches itself out a bit more.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think that you just said 'no' and then agreed with me completely.
People reading a book (especially a BFF) will accept plots that don't meet up for literally thousands of pages. There's a plot in the Wheel of Time involving the relationship between two characters that was introduced in the first few chapters of book one, and then the characters didn't see each other again until the end of book twelve. People can go into a book, some kinds of books in particular, and will wait quite some time for it to pay off.
A TV show really can't expect that sort of patience from its viewers. There's no real history of that sort of storytelling in the medium. If Game of Thrones remains worth watching (IMO, the third book is by far the best, so I expect it will continue to be worth watching for a while) then it may lead to some audiences ending willing to wait years for plot lines to link up, and storytelling that was not possible before becoming possible.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
As someone whose reading has not caught up to the show yet, to me it really seems like the Dany and Jon Snow storylines are the actual story while the various political stuff going on in Westeros is doing nothing but making the realm weaker before the dragons and zombies show up.
As someone whose reading has not caught up to the show yet, to me it really seems like the Dany and Jon Snow storylines are the actual story while the various political stuff going on in Westeros is doing nothing but making make the realm weaker before the dragons and zombies show up.
Posts
And if you do the actress is probably in bare feet (and hopefully short shorts) like when RDJ and G-Pal shared full shots in The Avengers.
This should be bronzed and put on a plaque on everyone's wall everywhere.
They aren't playing out in service to the books though. Not exactly anyway.
It's entirely arguable, but I would like to think there's a limit to how much time you can expect of your audience to devote to plot lines that, as far as they may know, may or may not ever work their way into the over-plot.
Right now, I'm probably a lot more forgiving of Jon's subplot than I am of Danaerys', simply because it has more ties to the other plots, what with Jon having had scenes with Tyrion and Ned and being at Winterfell to start the series at, as well as the whole mystery with the Night's Watch and the Wildling kingdoms and the zombies just being generally pretty interesting. It plays like it's on a completely different show, but hey, I'm still digging the story.
Danaerys' story, however, is crap. Her character has regressed in both dynamism and purpose, and every time I see her on the show I wonder why we're watching this ridiculous plotline with stolen dragons and warlocks and spice kings yet again, while being still cut out from learning about Melisandre or watching something more dynamic than yet another scene of our heroes hemming and hawing around giant tables. That's what Season 2 has become: people talking over tables + two unrelated plotlines.
Good work reading a wikipedia entry I guess.
-snip for apparent spoilers?-
Why are you in this thread at all? Your insight is unhelpful and spoilery, not to mention biased against objectivity due to said spoileriness.
I give no fucks how the plots on this TV show stack up to how they're presented in the books. Fuck the books. Fuck them right out the window.
The worst part is he has a point and he could have done it without spoilers or referencing the books. "Really? Really? Do you really think this is the type of show where there's a main plot, like on the one hand ROMULANS and then on the other hand oh that Data, he's so cute when he's trying to be human?" Something like that.
So you're going to operate in some imaginary veil of ignorance then I guess ...?
A) You know based on hints in this thread (mine being the least subtle) that the Dany and Jon bits will pay off eventually. You're still criticizing them for distracting from the "main plot" (which I've made clear doesn't exist/is up to personal preference) though, and I don't understand this.
Dany's is a little more self-evident one would hope.
TV, by it's episodic nature, can create issues with plotlines because what is compact in a book series (it all takes places in one volume) can seem stretched out on TV (because it takes multiple episodes/a whole season/multiple seasons).
The nature of television is really what's bringing the issues you are talking about here. Just the nature of needing to hire, and possibly retain, a real live person causes issues with these kind of things when moving from book to TV.
I can totally understand where Atomic Ross is coming from, and my initial reaction to hearing that the show would come to be was something along the lines of "How the fuck are they going to work in Dani?" Because, as you may have noticed, two seasons are nearly over and she hasn't exactly been on a fast train to Westeros. There's been back and forth with the Wall to a limited extent - you may remember Thorne from season one being sent to King's Landing with a ghoul hand, but he hasn't shown up since that I recall; Arya had been heading to the Wall at one ooint in season two and people are generally aware that the Wall exists. But Dani? Way off on her own for the moment.
People who read Big Fat Fantasy are generally fine with the idea that what they're really reading is a set of entirely different stories, set in the same world at the same time, with the different parallel stories occasionally bumping into each other. Television viewers don't have that mindset for the most part. Game of Thrones may cultivate it.
Contrary opinions are fun, and the topics he brings up are generally ones that spoiled people can (carefully) discuss in here. How the show feels about feudalism, whether or not Dani/Jon's plots make sense to keep given the divide in the series to date, they're worth talking about.
If other people bring up interesting topics, I'll discuss them too!
Additionally, even if it is kind of the same argument multiple times, I'd much rather read about opinions on narrative structure and flaws with pacing than "OH GOD, BREASTS" and "HMMM THAT LITTLEFINGER SCENE SURE WAS _____" for 12 pages.
No. It's in a book you often have stories that will influence each other and will, one assumes, connect or interweave or some such at some later point. The nature of a book series is that this can occur over several volumes, given that the whole thing is one cohesive story.
When you turn each book into an entire, year's long (till the next one) season of television, this stretches itself out a bit more.
You are being geese.
Stop with all of your honking.
This show is awesome.
I even made it into a haiku. That's how much I want this ridiculous back and forth to end.
This shirt.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/bamboota/works/8877280-the-perfect-target
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think that you just said 'no' and then agreed with me completely.
People reading a book (especially a BFF) will accept plots that don't meet up for literally thousands of pages. There's a plot in the Wheel of Time involving the relationship between two characters that was introduced in the first few chapters of book one, and then the characters didn't see each other again until the end of book twelve. People can go into a book, some kinds of books in particular, and will wait quite some time for it to pay off.
A TV show really can't expect that sort of patience from its viewers. There's no real history of that sort of storytelling in the medium. If Game of Thrones remains worth watching (IMO, the third book is by far the best, so I expect it will continue to be worth watching for a while) then it may lead to some audiences ending willing to wait years for plot lines to link up, and storytelling that was not possible before becoming possible.
...great. Now I need a new monitor. Thanks, Taramoor.
Also that's going to be my pal's birthday present. So good.
Steam - Minty D. Vision!
Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
I think that's what you meant to say.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I want that as an actual target so bad.
You can buy it as a poster. How hard would it be to convert?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
He will die next episode.
Looks like next week's episode will satisfy the 'they never show the battles!' crowd!
Dragons are the zombies natural predator.
What with the fire and all.