Episode 8 just came out, episode 9 is right around the corner. Just a few weeks left til the end of season 2 of Game of Thrones. Are you guys sad or excited?
I really wish it was longer, but I guess there's only so much material to draw from. I'm reading the books right now, very slowly because I want to make them last until the next season starts up next year.
I'm really impressed that HBO is finding so much success with this show. It's quite expensive and it does everything perfectly (in my opinion). It kinda gives me hope that they risk more and go with other shows like Stephen King's the Dark Tower series, which has been tossed around, apparently.
Also, who else loves Tyrion? That dude is awesome.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
I completely heard the topic in her voice, Jyeon Sneeuuugh. It has become a joke between a few of my friends to end every sentence this way regardless of context, Jyeon Sneeuuugh.
Excited more than sad. I don't have HBO so I have to *coughstreamitonlinecough*. I look forward to it every week. I JUST started reading the series. Literally bought GoT six days ago. Typically I prefer to read a book before viewing the adaptation, but in this case I'm thoroughly enjoying Peter Dinklage's delivery in my head... among others.
The costumes and sets and scope of the production are wonderful. In a way I think it's getting me amped up for The Hobbit. Even though details and characters change, I'm glad to see an adaptation that is pretty darn true to the original (as far as I can tell so far) and well-made. Also glad that I'll potentially have a couple of books to read between seasons.
Tyrion makes me giddy.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think I am enjoying the John Snow POV more than anything, because I had a hard time following him in the books. Some of the connections make a lot more sense now. For some reason my mind kept drifting during his tale.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Stephan, I'm curious what connections didn't make sense before, but do now that you've watched the show.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
For one, I was reading book three and couldn't for the life of me remember Gilly's backstory.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The show should be renamed the "Tyrrion is Awesome Show: The End".
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Without giving any spoilers, I am just curious if the permanent loss of limbs or scarring from the books will make the transition for some of our characters.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I really wish it was longer, but I guess there's only so much material to draw from.
Heh.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Without giving any spoilers, I am just curious if the permanent loss of limbs or scarring from the books will make the transition for some of our characters.
They're veeing far enough from the novels at this point that I'd say that anything's possible. I *expect*, though, that what you're referring to here will still happen.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I was suprised that two child characters in the book have not shown up in the series yet, especially since they are fairly important in helping another child character learn more about him/herself.
How's that for a spoiler free statement!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
From what I've been hearing about Season 2 they've abandoned any pretense of trying to stick to the book-minus-necessary-cuts.
Radically changed things, added scenes, etc. Sigh.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I was suprised that two child characters in the book have not shown up in the series yet, especially since they are fairly important in helping another child character learn more about him/herself.
How's that for a spoiler free statement!
Current rumors have it that a significantly older character will take the place of the missing child characters.
Posted by dandy_andi (Member # 12750) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm reading the books right now, very slowly because I want to make them last until the next season starts up next year.
Read very slowly. There are still two books in the series that haven't been written yet. It was 5 and 1/2 years between the publication of 4 and 5. When book 4 was published, Martin said the next book would be out in a year. At this rate, the show will have to completely divert from the books if they hit 7 seasons, because the books won't be written in time to use.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'd heard about that, dandy. I don't know what they expect to do if that happens. Hopefully he stops doing so many side projects (like writing scripts for the show) and focuses on his books. I'd hate for him to die before they're done. This is seriously some of the best fantasy literature I think I've ever read (note: I haven't read a lot of fantasy).
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I really wish it was longer, but I guess there's only so much material to draw from.
Heh.
I demand you explain this!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I was chuckling at the idea that limiting factor for the show's length is the length of the source material.
They've cut out huge amounts of content from the books. Not only that, they've added content and changed a lot, so faithfulness to source material does not seem terribly high on their list of priorities.
The limiting factor on the show's length is almost certainly contractual/budgetary, and nothing else.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Better show > more faithful show.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yes, Aros, I know you've got hopelessly bad taste. That's okay. Everyone's got flaws. I'm sure you have something going for you, like a good sense of humor or a lot of money or something. Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Yes . . . a bad taste in my mouth from the (terrible) second book. Ohhh.....snap!
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Well, certain things change when you convert to film or TV. That's just how it goes. So far, though, from what I've managed to read, they've done a very decent job at it. The characters seem like they are straight out of the book.
I really hope this show lasts a while. As big as the books seem to get (how long was the last one? 1500 pages?), you'd think they could make it go about 10 seasons. Well, that's if he finishes them, of course.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Jeff: To be clear, I was looking forward to the show, and I absolutely agree that due to changes in medium, some thing are going to change. There have been some of these, that I don't object to at all.
There have also been a lot of changes/cuts/additions that have nothing to do with preserving the story in the new medium, though. All of these have been terrible.
Aros provides a nice demonstration of the proof of what I'm saying. A show that accurately preserved the story in the book wherever possible should not appeal to someone who loathed the book, right? And yet it does.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: They're veeing far enough from the novels at this point that I'd say that anything's possible. I *expect*, though, that what you're referring to here will still happen.
Where?! I've just finished Clash of Kings and the series is very much like the novels. There is no significant difference. I like the way they shorten things sometimes, it's really well prepared- like the prostitute Cersei takes. There's one thing though- Jon Snow and his mission - but maybe there'll be more in the next episode... Although so far they made him a traitorous traitor and a douche looooooser in the show.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Dan, just out of curiosity, what kind of things did they change for the worse? I'm interested to know, because nothing stood out as downright bad to me, but that's coming from someone who hasn't read much of the books. I'm only on about chapter 9 of the first book so far
Try to keep the details out if you can. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't think I can do it without details, but I'll try.
Um, the Hound's character is completely eviscerated out of the show. His most interesting scene in the first book (the reading of which is what got Rory McCann the part) is taken from him and given to Petyr Baelish in a completely nonsensical throwaway scene.
They remove a minor seemingly irrelevant character in the 2nd book and fold his role into Bronn. I know why they did it. But this has the unforeseen consequence of deeply and fundamentally changing the scene it happens in, and paints Tyrion as a much more hypocritical and heartless person than he is in the books.
There are more that I can't figure out how to vague up enough, but I can think of two very small ones from the very first episode of Season 1 that I will detail in full (spoiler alert for early chapters of GoT & episode 1 season 1):
Instead of Gared being the survivor from the prologue, they have Will be the survivor. So what, right?
Well, in the book, the fact that Gared was executed as a deserter is noteworthy to Mormont, because Gared was a seasoned ranger who'd been on the wall as long as Mormont himself. Will, by contrast, was a relatively green ranger, so deserting is much more understandable, and easy to hand-wave away as the result of a wildling attack.
The second change is when Jon finds the direwolves. In the book, when he finds Ghost, Theon says they ought to simply kill him, as he's an albino and likely won't survive. Jon coldly replies that Theon is wrong, because Ghost is his.
Jon asserts himself. Jon takes responsibility. Jon doesn't take shit, even from people he perhaps ought to. Jon is his father's son.
In the show, when Jon finds Ghost, Theon says, in essence, "Hah, it's the runt, that one's yours Snow!" It's a put-down. And Jon just sort of stands there and takes it with a dopey look on his face.
Are either of these big changes in isolation? No! But they have consequences, albeit small ones, and there is no reason for them. The book -> film medium change is not the reason. The writers just felt like changing things. It's indicative of the attitude the show's writers take towards the material. And there are countless more like them.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Hm...I'll keep those in mind as I read. I already ran into the Direwolf one. I thought it was strange, too.
According to the guys behind the show, we're probably going to see more big changes like the ones you mentioned. They're apparently wanting to adapt the entire series as a whole, rather than just each individual book. It makes sense, to some degree, because certain characters supposedly don't get adequate time in the books (like Dany), but the show has to adjust because the audience expects these characters to have screen time. Hopefully that doesn't ruin it, but so far I'm still enjoying it more than anything else on television right now.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah I've heard about some of their... "adaptations" to Dany's scenes in season 2.
Sigh.
Well, in any event, I'm glad you're enjoying it! I wish the show all the best. Really. I just wish they didn't fall prey to the common trap that plagues adapters: "Why don't I just improve on the source material a leeeeeetle bit!"
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
It's sort of what's happening with Ender's Game if you think about it. OSC has said that this isn't his movie, it's Gavin Hood's. I'm a little scared of that, but I guess it's true of any adaptation, really.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yep.
Sometimes the adapter really is good enough to improve on the source material (or the source material is bad enough).
But I don't think that's the case for GoT. And probably won't be for EG, either.
Posted by dandy_andi (Member # 12750) on :
I think it's just one of those things you have to be willing to let go of. For hardcore fans of any series it's the little things changes that people inevitably find most annoying, even if those changes make little difference to the story. Changing names "the others" vs. "white walkers" among others etc. There seem to be little reason for the changes so they rub people wrong more than the big stuff that obviously has something to do with the fact that it's a television adaptation. (The theory behind changing the others to the white walkers is that people might associate "the others" with Lost btw).
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I like that they changed and lenghtened Robb's romantic episode. The girl is cute
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Dan, they've displayed Tyrion's kindness and Jon's assertiveness in other ways.
They've got to shorthand some things.
I bet you're annoyed that there's no Jane Westerling?
"It isn't like the book" is not a real criticism.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
I'm happy they are doing new stuff with the material in the show. If it was exactly like the books I wouldn't bother to watch it, because I've already read the books.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Dan, they've displayed Tyrion's kindness and Jon's assertiveness in other ways.
They've got to shorthand some things.
Exactly. At that point in the first episode, they were trying to convey the information that Jon was a bastard.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: They're veeing far enough from the novels at this point that I'd say that anything's possible. I *expect*, though, that what you're referring to here will still happen.
Where?! I've just finished Clash of Kings and the series is very much like the novels. There is no significant difference.
That's interesting; I think that we must be keying in on different things as signicant.
Without making any kind of a judgment about the changes one way or the other:
Off the top of my head, I'd say that the most significant differences include the stolen dragons storyline, the Arya as Tywin's cupbearer subplot, the way that Arya's escape was handled, and the elimination of Reek as a character.
Other differences that represent a fairly stark (heh) departure from the books, but which may not amount to much in the way the story unfolds include the fact that Littlefinger knows Arya's identity and location (well, recent location, anyway), the gentling of Tywin and Cersei's characters, the elimination of the Reed children, the Wildling's capture of John and Qhorin Halfhand, Drogo's killing Mago back in season 1, the apparent elimination of Tyrion's chain, Stannis making Davos the commander of his warfleet, the fact that the Faceless Man doesn't retire his Jaqen H'ghar persona and shift faces, the fact that he doesn't give Arya the iron coin, and the substitution of a Rhoynish noblewoman for Jeyne Westerling.
Fairly subtle changes that are unlikely to have a lot of impact on the story, but which do change the warp and weft of the world include things like making the First Men worshippers of The Seven,changing Stannis' motivation for engaging in sexytimes with Melissandre, and getting rid of Shireen and Edric Stormborn.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
So I haven't watched the show past the first four or five episodes, but now I'm really glad I haven't. I don't hold anything against it - a lot of my friends are into it (that haven't read the book) and I've generally heard it proclaimed as one of the best shows on television. But seeing all of those "minor details" changed would drive me up the wall and lead to endless rantings.
Btw, Jake, now that I think about it, I think the (book) series was first recommended to me on here by you, many moons ago. I don't know if I ever said thanks. Thanks!
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: So I haven't watched the show past the first four or five episodes, but now I'm really glad I haven't. I don't hold anything against it - a lot of my friends are into it (that haven't read the book) and I've generally heard it proclaimed as one of the best shows on television. But seeing all of those "minor details" changed would drive me up the wall and lead to endless rantings.
Were you one of those guys who got mad there were elves at the final battle in The Two Towers?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Dan, they've displayed Tyrion's kindness and Jon's assertiveness in other ways.
They've got to shorthand some things.
The issue with Tyrion isn't about showing his "kindness" through some specific number of nice actions or something.
I don't want to spoil, but the change substantively changes his character in a subtle but important way. It's not that they missed an opportunity to show a facet of him they can show some other time. That facet was contradicted by the event as it happens in the show. There's not really much going back from that, unless they add a scene where he realizes he's made a terrible mistake or something.
I think the subtlety may have been lost on many viewers. To use an obvious example:
If Tyrion, instead of trying to send Tommen away from Cersei, had him tortured to death in the throne room... that would be a substantial change, right? Not one that you can fix by creating some other scene where he is nice to Myrcella, right? That wouldn't be a problem of "shorthand."
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I bet you're annoyed that there's no Jane Westerling?
I'm behind quite a few episodes now, so I haven't seen this yet, but if he's romancing the weird anachronistic lady who went on the anti-war rant, my only annoyance will likely stem from the fact that I wasn't too fond of that character. Changing Jeyne Westerling's character doesn't specifically bother me (though it may, if she becomes more relevant. So, changing her for no good reason seems dumb.)
Anyway, they've given Robb lots more screen time, so having a more detailed, nuanced relationship for him is not specifically objectionable. Changing mediums! I keep separate my "Ugh this isn't precisely like the book!" reflexive responses and my "This is actively worse than the book!" criticisms.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: "It isn't like the book" is not a real criticism.
That's true.
"It's worse than the book" is. Or, really, "It's worse than the book for X, Y, and Z reasons."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Dan, they've displayed Tyrion's kindness and Jon's assertiveness in other ways.
They've got to shorthand some things.
Exactly. At that point in the first episode, they were trying to convey the information that Jon was a bastard.
And that Theon is a douche, presumably. I don't think Theon's comment to Jon demonstrates it any better than Jon's words to Ned did. And the scene in that same episode between Tyrion and Jon does an even better job, for those in the audience who missed it earlier.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
But Jane Westerling is an obvious example of what I'm talking about. The TV series has to shorthand sometimes; the writers might have just decided they could not convincing portray Robb deciding to marry someone from the family of a Lannister bannerman.
Tyrian's ability to do justice was portrayed in his defense of Sansa.
Bronn needs something to do. Tyrian needs to spend time with the head of the goldcloaks. Problem solved.
It's just the practical difficulties of adaptation. Like how in the riot scene, the royal party is walking through the streets of King's Landing, rather than riding horses. That makes no sense in terms of their royal position - why is the King walking and not riding? - Until you realize that filming horses in a crowd would be prohibitively dangerous and expensive.
Yeah, I hated what Peter Jackson did to Faramir too, but I got over it. Adaptations are different beasts.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Some people who've read the books seem to underestimate how hard it is for those who haven't read them to follow the story and the vast number of characters. On screen you have to hammer things home for people to pick them up. There's no going back and re-reading to remind yourself what happened or who's who.
Given the very short seasons, they really couldn't have done much better. The only thing I lament is the way they've ignored the Hound's relationship with Sansa.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: So I haven't watched the show past the first four or five episodes, but now I'm really glad I haven't. I don't hold anything against it - a lot of my friends are into it (that haven't read the book) and I've generally heard it proclaimed as one of the best shows on television. But seeing all of those "minor details" changed would drive me up the wall and lead to endless rantings.
Were you one of those guys who got mad there were elves at the final battle in The Two Towers?
Ooohhh don't get me started.
Seriously though, I have a well-rehearsed and often used rant on that very thing, if you're interested.
ETA: Just to be clear, with AGoT, I'm not necessarily critical of the show. I haven't seen enough of it, and like I said, judging from the reactions I overwhelmingly hear, they are doing something, or a lot of things, right. I personally would have a hard time not being annoyed at changes, but that doesn't affect the quality of the show. That's just my personal opinion. With The Two Towers it's another issue, but yeah.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: But Jane Westerling is an obvious example of what I'm talking about. The TV series has to shorthand sometimes; the writers might have just decided they could not convincing portray Robb deciding to marry someone from the family of a Lannister bannerman.
Interesting. That didn't even occur to me as a possible reason. I doubt most casual viewers would think of that as a major issue either.
I think it's more likely they wanted to start the romance before he was that deep in Lannister territory (and wanted a chance to have someone rail against war in general).
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Tyrian's ability to do justice was portrayed in his defense of Sansa.
Bronn needs something to do. Tyrian needs to spend time with the head of the goldcloaks. Problem solved.
I understand that.
As I said before, I understood their reasons. I almost always understand their reasons, so explaining them isn't much of a refutation of my criticism. I disagree with their reasons.
Warning, spoilers for early episodes in Season 2 ahead.
The change to Tyrion in that scene is bad and it's huge. Subtle, but huge. It's not something that is washed out by him defending a young girl later in the show. He is now the kind of person who would put an immoral, wholly corrupt murderer in charge of the city's police force, because that murderer is (currently) loyal to him.
To say that they "showed he can do justice" elsewhere doesn't change what their rewrite of that scene showed. Do you understand what I mean?
quote:Originally posted by Foust: It's just the practical difficulties of adaptation. Like how in the riot scene, the royal party is walking through the streets of King's Landing, rather than riding horses. That makes no sense in terms of their royal position - why is the King walking and not riding? - Until you realize that filming horses in a crowd would be prohibitively dangerous and expensive.
Yeah, and this is an example that, while it would make me groan and whine "that's not how it was in the books!" it's not actually substantially worse.
There are two very different kinds of criticisms here.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Yeah, I hated what Peter Jackson did to Faramir too, but I got over it. Adaptations are different beasts.
Right. So, that's a great example!
I think that adding the elves to Helm's Deep is sort of an example of a change like removing the horses from the riot. It doesn't really make sense if you're a fan and you understand what's going on, but it's also not a big deal at the end of the day.
The changes to Faramir are an example of the adaptation deeply changing a character for the worse.
The adaptation did this with Aragorn, too, but that's an example where my somewhat low opinion of Tolkien as an author shines through: I think that the changes to Aragorn's character make him more interesting. I think they improved him. I know others, like Lyr, probably deeply disagree with me.
The GoT show makes Faramir level changes almost every episode.
And if you're like Aros, and you think that these huge changes are an improvement over a terrible story, that's fine.
Or, if you think the huge changes are value neutral and keep the story of the same caliber, that's fine too.
But don't tell me they aren't substantial, unnecessary changes. That's an indefensible position.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Some people who've read the books seem to underestimate how hard it is for those who haven't read them to follow the story and the vast number of characters. On screen you have to hammer things home for people to pick them up. There's no going back and re-reading to remind yourself what happened or who's who.
If that was true, why do they add new plotlines, new characters, and new sex scenes?
Do you really think there's no element of trying to "improve" the story, as opposed to just translate it?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Given the very short seasons, they really couldn't have done much better. The only thing I lament is the way they've ignored the Hound's relationship with Sansa.
Yeah the treatment the Hound has gotten is pretty much the reason I stopped watching.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest: why do you care about the Hound?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I find him to be a really fascinating and awesome character.
Almost certainly my favorite of the non-POV characters.
Edit: It occurs to me that this is still pretty vague. I'm not sure how much detail you're looking for, or if you have some reason you don't like him or assumed I wouldn't ... eh, I'll just wait to see if you have a follow-up question.
[ May 25, 2012, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I keep expecting the Hound to do something awesome and redeem himself in the show.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wait for him to be awesome in the book, instead.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just don't see any point to the character, either in the movies or the books. He's one of the more colorful side characters, sure, but I don't understand the fan appeal. It's like all the fan love for Boba Fett, which I never understood, either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Because Boba Fett is just a no-nonsense badass.
The Hound is a badass as well, though he's considerably more complicated.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: From what I've been hearing about Season 2 they've abandoned any pretense of trying to stick to the book-minus-necessary-cuts.
Radically changed things, added scenes, etc. Sigh.
This isn't true. The condensed Arya's and Dany's storys and added a handful of Cersei and other character POV scenes. Just like in first season.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just don't see any point to the character, either in the movies or the books. He's one of the more colorful side characters, sure, but I don't understand the fan appeal. It's like all the fan love for Boba Fett, which I never understood, either.
I'm not sure what you mean by "point" to him.
I don't get the fan love for Boba Fett either, for what it's worth. But that's because Boba Fett doesn't really interact with anyone in an interesting way, doesn't have interesting motivations that we can see, or really do anything interesting at all.
The same can't be said for Sandor. He has numerous interesting interactions with people, and by the end of Feast he has effected events in several POV plotlines in significant ways.
I mean, he could lift out of the story and his roles filled with other characters and events if you really wanted them to be, but that can be said of every non-POV character and most of the POV ones. Doing so would change the story, so, if that's your goal, then... yeah. Have at it, I guess.
I guess it really does just boil down to this: I'm not really sure what you mean when you say you don't see any "point" to his character. Which characters do you see a "point" to? And why? What do you mean by "point," exactly?
[ May 29, 2012, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sandor's character is, as far as I'm concerned, as interesting as Myrcella's.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's weird.
Why?
Sandor certainly does a lot more than Myrcella. His personality is also more complicated, in a way that I find interesting.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Heh, which characters do you like Tom? If you can't find something interesting in the inner conflict and self-loathing of the Hound, who does present enough complexity? (You can't say Tyrion, everyone likes him )
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
New episode aired last night. According to the reviews I've read, it's the best so far. Going to watch it soon Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Now that was a good episode.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, I'm kind of dumbfounded by Tom's take here. The Hound's little arguments with Sansa about "true knighthood" are some of the best passages in the second book.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's like all the fan love for Boba Fett, which I never understood, either.
series was a manufactory of iconic characters, and people like iconic badguys for the iconic goodguys
fett was in right place right time with a stone-cold attitude, cool looking armor, and actually getting away with solo prior to the conclusion of the trilogy. becomes the dark han solo. remains noteworthy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Sandor is the Hound right? He's grown on me, especially with his PTSD moment last episode.
So was the purpose of Tywin stealing a march on Robb meant to get back to King's Landing quickly? Does this mean Robb has like all of the 7 Kingdom's to move around in unopposed?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Was anyone else dissapointed that they removed a "massive chain" of events from the battle?
I was kind of let down. Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I thought the green fire moment with tyrion was great. I wish this show had more episodes. 10 just doesn't seem like enough.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's like all the fan love for Boba Fett, which I never understood, either.
series was a manufactory of iconic characters, and people like iconic badguys for the iconic goodguys
fett was in right place right time with a stone-cold attitude, cool looking armor, and actually getting away with solo prior to the conclusion of the trilogy. becomes the dark han solo. remains noteworthy.
Not to mention he stands alone as the only non-imperial who doesn't take any guff from Vader.
Lando says regarding Han, "That was never a part of our agreement!" and gets "I've altered the terms of our agreement, pray I don't alter them any further."
Boba Fett says regarding Han, "What if he doesn't survive, he's worth a lot to *me*" and gets in effect, "The Empire will reimburse you." Coming from Vader that's down right nuts to hear him say. Clearly Boba Fett has a history that demands that sort of respect. Unfortunately the only history we're given is him holding his fathers severed head against his own. I still can't believe George Lucas managed to make me laugh at such an image.
[ May 30, 2012, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Season Finale has aired, people!
Let the discussions begin! What did you guys think? Better than season 1?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I say just as good. The final scene changes the balance of the books though- the Others aren't that important at this point.
I like it in this show how some things are so very much the same and some are completely different. Some characters are wonderfully played- I hated the book Sansa and she remains just as annoying in the show. Many characters are much more likeable though in the show, like Winterfell's maester. Sometimes I come to a conclusion that the second series was actually a little better than the books itself- for instance: I had a really mixed feeling about Robb getting married, it seems to me, that he married the girl to *SPOILER ALERT* get killed off. TV Robb's relationship is far more complex and it is easier to comprehend that he is willing to reject the Frey girl.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Spoilers for everything . . . . .
I don't think Sansa deserves all the hate she gets, either in book or series. Her storyline is exactly paralleling Arya's.
Arya begins with romantic notions of being a warrior. She starves, is beaten, is blinded. She is coming out the other end as a mature assassin.
Sansa begins with romantic notions of being a lady at court. She is beaten, humiliated, deceived, nearly raped. Her time under Littlefinger is teaching her the game.
I think at the end of Sansa's storyline, she will be a highly accomplished schemer, along the lines of Verys and Littlefinger themselves.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Also, that last scene was awesome. Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Last scene made me think that the three blows thing is psychologically wrong- it should be the other way. One blow for immediate danger, two for danger and three for allies. It is easier to blow just once in case you are under attack. And the people listening are automatically alarmed just after one blow.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I agree about the horn blows.
As for the rest of the episode, I thought it was great! I loved Arya's scenes. Next to Tyrion, she is quickly becoming my favorite character. John Snow is always fantastic, too, but he didn't do quite as much as I was hoping for.
Speaking of Tyrion...poor guy! I felt so bad for him. I really hope he comes out happy in the end.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I guess my question about one of the two permanent wounds for major characters was answered.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I guess my question about one of the two permanent wounds for major characters was answered.
Negative prosthetics are rather difficult, to be fair. And blowing the CG budget for the remaining seasons would severely impede dragon awesome. Or existence, for that matter.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Maybe the other wound will just be fingers: equally debilitating, easier make-up?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
What was the other wound?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: What was the other wound?
The one we saw. Tyrion's wound. Now I have only read through book 3 though, but it played a big part in it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yep, Tyrion's lack of a nose is a pretty significant thing in the books.
But the other wound is even moreso.
Jeff, are you asking about the "other" wound we keep referring to?
Do you want spoilers for Book 3? I would say Season 3 but, well, who knows how that will go.
Posted by Dread Pendragon (Member # 7239) on :
(GENERAL) SPOILER ALERT
I haven't been on this forum in a long time, but when I found myself really wanting to talk to someone about Game of Thrones my first thought was to come here.
I've seen some of the scenes from the HBO show on youtube, but that's all.
In the last couple of months, though, I listened to all of the audio books, which is about 202 hours of listening time! My love/hate feelings toward the novel is pretty intense.
Lengths: Book 1 almost 34 hours Book 2 over 37 hours Book 3 almost 34 hours Book 4 almost 48 hours Book 5 almost 49 hours
Maybe since I immersed myself in that world so intensely in a short amount of time it's given me a different experience than I otherwise would have had.
Similar to OSC, the characters feel very real. You get deeply immersed in a rich, complicated world, and the story is not predictable.
There might be a better way to explain this, but it seems to me that what the GoT world lacks is a meaningful theology.
Yes, religion/belief in god(s) is a core part of the story, as are the actual supernatural goings-on. They explain how some of the events occur, and why many characters do what they do. But since it almost always explains why someone has done something naive stupid or evil.
What, in that world, would be a reason to do something good, especially if it is difficult? If you've read the books, whenever (and I mean WHENEVER) a character has a hope for something good, it won't work out for them. It often isn't the simple opposite that happens ("oh, I hope I live," but then they die). Usually something unexpected happens that takes the story another direction (which is cool,but . . .).
In fact, that's the one way George R.R. Martin's story is completely predictable. When you're reading and a character is hoping something good will happen, rest assured it will not happen. (Well, maybe 10% of the time it does.)
There is constant, intense suffering and so much devastating death among characters Martin brings you to care about that it risks pushing out any reason to hope for good and any reason to engage in moral behavior. If the character you care about doesn't die, there's a very good chance they will get grossly disfigured.
I'm not saying I wish G.R.R. Martin has written a happier book. I'm just saying that, if you were a character in his story, there is little reason to even try and do something good. There is no reason for suffering or effort. I kept hoping that there would be something, even a little, to keep hope or purpose alive as I read on.
*Spoiler Alert* It doesn't. Winter is coming.
In some ways I've liked it. It makes a point about the pointless of the plans of men, the emptiness of ambition, etc. But that's a lot of reading/listening to teach a lesson about how "life is a #%@# then you die."
It reminds me of Dream of the Red Chamber/Story of the Stone in ancient Chinese literature, where it seems that someone found a rich story (probably based on someone's real life) and wrote a chapter at the end that twisted the story into a parable about nothing in the story really mattered because it was all emptiness.
[ August 19, 2012, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Dread Pendragon ]
Posted by Dread Pendragon (Member # 7239) on :
Also, if you've read the books you'll probably appreciate a song someone made for George R.R. Martin to encourage him to write more quickly.
[ August 19, 2012, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Dread Pendragon ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Good things happen for the characters all the time; they just don't have any obvious triumphs. But not even the villains have obvious triumphs; even the death of Ned Stark was acknowledged by every "villain" (except the dummy Joffery) to be a huge disaster.
Some examples of good things happening: Arya meeting that assassin who's name I can't be bothered to google. Or Jon's successful defense of the wall. Or Jamie rescuing Brianne from Harranhal. The list goes on. People think nothing good ever happens because there is no closure.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Good things happen for the characters all the time; they just don't have any obvious triumphs. But not even the villains have obvious triumphs; even the death of Ned Stark was acknowledged by every "villain" (except the dummy Joffery) to be a huge disaster.
Some examples of good things happening: Arya meeting that assassin who's name I can't be bothered to google. Or Jon's successful defense of the wall. Or Jamie rescuing Brianne from Harranhal. The list goes on. People think nothing good ever happens because there is no closure.
Well said.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Good things happen for the characters all the time; they just don't have any obvious triumphs. But not even the villains have obvious triumphs; even the death of Ned Stark was acknowledged by every "villain" (except the dummy Joffery) to be a huge disaster.
Some examples of good things happening: Arya meeting that assassin who's name I can't be bothered to google. Or Jon's successful defense of the wall. Or Jamie rescuing Brianne from Harranhal. The list goes on. People think nothing good ever happens because there is no closure.
Well said.
You would dare support this "Foust" from beyond the Wall?!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jaqen H'ghar...
Posted by Dread Pendragon (Member # 7239) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: People think nothing good ever happens because there is no closure.
Maybe I need to think about this more, but my first reaction is that this misses my point.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think the books lose their impact the further you go because you end up becoming jaded and desensitized to all the horror.
I can remember, reading the first book, being really horrified by Sandor killing the butcher's boy. And the scene where Jory dies really upset me. I empathized really well with Danaerys (I was about her age at the time) and felt a really strong connection to all the characters.
By the end of the 5th book, last year, characters were dying left and right and horrible things abounded, and I couldn't really say I felt anything at all. For better or worse, somewhere between book 3 and book 4, I lost my ability to be emotionally invested in the series. Now it's merely an intellectual fascination. (which is fine, they're still excellent books... but they'll never hold the same place that the Lord of the Rings or Ender Books do, for example, as stories I hold close to my heart)
Posted by Dread Pendragon (Member # 7239) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: People think nothing good ever happens because there is no closure.
I've tried to think about this, because it's true that the lack of closure bothers me. I've tried to imagine certain threads of the story reaching some type of closure to imagine whether it would change my basic experience with the novels.
If some of the threads resolved themselves in ways that allowed for hope, or allowed the purpose a character was pursing to have meaning, then yes, it would change my experience of the book.
But if the story threads were resolved in a way that meant the extensive suffering the characters went through served no purpose, that whatever the characters had hoped for or believed in came to naught, or resulted in their failure and death, then I'd still feel like, in that world, there is little reason to try for anything good or noble.
Wait . . . that IS what happens in that book constantly. Maybe there IS a lot of closure in the books, just not the kind that supports the idea that there are things worth suffering and dying for.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: For better or worse, somewhere between book 3 and book 4, I lost my ability to be emotionally invested in the series.
Thanks Dogbreath, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Combine the long wait between books and the almost unremitting grimness for the characters in which I had an emotional investment and the addition of new characters in which I had no real investment I lost my emotional connection to the series as well. I am still buying the books when they come out but am in no hurry to read them. I hope that when they are all out I can start again to build that connection.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
For those of you that have read all of the books, Martin has posted a chapter of the next book, 'Winds of Winter' on his website.
How do I say this in a non-spoiler way... It is a "Reek" chapter.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pendragon: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Foust: People think nothing good ever happens because there is no closure.
If some of the threads resolved themselves in ways that allowed for hope, or allowed the purpose a character was pursing to have meaning, then yes, it would change my experience of the book.
Not to be a Debby Downer, but real life doesn't have meaning, at least not the sort of meaning you want. There isn't ever going to be closure to the human story that makes the holocaust and sexual slavery and the second season finale of Dexter worth it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That may be why people enjoy fantasy.
Posted by Dread Pendragon (Member # 7239) on :
[/QUOTE]Not to be a Debby Downer, but real life doesn't have meaning, at least not the sort of meaning you want. There isn't ever going to be closure to the human story that makes the holocaust and sexual slavery and the second season finale of Dexter worth it.[/QUOTE]
I've thought about this, but wasn't able to get a definitive pronouncement on it until now. Thank you, now I know!
[ September 05, 2012, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Dread Pendragon ]
Posted by Dread Pendragon (Member # 7239) on :
So I occasionally think about the GOT series and this brief discussion. If there really is no meaning in life, no meaning in suffering, and nothing to hope for (which I think is the case in GOT), there is no reason to do anything.
If you were in that GOT world, what would be worth working for, striving for, and suffering for?
The fact that Martin is such a great writer, and specifically that he creates absolutely amazing characters, just made the above point all the more poignant for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:If you were in that GOT world, what would be worth working for, striving for, and suffering for?
Reread "Ulysses." He says basically what I would say, only way better.
quote: Death closes all; but something ere the end, Some work of noble note, may yet be done, Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods. * It may be that the gulfs will wash us down: It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles, [5] And see the great Achilles, whom we knew. Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
It's part of the human condition. We just keep going. We find new things that are worth working and striving and suffering for.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I will gladly concede any point made by M or Bond. Well played.
So it sounds like Don Quixote is the prototype. There is no actual meaning or purpose, but darned if we aren't going to nobly press on in our noble striving.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
"There was a tale he had read once, long ago, as a small boy: the story of a traveler who had slipped down a cliff, with man-eating tigers above him and a lethal fall below him, who managed to stop his fall halfway down the side of the cliff, holding on for dear life. There was a clump of strawberries beside him, and certain death above him and below. What should he do? went the question.
And the reply was, Eat the strawberries.
The story had never made sense to him as a boy. It did now." -American Gods
So, for a year now I've been thinking about this thread, and the series in general. And I think I've been able to resolve the tension between my love of the books and the pain they cause.
I read A Storm of Swords when I was 16 years old. It was before I had ever really experienced love or romance, but I found myself incredibly moved by the doomed love story between Jon and Ygritte. And I attribute most of that to a single line that has haunted me these past 8 years:
"You're mine," she whispered. "Mine, as I'm yours. And if we die, we die. All men must die, Jon Snow. But first, we'll live.”
This is the line I've whispered under my breath when entering new relationships, and also when going through bad breakups. It's what I've thought about when hitchhiking across Iceland, backpacking through the Paria Canyon, skydiving, fastroping, and adventuring. And it's really, in a couple words, a summary of the Song of Ice and Fire trilogy.
There's so much death and sadness and evil in the world of SoIaF. To the point where sometimes it's hard to even keep going, because how can it make any sense when there is so much badness? What's the point of telling the story of Ned trying to save the Realm if he just gets his head chopped off? Of Robb becoming the King in the North if it just ends with him being betrayed and murdered? Well, because *all* stories end that way, if we're honest. Everyone dies in the end, in some way or another.
The books are also incredibly beautiful - both in the sense of literary achievement, and more importantly in the stories told. Here you have people faced with unfathomable levels of injustice and hardships, who despite all the pain and horror choose to live and love and fight, even if they know they can't win, even if they know death is the only thing waiting for them. They still keep going. And that's something beautiful indeed.
I think the show did a really phenomenal job of juxtaposing the mixture of chaos and beauty that makes up the series' worldview in the third season, especially in this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giIzoOquIt4
I don't know if I'm even making sense with this. Probably not. And I don't know if I'll ever be able to reread ASoIaF. But I feel like I understand it a little better now.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)