Unable to load image
Reported by:
  • kaamrev : pin carp pin
  • HailVictory1776 : Please close this thread and remove all replies to the h/chudrama so actual good posters can discuss

GRRM takes a :crap: on HOTD, openly criticizes season 2 changes and spoils season 3 a 4 changes to come :marseygeorgerrmartin:

https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2024/09/04/beware-the-butterflies/

!bookworms !kino ASOIAFcels among you

In my book, Aegon and Helaena have three children, not two. The twins, Jaehaerys and Jaehaera, are six years old. They have a younger brother, Maelor, who is two. When Blood and Cheese break in on Helaena and the kids, they tell her they are debt collectors come to exact revenge for the death of Prince Lucerys: a son for a son. As Helaena has two sons, however, they demand that she choose which one should die. She resists and offers her own life instead, but the killers insist it has to be a son. If she does not name one, they will kill all three of the children. To save the life of the twins, Helaena names Maelor. But Blood kills the older boy, Jaehaerys, instead, while Cheese tells little Maelor that his mother wanted him dead. (Whether the boy is old enough to understand that is not at all certain).

First he criticizes the Blood & Cheese scene and the lack of Maelor.

When Ryan Condal first told me what he meant to do, ages ago (back in 2022, might be) I argued against it, for all these reasons. I did not argue long, or with much heat, however. The change weakened the sequence, I felt, but only a bit. And Ryan had what seemed to be practical reasons for it; they did not want to deal with casting another child, especially a two-year old toddler. Kids that young will inevitably slow down production, and there would be budget implications. Budget was already an issue on HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, it made sense to save money wherever we could. Moreover, Ryan assured me that we were not losing Prince Maelor, simply postponing him. Queen Helaena could still give birth to him in season three, presumably after getting with child late in season two. That made sense to me, so I withdrew my objections and acquiesced to the change.

Lmao, they're not gonna include him

Most of you know about the Butterfly Effect, I assume.

Yes, there was a movie with that title a few years back. It's a familiar concept in chaos theory as well. But most science fiction fans were first exposed to the idea in Ray Bradbury's classic time travel story, "A Sound of Thunder," wherein a time traveler from the present panics and crushes a butterfly while hunting a T-Rex. When he returns to his own time, he discovers that the world has changed in huge and frightening ways. One dead butterfly has rewritten history. The lesson being that change begets change, and even small and seemingly insignificant alterations to a timeline — or a story — can have a profound effect on all that follows.

More over

The butterflies are not done with us yet, however. In the book, when word of Prince Maelor's death and the grisly manner of his passing (pp. 505) reaches the Red Keep, that proves to be the thing that drives Queen Helaena to suicide. She could barely stand to look at Maelor, knowing that she chose him to die in the "Sophie's Choice" scene… and now he is dead in truth, her words having come true. The grief and guilt are too much for her to bear.

In Ryan's outline for season 3, Helaena still kills herself… for no particular reason. There is no fresh horror, no triggering event to overwhelm the fragile young queen.

LMAO, it's even more over on season 3, the Fat Man is calling out the showrunners like he never did on GOT.

And there are larger and more toxic butterflies to come, if HOUSE OF THE DRAGON goes ahead with some of the changes being contemplated for seasons 3 and 4…

:#marseycontemplatesuicide: :#marseytombstone:

https://old.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/1f8vinp/grrms_new_blog_post_on_house_of_the_dragon/

Also, no sight of "The Winds of Winter", but that's expected.

123
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How can you have such bad taste consistently?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Forced to choose between saving a boy or a girl:

When the boy grows up he might become a male feminist like his father or a sociopath like his uncle, I'll choose to save the girl.

Forces to choose between saving an older or a younger boy:

Who cares boring, plus the choice wasn't even honored, so what's the point.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

She wasn't forced to choose, they were going to kill the boy no matter what, it was "son for a son" not "child for a child"

There's literally no choice to be made, no conflict for her at all. Completely removes her agency as a character and any weight to her actions.

You could argue she could've lied, but it's clearly contrived by the writers as the assassins could have just ripped the kid's pants to check, it's a really odd they asked her which was the boy, I imagined it was just not to show them stripping a kid on TV, but now I discovered it was because they bastardized a scene from the book.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the assassins could have just ripped the kid's pants to check

It is a possiblity that they take her at her word, and don't check. I mean they also need to prepare for their escape, they don't have all the time in the world.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah, waiting for her to answer and then a quick exchange between them took just as much as just checking would (again, I assumed this was as choice as not to show or imply them stripping a kid on TV, not an adaptation of a scene in the books)

Also, they took her at her word, killing the boy anyway, meaning that there's no conflict for her to live with the weight of her child feeling betrayed that comes later.

It's just a worse version of the scene, they should have done something else entirely imo.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

there's no conflict for her to live with the weight of her child feeling betrayed that comes later

While that's a good story device, I don't think it's neccesary in this case.

The real reason she choose to save the girl, is because she thought she could save her easier later in her life as well. The boy was essentially the heir of King Aegon, and so it would've been more of a struggle keeping him alive in that future where he survives and since the girl wouldn't be the heir according to the succesion the Greens went with she could save her easier.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

She didn't choose to save the girl, this wasn't an option, the girl wasn't a target

They didn't tell her "which one do you want dead?" and she made a Sophie's choice, they told her "which one is the boy?" and she told the truth

Yeah, she could've lied in an attempt to save the boy, but she didn't, and they could've just a well thought she was bluffing them and killed the girl (in fact, this WOULD be interesting)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"which one is the boy?"

That's what they asked, but since she knew they were gonna kill the one she says is the boy, she had to consider which one she will rather sacrifice to save the other.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Darn I went from agreeing with you to realizing you're r-slurred lol.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Except she didn't knew if they would trust her or not.

They could've believe she was lying

She wasn't given a choice on who to save, she was given a choice to be honest or not (and with no way to know if they would believe her)

It completely changes the scene, I don't believe you can't see that, I think you are just pushing my buttons

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

r u r-slurred

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Girls have inherently more value than boys, and I'll die on this hill.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

BASED :marseygigachad:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseypr#ojection:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Gypsies have more inherent value then Hungarians

:marsey57:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thos but unionically

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This explains so much

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yo, Ya comment got automatically removed cuz ya forgot ta include Palestinian lives matter. Don't worry, we gotchu! We ain't gonna letcha post or comment nuttin' that don't express ya love and acceptance towards minorities. Feel free ta resubmit ya comment with Palestinian lives matter included. This is an automated message; if ya need help, ya can message us here.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.