GOTFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH

Wrong. GRRM finished those books already but he made a deal with HBO not to release them until after the show finished. Do your research.

If that true. That even worse.

We already knew LotR was better.
Besides, there are plenty of references to scenes from LotR in the show.
GoT suffered from poor implementation and rushed storytelling, more than anything.

I've kept up with the TV series, but haven't seen the new ones. I'm not even sure what the controversy is, but I get the sense that people are pissed off.

I'm not sure it's fair to measure it against Tolkien. Tolkien is high fantasy. No one has done a true high fantasy show afaik. GRRM might be more akin to Robert E Howard (Conan), who had a similar down to earth fantasy setting. But even in that case, Howard eclipses anyone else who comes near that territory. Not just his stories, but that first Arnold movie is enough to hold it's own against the Tolkien films. Maybe even better.

Attached: 1558375071579.jpg (645x729, 123.77K)

Yup; and yes, the first Conan movie is a great movie, even with its bizarre pacing: gave you a sense of the huge and cruel yet wonderful world that Conan lives in.

I think that's wishful thinking from the fans. It's well known that Martin increasingly struggled with producing finished products while the series quality declined at the same time, and that was before the HBO series.

Like,

The gaps between the books go 2, 2, 5, 6, 8+, ?.

Don't forget that composer Basil Poledouris was Orthodox and used that musical influence from Orthodox choirs in the soundtrack for Conan the Barbarian. Kinda makes the music have a special Christian zing for all those that love the soundtrack but are edgy atheists.

He's been waiting for the show to end before publishing his last two books. Pretty smart move considering the show is nothing like the books.

High fantasy is defined as fiction set within a fantasy world. Low fantasy is defined as fiction set within the real world but with added fantasy elements. GOT is by definition high fantasy and is directly comparable with LOTR, especially since Gurm himself has made many such comparisons.

That's not high fantasy exactly. It's much more specific. It's a whole genre where it usually centers on an unlikely hero who bans with a team of adventurers against a Big Bad/Dark Lord hellbent on conquering the entire world (rather than taking place in some smaller domain). And usually that Dark Lord is unstoppable, except for some singular weakness. Much of the story is about uncovering what that weakness may be (but in the original high fantasy of Tolkien, they knew the weakness was the One Ring.. so the tale revolves around the trials of even getting near Sauron).

I hate to break it down like that, since it's usually fun stuff, but that's kind of it. Other high fantasy switched the "Hobbit" out as the unlikely hero and sometimes replaced it with an orphan or some child or a dork with a hidden skill (borrowing more from the Arthurian idea). While villains like Sauron are a staple - usually unsympathetic personifications of evil who are easy to hate. And it ultimately traces back to Tolkien's Christian views on Satan.

You can have a lot of the fantastical elements in other stories, but if you don't have these, it's not quite high fantasy. It's ultimately idealistic and with clear Good vs Evil. GRRM plays around with it's elements somewhat, but it isn't as innocent. He has the unlikely heroes of the "bastard", the "midget", the "helpless girl", the "ugly mannish woman", the "eunuch", the "fatty", etc.. But he doesn't push them forth as innocents. They're not as idealized. He uses them more because he just wants to prop up freaks for it's own sake. He even takes the idealized Prince Charming and turns him into a onehanded incestuous freak too. He creates sympathy not through innocence, but how much you feel sorry for these people (in Jaime's case, he starts off making people hate him.. then eventually punishes him and everyone sees his human side). While his Winter King seems like a Dark Lord at first, he's actually a victim himself and was turned that way by those green "children" in the last Winter war. And Circe Lannister is sympathetic at times too. And let's not forget his celebration of dragons. He embraces the newer trend of making them lovable creatures, when this would be unthinkable to Tolkien. Like the Dark Lord, dragons were always Satan-like in his fantasy.

I could go on about Conan being the complete opposite of Tolkien though, but I should cut it short. I would just point out that he's more the originator of the anti-hero. He made Conan specifically to promote more Ubermencsh ideals, and commentate on Primitive humanity vs Civilization, with lots of gray morality, rather than the old world ideals of Tolkien.

Mockery aside, Gondor was a medieval nation so peasants probably offered grain or butter to a local lord in exchange for protection. I can imagine there would be merchant tarries as well. It's a decent question regarding Middle Earth lore, but Martin was probably asking in bad faith.

Attached: 1397154258084.png (1162x850, 91.36K)

You're on to much more than you may think (or maybe you do think it). It's obvious that the Lord was the protector and offered the danger of risking his life and jumping into war for others, if peasants only offered material goods. Martin certainly knows this. But he's trying to rewrite what a hero is.

Like I said above, he likes to prop up freaks for their own sake. Not brave men who risked their lives and often paid a high cost for it. Martin may be an old fart, but he's still part of the current SJW culture that hates typical male responsibility and heroism (which is no fantasy and actually based in reality). He makes it very clear by cutting off Ned Stark's head almost right away. And if people didn't get the message, he kills Rob too. He then villainizes others (Jaime and his dad and Stannis) or makes them incredibly foolish (the older Baratheon, the Dothraki who gets done in by a witch, or the Spaniard dude who got his head caved in). I haven't seen the last season, but maybe Dario Naharis and Jon Stark qualify.. but there's no telling what GRRM will do to the typical male hero. As you can see, there's a lot of subliminal messaging about knocking them all down.. so I half expect it for those last two as well.

No it sucked because there were 40,000 characters. Those books are garbo.

Plus all the kind of gruesome, lewd or graphic details which seem to add nothing to the narration or to deepen a character or his/her motives, from what little I read of his books. I’m also honestly a bit biased, of course…

As if the garbage had any chance of beating Tolkien from the start. I admit that in my blue pill degenerate years I watched the show. But thinking it through it was garbage from the start. The sex, violence and incest, negation of epic in the very first season.
But now Soy of thrones fans are like "wew wew nobody could have predicted this".
Look at who wrote the book. Look at who produces the show at the HBO. Surely a cohencidence. The whole show is pleb-tier waste of time with subversive material fit in there.
Absolutely disgusting

What's the self-insert character?

Attached: a9w331ea75yz.jpg (960x512, 47.8K)

Also the prose is the most dry thing I've ever read. I made it halfway through the first book and it read like an operation manual.

It's when a writer puts himself in a story as a character. It's not bad on its own, but some writers tend to make them either Mary Sues or Gary Stus. On the other hand, there's a pathetic attempt of "heroic depreciation" that ends up being obnoxious on different end of the spectrum

I'm aware, I'm asking which character it is.

I think it's Samwell Tarly. Only read the books, never seen the show.

I think they were asking which character he intended this way. I'm curious too. I figured it'd be Sam since GRRM is also morbidly obese. But I've heard that Tyrion (the dwarf) is his favorite character. Either way, as I pointed out earlier, he likes to prop up freaks and deconstructs masculinity. There's resentment against men through the whole series. It's probably political, but also personal, since he himself is a freak.

On that note, I don't think he just deconstructs actual male characters. He pisses on all of their values and skills too, and creates situations where they look evil or stupid. Like "Honor" is mocked and what kills Ned, and makes Stannis unlikable. While the greatest swordfighter in the land is a faggot.

I don't know if it's all intentional, but it really seems subversive. Perfect show for our times, I guess.

Attached: 0b5cc5fa68f14882b5f2b7280f567dda165f88e5f63559488dc96dae41d44fba.jpeg (465x448, 39.01K)

To be honest, I've never actually read Tolkien, but I'd like to. I think the order is Hobbit>Fellowship>Two Towers>Return of the King but where do Simillarion and all the other extra books fit in? Should I read those too?

Are there any other solid, really well written fiction with strong Christian themes?

The Narnia series by C.S. Lewis.

You got the chronological order of the books right, hobbit is a prequel of sorts to the Lord of the Rings trilogy (but it's removed by a couple decades, if I remember right, so you don't have to read it first unless you want to). I've never read the silmarillion (yet) but from what I've heard it's a completely separate book that sort of explains a lot of the background and setting of the others with its own storyline. I'd highly recommend reading LOTR, it's my favorite book series behind the Bible. The movies are really good too, but the Hobbit movie isn't too great if you've read the book first and are a stickler for your movie adaptations following the books.

This may sound weird, but are any of Tolkien's children (or their children) planning to carry on his work or create their own fantasy universe that sorta indirectly expands on the Lord of the Rings universe. I know several have tried to expand on the lore, like in games like Shadow of Mordor, but I hear more die-hard fans say how it took a lot of liberties & that likely no one will probably stand to truly carry on his work other than the very children the stories were initially intended for.

The Hobbit came out in 37 and the LOTR trilogy (meant to be one book) came out 54-55. The Hobbit you'll find is the one that was edited to fit more into LOTR after LOTR came out. The Silmarillion is more like the creation myth for the LOTR world and is not required. I read The Hobbit first personally, but it was because I was more the age range.

Pic related.

Hobbit is indeed the first book. Then things get a little complicated with LotR and Silmarillion. Tolkien intended that LotR and Silmarillion to be companion pieces. The Silmarillion details the creation of the world, its deities and tales of histories of elves and men up until the start of the Third Age. Hobbit and LotR detail the Third Age and its end. LotR and Silmarillion tell the tales of the Jewels and the Rings.

But to make it simple, read Hobbit and then LotR. If you want more, then read the Silmarillion.

Not to my knowledge. They have finally sold the rights off which is why we're going to be getting some awful Amazon TV show soon. Christopher spent many years going through his father's notes, drafts and papers to piece together an almost complete Silmarillion. Many writers have tried to match Tolkien or even surpass him and they all fail. The man had an immense amount of knowledge of myth and epic from our ancestors, he studied language and created an entirely new set of words and phrases for Middle-Earth, he saw the horrors of war and all of this was the perfect recipe for creating the most celebrated fantasy work of the last century, perhaps even of all time.

Attached: Bread Pill Reading.png (640x1000, 545.57K)

I grew up with The Hobbit so it's very dear to my heart, but I admit that the trilogy is far better. I don't like the movies for any of them as it is too over dramatic and focuses more on Aragorn and Gandalf than on the hobbits. You really don't need to read The Hobbit or The Silmarillion (or The Children of Dúrin) to enjoy the Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion is very dense, and I've never read The Children of Dúrin, which was a rough draft that was finished by Christopher Tolkien (the son for whom the Hobbit was written for and who later aided his father in writing the Trilogy). Read those four, and if you want more you can try The Silmarillion or The Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

Christopher Tolkien expanded with Children of Dúrin and Silmarillion. As for Shadow of Mordor, it's just garbage that should be disregarded entirely. It actively diminishes the themes and style of the setting, ruining anything enjoyable about it and replacing it with mediocre writing. Then again, I'm one of the few fans who doesn't enjoy the movies in any form or way it seems, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Sometimes it's just better to let a story end. Its fitting, after all. There is an end to the stories told in the Sagas, to Beowulf, to the Kalevala, why not Middle Earth? Look what happens when you won't let something end, you get Star Wars, Marvel, DC, etc. At some point the spirit is lost and the novelty runs thin. Just let a fun story end and a new one begin. Those stories will always be there, stronger if you re-visit them often. But never let yourself get caught up in reliving the past or trying to improve something that is done.

You forgot that Tolkien never put fags in his books, it's never even mentioned.

GRRM claims he's Jewish. Also he's way too thin in that picture. Should add in:

Don't take that opinion with a pinch of salt. I like the films but they can never match the books. The Shadow of Mordor games are irredeemable trash though and many fans agree with this. Only the casual ones played them because they don't know the lore and why SoM is bad.

There are no explicitly gay characters in the books either. There is one character, Renly Baratheon, who in the books is very subtly (blink and you'll miss it) implied to be gay. No gay relationships or sex are depicted. In the HBO show they take that and expand it into a full-blown gay sex scene. Most of the worst stuff in the series is added by HBO. The original books have sex scenes but they're not so ever-present as HBO. They have what are called 'sexposition' scenes where someone explains the plot to the idiot viewers while whores walk around in the background naked to keep viewers entertained. Personally I enjoyed the novels, but not the show (I don't watch it any more). Martin is a liberal in his personal life but it doesn't really come across in his books imho.

I also enjoyed the novels but never saw the show out of distaste from what I knew about it. I did have some concerns with it though, which make me hesitate with reading the last two when Martin finishes them.

Obviously there is Melisandre's witchcraft, fortunately from most POVs she is a villain. There are also dragons, which depending on perspective Daenerys is also a villain and the dragons by extension.
There's also the wargs, which is basically possession. With the direwolves it doesn't seem to be voluntary, but Bran intentionally controls Hodor. Hodor's reaction seems to show it as being a vile thing, but Bran secretly does it anyway.
Renly might only be implied (I don't remember if other characters mention his sexuality) but I think Loras Tyrell is a bit more obvious. Martin also states that the 5th book has a homosexual character in it, which most readers think is Griff/Jon Connington.
Tyrion is heterosexual but has molested multiple people. He's a gray character in the books but I know he's popular in the show. At least Gregor Clegane and other rapists are portrayed as undeniably vile. There's probably other implied sex, including by POV characters, that I've missed though.
Another alarming thing is that there are characters named Lucifer. Not major characters, minor knights and nobility mentioned in passing. One of them is in the 4th book I think, another in one of the side stories.

If I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure Oberyn Martell is depicted as bisexual.

It's sad how desperate they are to erase his Catholicism from his legacy.

Tolkien wrote 13 pages of a sequel called "The New Shadow".

Look at this language, the sharp, penetrating analysis of the problem, and find me someone else who thinks in this mode. I wouldn't mind if that person wrote a sequel, but these people are rare and would probably agree with Tolkien that it needn't be written.

Care to explain what happened to someone who doesn't watch the show and doesn't read the books?

Talking about GOT? I didn't watch it either, but the impression I got was that the ending was boring and anti-climatic.

GOT status: Ryan Johnson’d.
Subversion of expectations’d.
What a twist’d.

Long story short since the creators ran out of book material for the show, since George hasn't finished the series yet, they had to come up with endings of their own. Now, one of the creators of the show directed Wolverine: Origins, and we all know how that turned out. In any case, the show ended very anticlimactically, and most, if not all, of the character arcs were ruined, to "subvert" our expectations. An enemy that was hyped up for 7 seasons died in a single episode, and didn't even put up a fight - he was stabbed in the back. So yeah, basically utter trash.

Too bad for you Christ cucks the very first Conan movie was entirely based around Nietzchean will to power and had nothing at all to do with your winnie the pooh nonsense cult.

Well I think is pretty obvious at this point, that GOT was always meant to be a deconstructionist postmodern-tier story not much different from your watchmen's and evangelion's

The ending was always set in stone.
Problem is, the show writers were in talks to get hitched by Disney to direct Star Wars or something, so they wanted to finish it fast, despite HBO and GRRM going "listen, the franchise is a cash show. We will give you multiple seasons, and a ton of money, to flesh it out properly".
But because the writers had exclusive rights, or some other legal bullshit, they were like "nope, we are doing the last season on fast forward".
Or something like that, anyway.

The rough storyline of the last season, if they did it properly and over a longer showtime, could have been a really good way to finish the story.