RosaQuartz

Originally Posted by Frost Warden

AI wasn't particularly thrilled with how they handled the Robb/Jeyne(Talisa) relationship. Robb in the books seems more like his father; his marriage to Jeyne was a honorable choice to what he considered to be his folly. I just alsways pictured him having a moment of weakness in his grief over the "deaths" of Bran and Rickon, and then making the honorable choice. With the show, it just seemed that he threw away his allegiance over his feelings, which seemed out of character. *shrugs* It's a difference, and not a huge one, so it all will end in the right place.

Originally Posted by RemusShepherd

Has Killowog appeared yet in the New 52? How about Mogo?

Originally Posted by Nericus

Latest word is that it is apparently going to be a male character and this character has NOT yet appeared in the New 52

Originally Posted by Lothic

Trying to hand-wave away my premise that DC and Marvel treat these things differently doesn't really make my argument go away. Just because you don't wish to "see" the fundamental difference doesn't mean it's not there.

How do you write a story about a character who could do almost literally anything he wanted, has a hyper-strict moral code that never changes (unless you toss some weird-colored kryptonite at him) and almost literally can't be hurt by anything except the kryptonite? How do you realistically threaten or challenge that guy from a story point of view? As I said before it's not completely impossible.

But by the same token a huge number of cool story ideas that will NEVER apply to that "super" man could easily apply to a "non-powered" expert-assassin archer guy. You could explore countless plotlines anywhere from moral failings to fear of gunshot wounds. The archer guy is so much more "relateable" to the human audience that a writer writing for him has a practically bottomless well of plots ideas to draw upon compared to the super-god guy who can't be hurt and will never have a moral failing. The archer-guy can grow and evolve because what can or can't affect him is not fixed in stone. Characters which by definition can't change are fundamentally harder to write stories for, period.

If it makes it any easier for you I'd be willing to say that every comic book character has a characterization that is either more or less applicable to the real human audience reading their stories regardless if they are DC or Marvel characters. As I implied before Batman already breaks the "rules" as far as that goes. I'm simply making the generalization that you tend to find more characters on one side of that spectrum at DC and characters of the other side of the spectrum at Marvel.

A generalization is just what it implies. One more time I'm not saying that all Marvel stories are good or that all DC stories are bad. I'm simply saying it's ABSOLOUTELY understandable why WB can't get its act together when you are willing to understand the challenges they face compared to the Marvel movie folks. Put bluntly most of DC's characters do not lend themselves to good movies as history and current events plainly prove. Case in point do you really think it's an "accident" there hasn't been a Wonder Woman movie/TV show in 35 years?

Originally Posted by Frost Warden

I thought this as well when re-reading it this month. First reading, the horn was mentioned, but then discarded regarding any interest. It's one of those throwaway lines that Martin likes; what seems inconsequential at first takes on more meaning later.

Originally Posted by Lothic

I simply maintain my premise that in general the basic nature of many DC characters make them more inflexible to the collective human condition most of us relate to. This makes writing "good" stories for these kinds of characters more difficult than many of the more "humanly flawed" Marvel characters. Writing stories about characters that are more like your audience is always easier.

Originally Posted by Lothic

Sure there's always the "Marvel has an actual god as a character" angle.

But look at the main premise behind the Thor movie and why it worked. It worked as a "relatable" story because we were presented a god (Thor) who started out all too human in his faults: he was vain, reckless and overconfident in his abilities. These are failings that all too many of us "normal" humans have. It was only after Thor's lesson in humility did he truly earn his mantle of greatness. This is a classic plot that can directly translate to any one of us.

On the other hand you compare that to Superman, a god who basically starts out as a perfect paragon of truth and justice. He's an ideal that very few if any of us could hope to truly relate to. He's the ultimate Boy Scout that apart from the overused Kryptonite trope is basically omnipotent. Hard to make good stories about a character that basically can't be threatened by anything in most circumstances. The same can be said for Wonder Woman, a warrior princess who embodies strength, compassion and virtue to such a degree that there's very little room for her to maneuver as a character which could evolve through a compelling story.

Originally Posted by Frost Warden

Also, since quite a few of the other visions at the House of the Undying are apparent, there is one that is a little mysterious: the dead man on the boat, with gray lips. I've seen conjecture that this is a Greyjoy; the gray lips and the reference to a drowned/dead person may be correct in this. Any ideas?

Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn

The two Reed kids are probably some of my favorite side characters in the books, and I'm sad to hear that they might not be in the show as much, but I'll have to see. Just finished book 5 last night, and finally was able to look at this thread. I'm been amused by some of the theories being presented here, and have one question based on them.

Originally Posted by Electric-Knight

Very true! Not only the lack of slow motion... but I personally dislike the super high shutterspeed style that's been a tired staple (mostly since the success of Gladiator... blech!).
It was great to see the action in such a "natural" way, yet (no surprise here) you could still make it all out! It just takes good work... seems like people these days skip the good work part and rely on techniques they think (or are taught) are necessary.

Originally Posted by Inazuma

I dunno if I can post the q-word itself, but it is medieval word referring to the lower area of a woman's anatomy. A very old version of the c-word. Leave it to Joss to slip one past the censors.

Originally Posted by Olantern

Yeah, I read the comment as Whedon sneering at Cap, sort of a backhanded way of saying, "Look at what a religious hick this guy is." I don't really approve of treating one's characters that way, but I am not the writer, either.

Originally Posted by Slaunyeh

Has GRRM killed anyone in a cliffhanger? When people die, it's usually very explicit. When people appear to almost die at the end of a chapter (and there's an almost infinite number of examples of this), they are always around later (even if it's just to die explicitly).