Recommended Posts

Dany flying away on Drogon next year. Such an iconic moment in the series and holy #### is it going to be great to visually experience.

 

I think you're going to have to wait another year for that scene.

The EW ones are awful quality at the moment :( I'll have a look around!

 

No worries. Just wondering.

Why?

 

Seems perfect to end season 5 with it.

 

Because I don't think they will get that far. They will try not to catch up - even if it means spending an extra season.

 

This season (S4 - 2014) will be Book 3 and parts of 4. Next (S5 - 2015) will be 4 and parts of 5, the one after that (S6 - 2016) will be the rest of 5. Hopefully GRRM finishes Winds of Winter in 2015, and can get Dream of Spring done much faster. That leaves S7 in 2017 and S8 in 2018, which would give him 3 years to complete A Dream of Spring. 

 

It isn't really about what the show could do, I think they will also go slowly so they don't catch up. It also allows them to tell more of the story as well as give HBO more seasons of the show to air.

Because I don't think they will get that far. They will try not to catch up - even if it means spending an extra season.

 

This season (S4 - 2014) will be Book 3 and parts of 4. Next (S5 - 2015) will be 4 and parts of 5, the one after that (S6 - 2016) will be the rest of 5. Hopefully GRRM finishes Winds of Winter in 2015, and can get Dream of Spring done much faster. That leaves S7 in 2017 and S8 in 2018, which would give him 3 years to complete A Dream of Spring. 

 

It isn't really about what the show could do, I think they will also go slowly so they don't catch up. It also allows them to tell more of the story as well as give HBO more seasons of the show to air.

Nope. The showrunners and producers have mentioned multiple times they won't be stretching the story or taking a break in order to give more time for the books.

And it makes sense, because there's no better way of making sure the show gets canned than

keeping Daenerys ######ing about in Meereen for more than two seasons, especially since the TV audience is already probably getting sick of waiting for her to reach Westeros. Not to mention Bran will soon be carrying Hodor.

Speaking of which, Drogon is roasting Hazzea this year, and they've even cast Hizdahr this year. That's book 5 material already. Bran, Brienne and Theon are all in book 4/5 material as well. So I'm 100% sure she's taking off on Drogon next year.

I'm also fairly certain season 6 will have plenty new material as well. Which means GRRM needs to have the book done by the end of this year, because they start writing season 6 as soon as season 5 wraps up production. And if he doesn't (and he most likely won't) the show will just take over the story. GRRM's problem, not mine.

Right, they are pushing Dany's story because she doesn't do jack ###### for two books. 

Something to keep in mind is that B4 and B5 take place concurrently. So they are going to do the relative chapters of those books together. But I really don't think they will pass the books. People would be ###### and thats not what you want.

Right, they are pushing Dany's story because she doesn't do jack #### for two books. 

Something to keep in mind is that B4 and B5 take place concurrently. So they are going to do the relative chapters of those books together. But I really don't think they will pass the books. People would be ###### and thats not what you want.

Who's going to be ######? The book readers are a relative minority in the overall audience of the show, and they already tend to bitch about every detail that's different from the books as it is, and it hasn't hurt the show at all. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer the books first, but at this stage, I'm happy with anything that continues the story. In fact, I'm thrilled because I'm fairly certain the show could answer one semi-important character's fate this year.

The ball's in GRRM's court. The show doesn't lose anything if he doesn't pick the pace up, but GRRM and his book publisher have a lot more to risk, because let's face it, a lot of people are going to give up on the books once they pretty much become novelizations of a TV-show.

Who's going to be ######? The book readers are a relative minority in the overall audience of the show, and they already tend to bitch about every detail that's different from the books as it is, and it hasn't hurt the show at all. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer the books first, but at this stage, I'm happy with anything that continues the story. In fact, I'm thrilled because I'm fairly certain the show could answer one semi-important character's fate this year.

The ball's in GRRM's court. The show doesn't lose anything if he doesn't pick the pace up, but GRRM and his book publisher have a lot more to risk, because let's face it, a lot of people are going to give up on the books once they pretty much become novelizations of a TV-show.

 

Thats not true. They had sold 24 million copies of the books as of June 2013, so even if you divide that by 5 you get 4.8m per book, which, at the very worst, is basically in line with the per-episode live viewings. Even if you double that number for pirating/HBO GO/etc, the book readers are still 50% of the audience.

 

They can say all they want that they will pass him if they have to. I won't believe it until it happens.

I'm still more concerned about him dying before he finishes than anything else.

Thats not true. They had sold 24 million copies of the books as of June 2013, so even if you divide that by 5 you get 4.8m per book, which, at the very worst, is basically in line with the per-episode live viewings. Even if you double that number for pirating/HBO GO/etc, the book readers are still 50% of the audience.

 

They can say all they want that they will pass him if they have to. I won't believe it until it happens.

I'm still more concerned about him dying before he finishes than anything else.

First, I think the numbers are way more in favor of TV audiences, because the ratio of book readers to show watchers at least from what I can tell in my surroundings is ridiculously in favor of show watchers. Second thing, how many of the book readers would actually care if the show took over the story? Most new book readers picked up the books because they were impatient to wait for the show to tell the story, and you mean to tell me those people will suddenly stop watching the show to stay loyal to the books? No way.

But I guess for at least a year we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe the majority of books is done and they're just being strategic about building hype, but I'm not optimistic about that. And even if he somehow manages to release TWOW in time, the chances of the last book getting out before the show is now practically nill.

Season 4, Episode 1: Two Swords.

Running time: 58 minutes

Season 4, Episode 2: The Lion and the Rose.

Running time: 52 minutes

Season 4, Episode 3: Breaker of Chains.

Running time: 56 minutes

Season 4, Episode 4: Oathkeeper.

Running time: 54 minutes

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!