41 thoughts on “Which Game Of Thrones Character Are You?

    1. Medium Sized C

      It’s pretty good.
      I think its a bit overrated.

      Not in the more colloquial sense where overrated seems to mean “TOTALLY CRAP” but in the literal sense where its good and worth watching, but not as earth shatteringly brilliant as people seem to make out.

      Lots of characters with names die in it. Which is pretty close to a USP these days.

      1. rotide

        Know what you mean Medium, It’s really good and I really enjoy it, but it’s no West Wing or The Wire and people seem to put it up there with them.

        One thing it is BRILLIANT at is abridging the books and actually making the story more entertaining and coherant than the author originally did.

          1. andyourpointiswhatexactly

            NO WAY! I thought it was a documentary.
            I’m going to BURN that boxset when I get home. Lying toerags.

        1. Medium Sized C

          I would venture to say, with the utmost of respect for George RR Martin, that excluding the words “silken” and “doublet” would go a long way to doing that.

          I mean, I get it. Fantasy is all about setting your scene. It has been since Tolkien.
          You have to create a whole world and political system etc.
          But you don’t have to create an entire food culture and describe every stitch of clothing.

          And not having seen the most recent series yet I can’t fully comment, but I’m not entirely sure that the show does that much in that vein that wouldn’t have been achieved without the painful (rather than painstaking) attention to detail.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            “…entire food culture”

            What about Hot Pie and his meat pies and big biscuits shaped like a hound he gave to Brienne of Tarth?

            Brienne… *sigh* …she’s some woman for one woman, eh!

          2. Medium Sized C

            I found it hilarious that in the books she was described as a horrible looking but in the series she was a tall not -at-all-unattractive lady with short hair and “no-makeup” makeup.

          3. Garthicus

            Yeah in the books there are pages and pages covering how ugly she is. Practically everyone she encounters calls her some kind of derogatory name in regards to her looks.

        2. Tom Stewart

          Yes.

          I haven’t seen the series, but the books are apallingly written.

          Someone I know who has experience of both has said that the series writers, through editing, etc., are doing a better job of writing the story than Martin did.

          1. Medium Sized C

            Ah here, “Appallingly written” is a fierce harsh.
            They aren’t well written, but they are a damn sight better than a lot of fantasy writing.

        3. rotide

          Yeah, Agree with most of that.

          I found some of the same problems with Tolkein when I first read LOTR (EVERY verse of the song? Every blade of grass described) but look at the terrible job jackson did with those films compared to GOT. Different mediums I know, but it illustrates it well enough.

          One nice touch I thought was in the latest series (no spoilers, promise) at a certain royal wedding, they replaced 2 dwarfs jousting on pigs from the book with 7 dwarves apeing the 7 kings for a much better effect all round.

          1. andyourpointiswhatexactly

            They all suffer from that. Robert Jordan? Jeekers. You could have edited around 30% out of each book easily without making one whit of difference to the storyline. And I’d say 5 of the books in the Wheel of Time saga were entirely unnecessary.

          2. rotide

            I think that’s one of the reasons I love Terry Pratchett so much. His world is every bit as real and vibrant without the verbose prose they all love so much.

          3. Medium Sized C

            Jungleman,

            I think he is saying Peter Jackson did a terrible job.
            Which is quite different from saying they were terrible.

            Rotide,
            I have heard people tell people about to read LOTR for the first time to “just skip the Council of Elrond chapter”. And to be honest, first time out, I think its actually fairly solid advice.

          4. jungleman

            Either way, I find the statement disagreeable. The book and the film are certainly different, but what else is to be expected? It’s the blockbuster movie industry. Jackson did a terrific job in doing what he set out to do. I actually thought the films were as faithful to the books as they could possibly have been. Sure, it would have been interesting to see a film adaptation of Tom Bombadillo, but would it be realistic to expect that?!

          5. Medium Sized C

            I agree.
            Largely.

            I have some problems with the movies.
            Like the summer blockbuster romance schtick but all in all they are decent.

            The hobbit can feck right off though.

      2. munkifisht

        I don’t watch it for the boobs, violence, or deaths (all of which are added an bonus, or bone us in the case of the boobs). I actually enjoy it more for the cloak and dagger and Machiavellian machinations of the central figures. I also almost all the characters interesting in some way, the evil ones are particularly evil, the witty ones are particularly witty, and the clever ones are particularly clever. The central characters knocked off this season, while not to everyone’s taste, were actually some of my favorite characters, and in fact, the last 2 to go were fantastic.

Comments are closed.