Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:19 GMT -5
Deleted
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:19 GMT -5
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 13:31:03 GMT -5
But Envie, you did use the words "not significant enough". It was a direct quote. I assume you were talking about LSH's significance to the overall story and its endgame. I didn't introduce the term "significance" into the debate. That was you. All I wanted to point out is that "significance" is an unreliable category, because there are a lot of less important storylines that barely made any impact at all, but we still don't wanna miss them, because we as fans care about the journey. LSH is arguably "more significant" than other storylines. And yet, LSH was cut, but other things were in. So significance doesn't seem to be D&D's primary reasoning for not having LSH, nor should it be. I assume it was just personal preference. I think they just weren't interested in having another resurrection. I disagree with them here, obviously, but it is what it is. By the way, I know that you care about the journey. I was not suggesting otherwise. That's why I didn't quote nor tag you. I was merely pointing out that "significance" is a tricky category and that it implies things that I know no one here believes in and that therefore it is not the right argument to bring forward in this debate. This is all IMHO obviously.
|
|
inherit
65
0
May 21, 2019 16:28:16 GMT -5
80
UnmaskedLurker
78
Jul 12, 2016 7:54:27 GMT -5
July 2016
unmaskedlurker
|
Post by UnmaskedLurker on Aug 23, 2017 13:54:52 GMT -5
But Envie , you did use the words "not significant enough". It was a direct quote. I assume you were talking about LSH's significance to the overall story and its endgame. I didn't introduce the term "significance" into the debate. That was you. All I wanted to point out is that "significance" is an unreliable category, because there are a lot of less important storylines that barely made any impact at all, but we still don't wanna miss them, because we as fans care about the journey. LSH is arguably "more significant" than other storylines. And yet, LSH was cut, but other things were in. So significance doesn't seem to be D&D's primary reasoning for not having LSH, nor should it be. I assume it was just personal preference. I think they just weren't interested in having another resurrection. I disagree with them here, obviously, but it is what it is. By the way, I know that you care about the journey. I was not suggesting otherwise. That's why I didn't quote nor tag you. I was merely pointing out that "significance" is a tricky category and that it implies things that I know no one here believes in and that therefore it is not the right argument to bring forward in this debate. This is all IMHO obviously. As much as I hate to get in the middle of others' debates, and as much as I am sure that Envie can defend herself quite well, I really think you are mischaracterizing the "significance" of the term "significance" in this context. What I understood Envie to mean is that lack of significance allows D&D to make the decision to cut out LS (not requires the cut). So the viewers can be fairly certain that with LS cut out of the show, LS must not be "significant enough" to require keeping LS on the show -- so D&D are free to cut LS if they want. That proposition does NOT mean that all characters who are not significant will be cut -- just that they CAN be cut. D&D are constrained to keep in characters that are significant to the endgame, so by cutting LS, the viewers can conclude that LS is not significant to the endgame. But characters that are not cut might or might not be significant -- some will be and some won't be. But now we know that LS won't be. That does not mean the D&D had to cut LS or that every character not cut must be more important than LS -- just that in the process of deciding what to cut, LS was open game and for whatever reason got cut.
|
|
Envie
Vhagar
"If I look back I am lost."
@envie
Posts: 5,270
Likes: 8,484
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 1 Time Winner
inherit
4
0
Jul 4, 2019 18:53:32 GMT -5
8,484
Envie
"If I look back I am lost."
5,270
Jun 21, 2016 11:00:44 GMT -5
June 2016
envie
1 Time Winner
|
Post by Envie on Aug 23, 2017 13:58:42 GMT -5
But Envie, you did use the words "not significant enough". It was a direct quote. I assume you were talking about LSH's significance to the overall story and its endgame. I didn't introduce the term "significance" into the debate. That was you. All I wanted to point out is that "significance" is an unreliable category, because there are a lot of less important storylines that barely made any impact at all, but we still don't wanna miss them, because we as fans care about the journey. Ok, then I need to clarify what I meant specifically by "not significant enough" then. I used fAegon as my example of something that probably wasn't "significant enough" for them to include because there are some book fans who really think he's little Aegon and was rescued (baby swap) or whatever and therefore has the strongest claim to the throne. Now I never thought that from the books well before the show. But then they cut his story entirely from the show so I felt like that gave me a strong clue that he is in fact an imposter because if he was the real deal, it would have been most definitely "significant enough" to include as he would have most likely affected the endgame in some way. Does that make more sense? I never meant to imply significance has to do only with their role to the endgame as a determining factor but that it does have some impact on why they may have been cut in the first place. And I do agree with you there are plenty of less significant storylines in the show that could have been cut as well so you're right, they decided which ones they liked or didn't like when it came to picking which to include. They also invented storylines that never existed in the book (Roz for example) and plenty of people felt were unnecessary or time wasters so I'm not entirely onboard with all their choices one way or the other. My remark was only meant to state what we're pretty sure of at this point ... Lady Stoneheart probably doesn't do anything big at the end (such as facing off against the Night King or giving her life for one of her daughters etc as I've seen in theories) because that would have likely made a bigger impact on their decision to include her or not. I also think it's fair to guess they chose to put Arya in her role much as they chose to put Sansa into the Ramsay/Bolton story instead. I do think it's highly likely to be LSH who takes out Walder Frey.
|
|
Envie
Vhagar
"If I look back I am lost."
@envie
Posts: 5,270
Likes: 8,484
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 1 Time Winner
inherit
4
0
Jul 4, 2019 18:53:32 GMT -5
8,484
Envie
"If I look back I am lost."
5,270
Jun 21, 2016 11:00:44 GMT -5
June 2016
envie
1 Time Winner
|
Post by Envie on Aug 23, 2017 14:04:30 GMT -5
*Looks into this thread* Don't worry Al, I'm done now! @kairos and I have debated this in the past and yes I know it's a sore spot from previous places we existed. I'm treading carefully and we're talking it out like civilized human beings. We're friends here and we can handle it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:19 GMT -5
Deleted
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:19 GMT -5
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 14:20:48 GMT -5
But Envie , you did use the words "not significant enough". It was a direct quote. I assume you were talking about LSH's significance to the overall story and its endgame. I didn't introduce the term "significance" into the debate. That was you. All I wanted to point out is that "significance" is an unreliable category, because there are a lot of less important storylines that barely made any impact at all, but we still don't wanna miss them, because we as fans care about the journey. LSH is arguably "more significant" than other storylines. And yet, LSH was cut, but other things were in. So significance doesn't seem to be D&D's primary reasoning for not having LSH, nor should it be. I assume it was just personal preference. I think they just weren't interested in having another resurrection. I disagree with them here, obviously, but it is what it is. By the way, I know that you care about the journey. I was not suggesting otherwise. That's why I didn't quote nor tag you. I was merely pointing out that "significance" is a tricky category and that it implies things that I know no one here believes in and that therefore it is not the right argument to bring forward in this debate. This is all IMHO obviously. As much as I hate to get in the middle of others' debates, and as much as I am sure that Envie can defend herself quite well, I really think you are mischaracterizing the "significance" of the term "significance" in this context. What I understood Envie to mean is that lack of significance allows D&D to make the decision to cut out LS (not requires the cut). So the viewers can be fairly certain that with LS cut out of the show, LS must not be "significant enough" to require keeping LS on the show -- so D&D are free to cut LS if they want. That proposition does NOT mean that all characters who are not significant will be cut -- just that they CAN be cut. D&D are constrained to keep in characters that are significant to the endgame, so by cutting LS, the viewers can conclude that LS is not significant to the endgame. But characters that are not cut might or might not be significant -- some will be and some won't be. But now we know that LS won't be. That does not mean the D&D had to cut LS or that every character not cut must be more important than LS -- just that in the process of deciding what to cut, LS was open game and for whatever reason got cut. You are preaching to the choir here, because that's EXACTLY what I was trying to say. I think you misunderstood be a little bit: the point I was trying to make was that significance is not the right category, because D&D have never based their decisions solely on how significant a character is. I was trying to say the same as you. As you said, some less important characters made it into the story and other equally less important characters didn't. So my conclusion was that significance is not the right category. I think they based their decision on personal preference instead. But this is getting into a tedious debate about semantics, so maybe we should stir it into a different direction. And Envie, I read your post and thanks for the clarification. I wanted to quote you and react to it, but I'm on a train with low signal and battery and my phone is gonna die any second, so I quickly wrote this message here.
|
|
inherit
65
0
May 21, 2019 16:28:16 GMT -5
80
UnmaskedLurker
78
Jul 12, 2016 7:54:27 GMT -5
July 2016
unmaskedlurker
|
Post by UnmaskedLurker on Aug 23, 2017 14:40:44 GMT -5
As much as I hate to get in the middle of others' debates, and as much as I am sure that Envie can defend herself quite well, I really think you are mischaracterizing the "significance" of the term "significance" in this context. What I understood Envie to mean is that lack of significance allows D&D to make the decision to cut out LS (not requires the cut). So the viewers can be fairly certain that with LS cut out of the show, LS must not be "significant enough" to require keeping LS on the show -- so D&D are free to cut LS if they want. That proposition does NOT mean that all characters who are not significant will be cut -- just that they CAN be cut. D&D are constrained to keep in characters that are significant to the endgame, so by cutting LS, the viewers can conclude that LS is not significant to the endgame. But characters that are not cut might or might not be significant -- some will be and some won't be. But now we know that LS won't be. That does not mean the D&D had to cut LS or that every character not cut must be more important than LS -- just that in the process of deciding what to cut, LS was open game and for whatever reason got cut. You are preaching to the choir here, because that's EXACTLY what I was trying to say. I think you misunderstood be a little bit: the point I was trying to make was that significance is not the right category, because D&D have never based their decisions solely on how significant a character is. I was trying to say the same as you. As you said, some less important characters made it into the story and other equally less important characters didn't. So my conclusion was that significance is not the right category. I think they based their decision on personal preference instead. But this is getting into a tedious debate about semantics, so maybe we should stir it into a different direction. And Envie , I read your post and thanks for the clarification. I wanted to quote you and react to it, but I'm on a train with low signal and battery and my phone is gonna die any second, so I quickly wrote this message here. I think we basically are agreeing on when a character might be cut or not cut BUT (not to belabor this minor issue too much) I think that significance DOES matter. If a character is significant then the character cannot be cut -- so significance matters. I agree that it is not the "sole" factor -- but it is a crucial threshold factor (which is all I thought Envie was stating). That is the point. Significance is a threshold issue that must be met before a character can be considered for cutting. So significance is the right category for the universe of characters that can be considered for cutting. Significance is not the right category for all characters that are cut. In other terms: "cut = not significant" BUT "not cut =/= significant". You came across to me as if you were asserting that Envie was claiming that "not cut = significant" when I think it is clear that she was only stating that "cut = not significant" (which is a completely different logical argument and does not imply the other). But this debate is between the two of you -- and like the Homer gif, I will try to slowly back out of this discussion.
|
|
Envie
Vhagar
"If I look back I am lost."
@envie
Posts: 5,270
Likes: 8,484
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 1 Time Winner
inherit
4
0
Jul 4, 2019 18:53:32 GMT -5
8,484
Envie
"If I look back I am lost."
5,270
Jun 21, 2016 11:00:44 GMT -5
June 2016
envie
1 Time Winner
|
Post by Envie on Aug 23, 2017 14:42:07 GMT -5
Ok here's a great change of topic From Reddit: "I don't give two shits about Wildlings, it's gingers I hate."Doh! https://www.reddit.com/r/gameofthrones/comments/6vju76/everything_i_dont_give_two_shits_about_wildlings/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
29
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:20 GMT -5
Deleted
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:20 GMT -5
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 14:52:36 GMT -5
^ But we know that he doesn't really. Not all gingers anyway:
|
|
Envie
Vhagar
"If I look back I am lost."
@envie
Posts: 5,270
Likes: 8,484
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 1 Time Winner
inherit
4
0
Jul 4, 2019 18:53:32 GMT -5
8,484
Envie
"If I look back I am lost."
5,270
Jun 21, 2016 11:00:44 GMT -5
June 2016
envie
1 Time Winner
|
Post by Envie on Aug 23, 2017 15:10:15 GMT -5
^ But we know that he doesn't really. Not all gingers anyway: Equally awesome callback! I think this is another case of "You've got sad eyes" since Sandor's meanness isn't really who he wants to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
26
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:20 GMT -5
Deleted
0
May 1, 2024 14:21:20 GMT -5
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 16:26:12 GMT -5
But Envie, you did use the words "not significant enough". It was a direct quote. I assume you were talking about LSH's significance to the overall story and its endgame. I didn't introduce the term "significance" into the debate. That was you. All I wanted to point out is that "significance" is an unreliable category, because there are a lot of less important storylines that barely made any impact at all, but we still don't wanna miss them, because we as fans care about the journey. Ok, then I need to clarify what I meant specifically by "not significant enough" then. I used fAegon as my example of something that probably wasn't "significant enough" for them to include because there are some book fans who really think he's little Aegon and was rescued (baby swap) or whatever and therefore has the strongest claim to the throne. Now I never thought that from the books well before the show. But then they cut his story entirely from the show so I felt like that gave me a strong clue that he is in fact an imposter because if he was the real deal, it would have been most definitely "significant enough" to include as he would have most likely affected the endgame in some way. Does that make more sense? I never meant to imply significance has to do only with their role to the endgame as a determining factor but that it does have some impact on why they may have been cut in the first place. And I do agree with you there are plenty of less significant storylines in the show that could have been cut as well so you're right, they decided which ones they liked or didn't like when it came to picking which to include. They also invented storylines that never existed in the book (Roz for example) and plenty of people felt were unnecessary or time wasters so I'm not entirely onboard with all their choices one way or the other. My remark was only meant to state what we're pretty sure of at this point ... Lady Stoneheart probably doesn't do anything big at the end (such as facing off against the Night King or giving her life for one of her daughters etc as I've seen in theories) because that would have likely made a bigger impact on their decision to include her or not. I also think it's fair to guess they chose to put Arya in her role much as they chose to put Sansa into the Ramsay/Bolton story instead. I do think it's highly likely to be LSH who takes out Walder Frey. I think the main reason for the lack of Aegon is time. There is no time for him. I always thought the reasoning I bolded made no sense, as IMO whether he is real or not doesn't affect his effects on the plot.
|
|
nikma
Syrax
@nikma
Posts: 2,190
Likes: 1,533
inherit
117
0
Aug 23, 2022 7:27:26 GMT -5
1,533
nikma
2,190
Feb 22, 2017 18:41:08 GMT -5
February 2017
nikma
|
Post by nikma on Aug 23, 2017 16:46:19 GMT -5
I think the reason why they cut Aegon is that his storyline is something new and still undeveloped in the books and D&D find it hard to create a storyline from nothing, especially storyline that's not that popular in the first place.
|
|
breakfest
Moondancer
@breakfest
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 1,943
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 1 Time Winner
inherit
33
0
Apr 25, 2022 9:38:18 GMT -5
1,943
breakfest
1,142
Jun 27, 2016 7:44:40 GMT -5
June 2016
breakfest
1 Time Winner
|
Post by breakfest on Aug 23, 2017 18:36:24 GMT -5
Watched the episode again, liked it much more. Found it better not having the baggage of the previous episode fresh and just taking it in on its own terms. Also, stupid side note, but I prefer watching the show last thing at night instead of first thing in the morning, not sure why.
Still a few things I didn't like here and there but I think my problems are more with the direction of the season as a whole than with the episode, it's genuinely great.
|
|
ladystoneboobs
Syrax
Outlived your faves for nearly 72 eps.
@ladystoneboobs
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 3,273
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 1 Time Winner
inherit
32
0
May 24, 2019 19:21:11 GMT -5
3,273
ladystoneboobs
Outlived your faves for nearly 72 eps.
2,006
Jun 25, 2016 17:54:15 GMT -5
June 2016
ladystoneboobs
1 Time Winner
|
Post by ladystoneboobs on Aug 23, 2017 19:42:54 GMT -5
*Looks into this thread* I think you meant or maybe
|
|
alcasinoroyale
King of Winter
@alcasinoroyale
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 7,621
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#021f7c
5
0
1
Aug 26, 2022 20:49:12 GMT -5
7,621
alcasinoroyale
5,387
Jun 21, 2016 11:59:24 GMT -5
June 2016
alcasinoroyale
4 Time Winner
|
Post by alcasinoroyale on Aug 23, 2017 20:22:25 GMT -5
*Looks into this thread* I think you meant or maybe Yes this would have worked.
|
|
inherit
57
0
Feb 17, 2019 21:03:02 GMT -5
1,038
Lady Sansa's Direwolf
Livin' and Dyin' in 3/4 Time
836
Jul 11, 2016 17:32:57 GMT -5
July 2016
ladysansasdirewolf
|
Post by Lady Sansa's Direwolf on Aug 23, 2017 20:50:29 GMT -5
Wow, glad I've been absent all day.
|
|