Child burning is just so over the line, especially when it happens to the nicest and most sympathetic child in the series. If they had burned that little pussy Tommen or something then it wouldn't have been as bad. Doing it to Shireen is just pretty fucking indefensible.
Very true but I think they wanted to show just how far Stannis is willing to go, he was becoming to much of a fan favorite when in truth he is a badass just not a good one. We're talking about a guy who receives guidance from a red witch most people in westeros thought he was odd so this story arc is within reason. Stannis is a sociopath with psychopathic tendencies in the way he rules he was portrayed that way in the books and now even more so in the show.
Fuck Stannis and everyone who was always Stannis the Mannis and so condescending to those that didn't like him. The guy has ever been a jack ass and now this just shows it even more to a whole new level.
If they are revisiting that scene then some one is playing the part of a pedophile who gets killed by Mercy.
I put it that way because that is essentially way the many in the Stannis the Mannis crowd have acted over the years.
Abraham was willing to kill Isaac. If you're a Heeb or a Christian, you're OK with this kind of barbaric shit.
He was willing to... He didn't burn him alive in front of an army and his mother. God did not demand that he go through with the sacrifice... Stupid analogy.
God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham bound his child on the altar and was ready to go through with the deed when God said, no, you don't really have to. But the point stands that Abraham would have gone through with it because he thought his Imaginary Friend wanted him to do it. Stannis is no more or less loathsome than the founder of Judeo-Christianity. consistency
Angry Atheist Not going to argue because it's not the place for a religious debate, but i thought of the comparison earlier tonight after I watched and came to the conclusion that it's too far out there even when compared to the way far out there Old Testament. A key difference being that, IIRC, Isaac did not resist (being equally devoted to God. Shereen, on the other hand, was sacrificed against her will and goes out screaming in terror and agony.
Imaginary Friend superstitious bullshit apologist See, two can engage in name-calling. Whee! It's morally equivalent. Both characters were willing to kill their children because they thought their god wanted it. Only one went through with it, but the intent was there for the other. I'm making the point that anybody who subscribes to Judeo-Christian dogma has no standing to damn Stannis for his actions, unless they simultaneously damn Abraham for his. Edit: I've read your addendum. That makes killing your child OK? Count yourself among the barbarians.
well, yea, I get how they're going to have Arya kill him but there's a million ways she can get close and poison him without needing to make an evil character just hilariously movie evil and none of them involve pedophilia. when it does will you hit me up with more book quotes or what?
very possible. they're definitely making that the focal point of her character this season, about whether she can put revenge to the side if she truly wants to be a FM.
Can we not? I don't want to have to go through 12 pages of religious debate just to enjoy additional conversation about Mel's perfect nipples. I mean, they're worth it, but I'd rather not.
if Stannis truly believes he is Azor Ahai reborn I can see how he was led to believe Shireen was his Nissa Nissa. doesn't make it any less horrible though.
GRRM ok'd the Stannis decision. It falls in line with everything else he's done. Think it just cements the fact that he will get got soon.
Not like it matters, but a barrel roll is side to side. He did a forward roll. Of course, it doesn't make it any less ludicrous to expose you back to someone with a spear. Awful.
As bad as it was to watch, if Shireen burning is part of the story then so be it. If they made that up then fuck that
Not sure about the crossover between GOT and wrestling fans, but this comment I saw elsewhere about the episode made me chuckle. Ramsay goes over, Stannis turns heel, Harpy run ins... Shireen on a pole.. Vince Russo wrote this.
This is the type of post that should be spoiler'd in this thread. Not all of us are choosing to read the sample chapters before the book's release. (Or maybe I'm the only one...)
There is just a slight difference in killing your brother who is in open war against you, and burning your innocent daughter at the stake because some witch told you it'll magically help you get out of your current predicament.
IMO, the better analogy would be Agamemnon's sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia to secure winds which would allow him to sail his army against Troy. Although she thought she was being led to the altar for her wedding, and only realized at the last minute she was to be sacrificed.
Are people really that upset Shireen died? Sacrificing Shireen has been hinted at for a LONG time, just the capacity was unknown. She's a secondary character that needed to get got, simple. Her actress did a very good job though, those screams were mortifying.
I don't think it's the fact that Shireen was sacrificed. I think we were disappointed (nay, mortified) that it was Stannis' decision in the end.
Still don't think Jon is getting stabbed next week because of the filming issues people talked about. I suppose it could still happen, but generally episode 10 is a bridge to the next season rather than the big climax.
don't GRRM writing it makes it any less horrible. all that said - this is fiction and it's not like I'm going to stop watching like the idiots who were pissed about the rape. it's just an extremely unpleasant plot point.
I hear you. It reminded me of how AA had to stab his wife with his sword to make Lightbringer. He had to sacrifice the one he loved the most because all of his previous attempts had failed. And seeing how Stannis's story could still possibly be paralleling the Night's King story, it didn't surprise me.
I said this earlier and I'm not sure anyone replied, but I don't think Melisandre and Stannis would consider Theon of "king's blood" since they've never recognized any of the other candidates as anything but "usurpers."
that wasn't the first time Balon crowned himself. also, the Greyjoys trace their lineage back to the Grey King in the Age of Heroes and there were many Greyjoy Kings of the Iron Isles over the years.
Some of us, me, think the writers/show runners just kinda suck and it was a lazy episode. David Benioff for example probably has more writing experience than most. Especially considering his partner. City of thieves, his novel, I generally enjoyed. Some of his movies have been alright to terrible.
I agree with some of the thoughts that have been discussed in this thread about Stannis' characterization. It definitely varies between the books and the show. Book Stannis is an incredibly hard disciplinarian, who has a very black and white (but fair) sense of right and wrong. Violation of the law is punished with the harshest possible sentence (cut off the hand of the thief, etc). He kind of reminds me of Hammurabi. Show Stannis, as others have pointed out, may have started out the same way as Book Stannis, but in this recent season, he's descended into religious zealotry as his strategic position has become more and more dire. This may very well be what GRRM has planned for him in the books, but the point is, we just don't know because we haven't gotten to this point in the novels.
humans "riding" mythical creatures will never look good. It wouldn't look natural to us even if it were real. I thought they did an ok job with that, it could have been much worse.
That's why you don't go with a close-up shot in that situation in the first place. My point isn't that the shot should have looked better (though even with the HBO budget they could have improved it). My point is, you don't go for that shot.