[Abyss]

Gothos, on 28 June 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

worrywort, on 28 June 2011 - 01:17 AM, said:

Rumor mill: Christopher Eccleston as Stannis

http://blastr.com/20...day-game-of.php

That would be fitting, I think.

Just rumour at present.

I, for one, think Billy Connoly would make an excellent Stannis.
or possibly Greyjoy...



Just saying...

Traveller, on 28 June 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

Werthead, on 28 June 2011 - 01:27 AM, said:

Quote

A petty thing but it's bugging me... does anyone recall whether in the books Dany's three dragons have four legs and wings, or two legs and 'front-limb wings' as they had in the finale?

Two back legs and two front-limb wings in the books, though quite a few illustrations and takes on the heraldry are wrong and show six limbs. It's one of the things that drives GRRM nuts if you get talking to him about it at a convention, as he points out that six-limbed animals are freaking weird and rare in nature. It's usually four and only more than that if you get into insect/arachnid territory.

So yeah, I suspect GRRM really emphasised this. I know that HBO produced a whole load of Targaryen banners with the wrong number of limbs, then someone pointed out the mistake and they junked them and had to make a load more with the correct number on them.

Also, (like me) he thinks that the dragon Vermithrax from 'Dragonslayer' is one of the best movie dragons ever, so I expect he based his own around that. (Great shot in that film as it stalks towards the camera on its folded wings).

It's intrinsically funny to argue that 'nature' requires a fictional creature that breathes fire to have four limbs and not six. Considering that the few flying lizards that do exist in nature have wingflaps between four fully functional legs, dragons would have to be birds, not reptiles, and that's just silly. [/irony].

That said, from a visual standpoint, i've always thought the six limb version is just more visually cool, altho i agree that Vermithrax was awesome.

[McLovin]

QuickTidal, on 28 June 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

Agreed, and Eccelstone's Northern accent is thick....Stannis was raised in the south...

Um, Eccleston is from the north of England, a real place. Stannis is from the south of Westeros, a fictional place. Get a grip.

I actually think Eccleston would nail Stannis. Perfect except that he's not balding.

And, joy of joys, I suddenly have free HBO! I've set my DVR to snag as many eps as I can while I can. Procrastination pays off again!

[Ceda Cicero]

QuickTidal, on 28 June 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

Also....ummm....DROOOOOL



Should I have watched the TUDORS? This chick is HOOOOOTTTTTTT!

She's the only conceivable reason to watch the TUDORS, IMO. Not only because she's smoking (and you get quite a few topless scenes...) but because she really, really delivered in the role as well. She's got chops, that's for sure.

[Traveller]

Abyss, on 28 June 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

It's intrinsically funny to argue that 'nature' requires a fictional creature that breathes fire to have four limbs and not six. Considering that the few flying lizards that do exist in nature have wingflaps between four fully functional legs, dragons would have to be birds, not reptiles, and that's just silly. [/irony].

That said, from a visual standpoint, i've always thought the six limb version is just more visually cool, altho i agree that Vermithrax was awesome.

Yeah, it's an argument that has been rolling around ever since people started drawing dragons. Some people like 'em to sort of make sense somehow biologically; and a four limbed creature with additional wings doesn't really fit into any recognisable catagory. But with dragons, that's sort of the point... it's a dirty great magical/fictional/mythological animal.

Personally I like both - I always thought dragons with no front legs were called Wyverns though, whereas true dragons have four legs plus wings.

On a more thread-related note, did I really just read the line 'you were made to be kissed, often and well' in ASoIaF? Isn't that straight out of Gone with the Wind or something?

This post has been edited by Traveller: 29 June 2011 - 08:26 AM

[Gothos]

Ceda Cicero, on 28 June 2011 - 04:49 PM, said:

(and you get quite a few topless scenes...)

TORRENTS ENGAGE

[Sinisdar Toste]

Traveller, on 29 June 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

Abyss, on 28 June 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

It's intrinsically funny to argue that 'nature' requires a fictional creature that breathes fire to have four limbs and not six. Considering that the few flying lizards that do exist in nature have wingflaps between four fully functional legs, dragons would have to be birds, not reptiles, and that's just silly. [/irony].

That said, from a visual standpoint, i've always thought the six limb version is just more visually cool, altho i agree that Vermithrax was awesome.

Yeah, it's an argument that has been rolling around ever since people started drawing dragons. Some people like 'em to sort of make sense somehow biologically; and a four limbed creature with additional wings doesn't really fit into any recognisable catagory. But with dragons, that's sort of the point... it's a dirty great magical/fictional/mythological animal.

Personally I like both - I always thought dragons with no front legs were called Wyverns though, whereas true dragons have four legs plus wings.

On a more thread-related note, did I really just read the line 'you were made to be kissed, often and well' in ASoIaF? Isn't that straight out of Gone with the Wind or something?

i've always divided dragons in a certain way, and it seems that writers are doing the same thing, maybe unconsciously, maybe not.

anyhow, the division. there are two types of dragons: intelligent, and bestial. the intelligent dragons have forelimbs and wings, the bestial have wings that serve as forelimbs.

think about it. dragonheart: arms and wings. malazan: arms and wings (i'm pretty sure SE has confirmed this, outside and inside the novels.) SoIaF (bestial dragons): wings as forelimbs. Reign of Fire: wings as forelimbs. Skyrim (i'm pretty sure they're not planning on giving their dragons 'intelligence') wings as forelimbs.

if anyone has an example that breaks this pattern, i'd love to hear it.

This post has been edited by Sinisdar Toste: 29 June 2011 - 09:00 PM

[acesn8s]

I need to check my copy of Elric of Melnibone when I get home.

[Abyss]

Sinisdar Toste, on 29 June 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

Traveller, on 29 June 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

Abyss, on 28 June 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

It's intrinsically funny to argue that 'nature' requires a fictional creature that breathes fire to have four limbs and not six. Considering that the few flying lizards that do exist in nature have wingflaps between four fully functional legs, dragons would have to be birds, not reptiles, and that's just silly. [/irony].

That said, from a visual standpoint, i've always thought the six limb version is just more visually cool, altho i agree that Vermithrax was awesome.

Yeah, it's an argument that has been rolling around ever since people started drawing dragons. Some people like 'em to sort of make sense somehow biologically; and a four limbed creature with additional wings doesn't really fit into any recognisable catagory. But with dragons, that's sort of the point... it's a dirty great magical/fictional/mythological animal.

Personally I like both - I always thought dragons with no front legs were called Wyverns though, whereas true dragons have four legs plus wings.

On a more thread-related note, did I really just read the line 'you were made to be kissed, often and well' in ASoIaF? Isn't that straight out of Gone with the Wind or something?

i've always divided dragons in a certain way, and it seems that writers are doing the same thing, maybe unconsciously, maybe not.

anyhow, the division. there are two types of dragons: intelligent, and bestial. the intelligent dragons have forelimbs and wings, the bestial have wings that serve as forelimbs....

There's the 'asian dragon' concept that have no wings at all and fly powered by magic.

In the COUNCIL WARS sf series (free in its entirety at the baen website btw), Weber has dragons that are humans who had themselves genetically changed into a fantasy form, and animal 'wyverns' that were grown as racing animals.

Off the top of my head, McCaffery, Weis/Hickman, Tolkien, Moorcock, Stackpole, Bakker... all did six limbs. I can't think of a writer other than GRRM went four limbs, but my recall is far from exhaustive.

[Sinisdar Toste]

Abyss, on 30 June 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 29 June 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

Traveller, on 29 June 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

Abyss, on 28 June 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

It's intrinsically funny to argue that 'nature' requires a fictional creature that breathes fire to have four limbs and not six. Considering that the few flying lizards that do exist in nature have wingflaps between four fully functional legs, dragons would have to be birds, not reptiles, and that's just silly. [/irony].

That said, from a visual standpoint, i've always thought the six limb version is just more visually cool, altho i agree that Vermithrax was awesome.

Yeah, it's an argument that has been rolling around ever since people started drawing dragons. Some people like 'em to sort of make sense somehow biologically; and a four limbed creature with additional wings doesn't really fit into any recognisable catagory. But with dragons, that's sort of the point... it's a dirty great magical/fictional/mythological animal.

Personally I like both - I always thought dragons with no front legs were called Wyverns though, whereas true dragons have four legs plus wings.

On a more thread-related note, did I really just read the line 'you were made to be kissed, often and well' in ASoIaF? Isn't that straight out of Gone with the Wind or something?

i've always divided dragons in a certain way, and it seems that writers are doing the same thing, maybe unconsciously, maybe not.

anyhow, the division. there are two types of dragons: intelligent, and bestial. the intelligent dragons have forelimbs and wings, the bestial have wings that serve as forelimbs....

There's the 'asian dragon' concept that have no wings at all and fly powered by magic.

In the COUNCIL WARS sf series (free in its entirety at the baen website btw), Weber has dragons that are humans who had themselves genetically changed into a fantasy form, and animal 'wyverns' that were grown as racing animals.

Off the top of my head, McCaffery, Weis/Hickman, Tolkien, Moorcock, Stackpole, Bakker... all did six limbs. I can't think of a writer other than GRRM went four limbs, but my recall is far from exhaustive.

right, forgot about the chinese dragons. so three... i guess. considering your examples, i've read them all but moorcock and stackpole and of the ones i have read, only McCaffery's dragons weren't of human level intelligence or greater, but they were close.

This post has been edited by Sinisdar Toste: 30 June 2011 - 09:04 PM

[Serenity]

Just got the soundtrack cd - it's rather good

[QuickTidal]

They just cast fan fave Gwendoline Christie as Brienne for season 2!

http://www.dailyblam...enne-tarth-for-

For those wondering if she's neither too ugly or tall and gawky...

here she is with Anna Friel...with decidedly straw looking hair and fugly lipstick...I think this will work well.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 08 July 2011 - 11:00 AM

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 08 July 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

They just cast fan fave Gwendoline Christie as Brienne for season 2!
...

That could work.

It's not like they MUST make Brienne hideously ugly for tv. They can do 'plain' well enough and keep a little shred of sex-appeal considering she is more or less a major character for the rest of the series, assuming the show follows that plot line from the books.

Relatedly i won't be surprised if they don't scar Tyrion hideously at the end of S2.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 08 July 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 July 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

They just cast fan fave Gwendoline Christie as Brienne for season 2!
...

That could work.

It's not like they MUST make Brienne hideously ugly for tv. They can do 'plain' well enough and keep a little shred of sex-appeal considering she is more or less a major character for the rest of the series, assuming the show follows that plot line from the books.

Relatedly i won't be surprised if they don't scar Tyrion hideously at the end of S2.

Turns out she's 6'3"...and a tree of a woman.

Yeah, if you look at other pics of her she's not ugly so much as decidedly plain...which is what I expect them to go for. See below:

[Abyss]

I look forward to her beating Jaime's face in.

[Bauchelain the Evil]

I wonder if,unlike in the book, she'll bite Vargo Hoat's ear off, while he's trying to rape her, onscreen.

This post has been edited by Bauchelain the Evil: 08 July 2011 - 04:41 PM

[acesn8s]

Abyss, on 08 July 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 July 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

They just cast fan fave Gwendoline Christie as Brienne for season 2!
...

That could work.

It's not like they MUST make Brienne hideously ugly for tv. They can do 'plain' well enough and keep a little shred of sex-appeal considering she is more or less a major character for the rest of the series, assuming the show follows that plot line from the books.

Relatedly i won't be surprised if they don't scar Tyrion hideously at the end of S2.

I agree on both counts.

Keep Gwendoline as dirty as possible and and ensure socially awkward scenes for her unless she's fighting and it will work.

Tyrion's nose didn't really change his character in my opinion. It's not like he was trading on his looks before. besides, the makeup/FX would hurt the budget.

[QuickTidal]

acesn8s, on 08 July 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Tyrion's nose didn't really change his character in my opinion. It's not like he was trading on his looks before. besides, the makeup/FX would hurt the budget.

I could see them making it a long gash diagonally across his face and skipping the missing chunk of nose, and that would still get the point across.

Whatever, Peter Dinklage could have an arm growing out of his face and still own the shit out of that role.

[Abyss]

Yep. i recall over on LOST they gave Locke a scar under his eye that remained right through the series, but i can't see them going for the extent of defacement that Tyrion is supposed to have, particularly given how utterly Dinklage is chewing up entire acres of screen every time he appears.

...And i still want a Season 2 poster of Dinklage sitting in the Iron Throne like Ned in the S1 posters, only with his feet not reaching the ground. Make it so.

[amphibian]

The Brazilian jiu-jitsu champ Gabrielle Garcia fits the role of Brienne much, much, much better in a visual sense. But the producers probably never heard of her and aren't willing to take a flyer on how she can act (if she can).

Take a look at her and see if that's not Brienne in your head (Gabi is 6'3" and about 230 lbs of muscle).

[worry]

That's pretty good, but I always picture her way more horsey in the face. Not like SJP, but with big front teeth/possible overbite. Not a "manly" jawline so much as big/buff but still girly ugly.