I never really thought about the Ramsay Bolton casting, but now that you bring it up I see your point. I was really turned off to that character in the books, and I didn't like how it played out on screen either so I sometimes checked out a bit on those scenes. Another thing that bothered me in the books is the whole scene with Biter and Brienne. I'm glad they didn't do that on the show. At points you can go a bit too far, and I just felt Martin did that there. D&D did the same with the Red Wedding by adding in the bludgeoning of the pregnant Talisa. As if the original story wasn't brutal enough....

 

I was optimistic about Dorne too because Pedro Pascal was excellent as Oberyn. They did a great job too on the show with his fight against the Mountain.

What's crazy about the final season is that 99% of the fan theories that I read were better than what D&D gave us.

With the arc of the show that led up to Season 8 it probably just would've been best if Dany had sacrificed herself at some point. Give her a heroic death. Then Jon who is always the reluctant leader is forced to rally everyone. We missed out on him coming to terms with being a Targaryen too. That's a huge reveal and we had nothing. Horrible.

Jon also should've killed the Night King. Give Arya the Cersei kill, instead of a pile of rocks.

Jaime should've completed his redemption arc and probably died at Winterfell saving a Stark. This would've also allowed Arya to use his face to later kill Cersei.

Bran should've used some of his powers to help defeat the Night King not sit in his chair like a serial killer staring at people and saying creepy things.

That's about it with the main characters. I really don't know what could've been done with Tyrion at the end because he was a character that was built on his cunning and in Season 7 he was made to look like a complete fool. It was too late for him.

 

Well, I agree with absolutely everything you've said here. With Tyrion all they had to was to preserve his dignity and sense of humour and make him Jon's advisor and friend. Nothing more was needed. But somehow they managed to strip him of all those things. Total character assassination.

What a great shame. It just makes me so sad that so much was ruined. Hundreds of people's hard work and artistry over a decade... pissed on in the end.

 

Part of the problem is that D&D got in over their heads with what ended up being complicated plot material. They changed things and omitted things that were absolutely essential to the overall story line which is how the Dorne arc got massacred. For instance, Dorne was the only kingdom the Targs were never able to conquer which is why marriage alliances with members of their royal house were so important to maintaining the peace in Westeros. There were some real animosities when the last Targaryen king was overthrow and Rhaegar’s wife (Elia of Dorne) and their children slain. Between their secret plotting against the usurpers and characters that were never introduced, what we got on tv made book readers only go WTF?

Same with Euron. While we do see him in action in the book, most of what readers knew of him came from the thoughts of his brother Victarion, who in the book had been sent out to capture Dany, and presumably force her to marry Euron...although he had his own ideas about marrying her himself. So you see, again, total plot cluster f**k.

As far as Ramsay goes, if what you saw on the show made you sick, you would reel if you read book Ramsay. I had such a visceral effect from the text descriptions of his exploits that I really, really, hated his character. Talk about true evil and cruelty. Made Capt. Randall in Outlander look like a Boy Scout, but no, they softened his character if you can believe that! Maybe it would have been too hard for viewers to bear.

You describe what for me was the Harvey Keitel effect, lol. I watched him beat his wife on the big screen in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, which upset me so I couldn’t stand to watch him in anything else for years. I only came around when I saw him in The Piano, but sometimes actors are so into their portrayal of a nasty character it’s hard to remove that mental image.

 

Yeah, his writing can be raw and very descriptive. I agree that some things would be very difficult to see played out on the screen as they were written in the book. I hated the Biter/Brienne scene too, as if that woman needed more scars but if they had done it, it would have lead us to Lady Stoneheart whom they refused to introduce. Book Ramsay would have had viewers stunned...but they would have had to introduce an actor that looked the part to make it come alive for me. From a wiki of Ice and Fire:

Ramsay is an ugly young man, even when dressed finely. He is big boned and slope shouldered, with a fleshiness indicating he will be fat later in life. Ramsay's skin is pink and blotchy, his nose broad, his hair long and dark and dry.[1][7] Although his mouth is small, Ramsay's lips are wide and meaty, wormy looking, and he smiles a wet-lipped smile. His distinctive eyes resemble Roose's - small, close-set, and oddly pale, like two chips of dirty ice. Ramsay sometimes wears a garnetcut in the shape of a drop of blood in his right ear.[7].

*shudder* lol

 

Very interesting. I guess they at least got the wet-lipped smile right?

Having not read the book, I thought the casting was great, because I find it more interesting when someone's persona can shade them ugly, despite their natural looks.

All this makes me wonder again why writers/film makers would do this. The depiction of revelling in such extreme violence and depravity is the worst and deepest pit of humanity and I often wonder if it should have a place in "entertainment" at all. We know what humans are capable of from the news, from history, from personal recounts. That's hard enough to take and still get up and walk amongst humans, reminding ourselves that such people are thankfully rather rare - and mostly a product of horrendous things done to them as well beforehand. But do we really want to deal with this in fiction as well? Is it really necessary to keep pushing for more and more shocking things, just so they'd stand out from all the other depictions of violence and depravity in other books/films?

I actually think it can be so damaging, that for my life I cannot justify it. After I watched Jamie whipped by Randall through my flood of tears, I could only utter one word, "why?" Meaning why in heavens name did they have to film this? All the ten minutes of it? What was the purpose? Just to make us hate Randall even more? Could we possibly hate him more than we did already? I can never forget Randall's face how he revelled in what he was doing. It's engrained in my brain, I can never unsee it. And I wish I didn't have to carry that image with me for the rest of my life. It's bad enough to carry the knowledge of what went down in the inquisitions during the Crusades, in the concentration camps in WW2, what horrors children live through even today because of abductions, sex trafficking and being trained as soldiers. But these are stories from our real world we simply cannot shy away from. Do we want to add to these horrors when we turn to art forms as well? I do hold the writers and film makers responsible and I question their true motives.

 

We see this in entertainment because there’s a market for it. People love blood and gore apparently, hence the numerous slasher franchises. Even our beloved TWD had me nauseous with several story lines, especially the Whisperers. Alpha was despicable, IMO, but I watched none the less. I can’t tell you how happy I was when Negan slit her throat.

I wonder if this constant barage of horrible images doesn’t serve to numb people to the horrendous things that actually occur in RL. Perhaps now, when a writer wants to present a battle between good and evil, the evil has to be so bad it jars the audience out of any complacency they may have developed over time.

It’s nothing new however. Once Hollywood lifted it’s “morality” bans on what viewers could see, they were off to the races so to speak. We were just mentioning in the RIP thread about Ned Beatty and the infamous rape scene in Deliverance which hit theaters in 1972. I’ve never watched the movie since seeing it in the theater but I can never unsee that scene in my mind. Have you ever seen any of John Waters films? Nuff said there but Multiple Maniacs from 1970 makes me wonder what was wrong with that director although I did like Hairspray.

Maybe we should be happy we can still be repulsed by some of what we watch in the entertainment field. When a character can rise from abusive treatment we can all rejoice that the human spirit can still soar and applaud when villains get their just desserts.

 

Yes, bitch had to die. Yet interesting how easily we can make these calls when we watch tv. Alpha of course was in a league of her own, and definitely had to be terminated, but I surprised myself at times with my own reactions, such as when Negan killed Spencer and I just thought well, he was a dick, he had it coming. Tv messes with our brains and moral judgements,

And you're totally right about TWD overstepping the mark on a fair few occasions.

I'm absolutely sure it does.

It's how it goes. Scaling new heights with everything. Not a care in the world what damage it might cause. The sheer fact that there is a market for it, is horrifying in itself. So there is a basic need in humans to witness violence and extreme human behaviour and that's a pretty deplorable part of being human. Yet this part is being catered for in abundance. That's just fabulous. Like the thought process "you know Randall in Outlander? He was some vicious evil bastard, wasn't he? Now shall we create a character that will make Randall look like a Boy Scout? Yes! How about that?" And so it goes on. Kirkman sure had his twisted fun with Negan and that says something about him too.

I didn't see it, and I won't be seeing it now for sure. Thanks. And the same guy did Hairspray? Well. Maybe he should have just nurtured his Hairspray Psyche. I also didn't see Deliverance. I absolutely can't cope with rape scenes - there was that Jodie Foster film, can't remember what it was called, that had me reeling and I swore back then that I'd never watch anything with rape in it.
Making such films, everyone involved gets saturated with these themes and images and then it's the audience's turn, and we just end up with traumatised then desensitised people as a consequence.

Yes, I think that's the reasoning behind such scenes. And that's why I stuck with GoT and TWD and the Handmaid's Tale despite all my misgivings. I want to see that beautiful human spirit soar and rise above all and I want to see the evil punished. However, I'm reaching the point now that after TWD and THT are done, I think I'll not get involved with such violent tv shows and films ever again. I feel the price might not be worth it.

 

They should have hired you as the writer. The last two seasons were so bad that the series has no rewatchability for me. I loved the early seasons (1 to 4) , started to see more and flaws as seasons progressed and despised the last two. D&D dont know how to write a good story.

 

I remember how for at least 2 seasons I kept waiting and wondering if they'd bring in Lady Stoneheart. I kind of gave them a pass on that one because it did give more power to Jon's resurrection. I think there is a chance the general audience could've rolled their eyes at that point and wondered if anyone would stay dead.

Also, I wonder if Lady Stoneheart will last very long, if we ever see Winds of Winter. Brienne is bringing Jaime to her. I could see Brienne killing her to save him. I don't see his story ending there, nor is Lady Stoneheart likely to be merciful or believing of anything he might have to say. So if she's just a detour in the story I could see why they left it out.

 

In the past I would've recommended that you read the books, but since we're unlikely to ever get a conclusion I couldn't do that now. One less person left hanging is a good thing.

 

TWD went too far with having Negan kill both Abe and Glenn. That's when they really began to lose audience. I think it was a combination of the cliffhanger and also the strange over the top premiere.

Speaking of all the horrendous things that happen in RL, and the portrayal of these things in film, have you seen Tarantino's, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?" Interestingly the film is almost like a counter to all of that.

 

Interestingly, there are a lot of characters that don’t stay dead in the books, lol. I think that’s because there’s an element of mysticism regarding the religions in this world that with the exception of Melisandre and her black magic and to a slighter degree Dondarrion, D&D didn’t delve into.

No doubt for good reason but it’s the old power behind these beliefs that give Arya her abilities and allows Bran to see through the eyes of the Weirwoods. Certainly, if Martin ever gets to writing more about the NK, and the first children he’ll fill his readers in on the magic surrounding that. It’s gotta be more than a simple zombie story. We’ll hopefully discover how everything and everyone are connected and why, to a much greater degree than was seen on tv.

Getting back to LS, I’m not sure Brienne could kill her if she wanted to. Dondarrion kept coming back because Thoros gave him some Lord of Light voodoo which he passed on to Catelyn, finally dying for good. So how does that work? We’ll find out, lol.....mebbe..

 

I think movies and tv are different in that when you watch certain characters over the course of many seasons on tv, one becomes more vested in their welfare. Yeah, it hurt that Negan so callously cut down both Abe and Glenn. That’s the thing that I find so tiring on TWD, having favorite characters get killed off all the time rather than occasionally.

For the record, I’m not exactly against all violence on screen, big or small. Sometimes it’s necessary, sometimes gratuitous but I find some things bother me more than others. It depends on, well, it depends on a lot of things. I have not seen Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, but I expect I will sooner or later. I’ve seen some of his films which strike me as violent but I loved “Kill Bill” so there you have it. At least with a movie, you only have to view the material for 2-3 hours tops. If you get a tv show that’s a bummer without any high spots that can get depressing.

 

That's yet another area D&D completely dropped the ball on, the magical element. I can see why they left certain things out from the books. But in the final season they just about erased all of it. The key areas for me were: No use of Bran's powers, same with Melisandre and the Night King was way too easy to kill. They tried to tell an oddly conventional story within a fantasy world.

 

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood I think is Tarantino's best, most mature film. There really isn't any gratuitious violence in it either. I think you'll like it. It's also a moving film, which is unusual for him.

Some hardline Tarantino fans that are more drawn to stuff like Django Unchained (which I thought was too over the top) weren't big fans of this one. It took me by surprise because I couldn't believe how much I really liked this film. I think it would've swept the awards that year if Parasite hadn't come out. Brad Pitt did get Best Supporting Actor though.

 

Some more casting news:

From The Hollywood Reporter:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/house-of-the-dragon-adds-cast-1234977221/

Milly Alcock as a young Princess Rhaenyra
Emily Carey as young Alicent Hightower.




This has got to mean we’re getting flash backs

Also from an earlier article:

Fabian Frankel as Ser Cristen Cole

 

I wonder what the extent of the flashbacks will be. Will be getting history of that period when they were younger, or is it more character focused? I lean more toward the latter at this point.

I wonder what they're going to do with Cristen Cole. Are they going to make him into a real Creeper type as was insinuated in Fire and Blood or will they take the edge off of that.

 

I had to think about this and then I went back and reread starting on page 350. First off, there are so many characters that have yet to be announced as cast but are an integral part of the story that it made me think perhaps we won’t get flash backs so much as they’ll start the story earlier. May back as far as young lady Alicent reading to the old King Jaehaerys as he lay dying.

As for Christen Cole, I hope they stick closely to the events as written in the book (don’t know if they’ll use Eustace or Mushroom’s version, lol) and let the non reading viewers decide what they think of him.

 

My guess is they won't use Mushroom's version. I don't see Rhaenyra as the instigator in all of this. Afterall it's Cole who becomes aggrieved. That wouldn't make sense if he wasn't the one with the interest in her.

I'm all for starting the story as early as possible, so I hope you're right.

BTW people are going to flip out when we end up getting the second volume of Fire and Blood ahead of Winds. There's no confirmation of this, but I don't see the publisher or Martin missing out on the opportunity to capitalize on it once the series is on the air. It's not as difficult for Martin to write either because it's more similar to a history story, like the The World of Ice and Fire than the ASoIaF novels.