Game of Thrones

[J.P.]

Well, talking about action figures...

http://kotaku.com/look-at-this-200-game-of-thrones-action-figure-1785326463

[Boton]

 

And how easy it is to make them cheering at bad things being done by people they root for without thinking too much about it.

 

Yes, and to people they hate. And I say this as someone who cheered when Sherlock shot Magnussen. I fully support killing villains (NOT real people, fictional villains!), but the goal should be to free the world of their presence, not to make them suffer. Sherlock took out Magnussen with one clean shot to the brain. He didn't torture him, didn't so much as scare him. I think Magnussen must have been dead before he even realized what happened. And the scene was about him, about Sherlock, about him reminding the audience (and himself) that he's not a hero, he's a solitary high-functioning sociopath and that enables him to do terrible things, but because he's not a villain either, he uses this ability for the good of others, not his own sadistic pleasure. I cheered because Sherlock was being Sherlock and because I was relieved that Magnussen was gone.

 

But who do they expect to cheer for

a woman who watches her ex-husband being torn apart by his own dogs, whom she let loose on him after he was already half beaten to death and tied to a chair? All that scene did for me was depress me, because yeah, Ramsay may be dead, but by his mistreatment of her, he has made Sansa just as bad as himself and so his legacy lives on. Evil breeds evil and in a Game of Thrones world, there aren't any heroes to break that cycle. Not even the Sherlock type of non-hero.

 

 

I also made the mistake of

seeing Rickon's death scene and man, I am still trying to come up with ways to save that kid.

 

 

I have to just let this series go. It's not good for people like me. I do wish it wasn't quite so popular, I keep hearing about it everywhere and then of course I become curious. Plus my two dearest friends absolutely love it.

 

 

Hey, there's a GoT thread!  I can cause trouble over here, too!   :D

 

OK, full disclosure: I'm one of the ones cheering at some of the things you mention above.  And I think the reason is not that I'm sadistic in real life (really - I promise!), but that these characters are SO fictional to me that it is easy to use their deaths to work out my own aggression vicariously.  I mean, really, I could give a toss if Sansa does something that further blackens her soul; who cares? To me, this is just a dystopian Medieval fantasy tale; it bears no more resemblance to real life than, well, an analogy escapes  me. But I don't personally identify with any of the characters, I don't care about their personal redemption arc (other than Tyrian, so there he goes next season, I'm sure), and I'm really just watching it to watch bad rulers get eliminated from the face of the fictitious earth.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Olaaa... anyone around?

Or should I... burn this thread down? :p

 

Anyway, Season 7 is here. Short one, I think only a couple of episodes, and second season before last. Yet, the books are not here yet. Martin is even more slacking than Moffat.

 

So have any of you watched the premier and what do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

SPOILER AHEAD!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like the episode, it's good setting for the season.

 

But let's start from the scene I don't like the most (and loved dearly by others, actually I haven't heard anyone who share my opinion): the cold open about Arya.

 

I know, revenge, bad ass, etc etc, but I hate that it's SOooo easy. So meaningless, so one dimensional. Find it hard to believe that a girl who merely trains for a while could have such a skill that wipes out the whole clan that have existed and survived for a loooong time. To me, it feels cheap, unbelievable, and very fan-servicy. Something tells me that George wouldn't write something like that. But everybody loves it.

Sue me. I have not much love for Stark. Not as much as the show tries to make me.

 

That brings me to Sansa. Sorry for those who likes her. She is still as annoying and entitled as ever.

I won't be surprised if she turns into villain actually.

I don't mind her logic in the meeting but the way she does it, nah. Brat.

 

Okay, good stuff:

I looove Cersei's Westeros map, and everyone rocking black.

Happy that Euron looks slightly more like book Euron (slightly) at least it's improvement from 'older version of Theon' back in season 6.

Sam's life.

 

Favorit: the Hound and the callback to the farmer and the daughter. I think it's very nice touch to look back into a very minor nameless characters to show us story about how far the Hound has become and how he predicted it.

 

Oooohhh.. and Tormund and Brianne. XD

 

 

EDIT: unleashed spoiler :p

[Caya]

I think you can do away with the spoilers - anyone wandering into this thread know what they're getting themselves into. I won't be watching S7, but I'm reading recaps since, yeah, the books or lack thereof. Mofftis are amateurs in the game of making fans wait compared to GRRM. I first came across A Game of Thrones (book 1, that is) by picking it up when browsing the English Books - Fantasy/SciFi section at a local brick-and-mortar bookstore and thought it sounded interesting. Bought it without having read any online reviews and all, because I had never even been on the Internet yet, this is how long he's kept us waiting (and I was an early adopter that still can hum the dial-up song).

 

</rant off> Whew, feeling better now. And the show's certainly going to see a lot of action this season (if rumors are to be believed, also between Dany and Jon :P).

[Van Buren Supernova]

I think you can do away with the spoilers - anyone wandering into this thread know what they're getting themselves into.

 

Spoiler unleashed.

 

I won't be watching S7, but I'm reading recaps since, yeah, the books or lack thereof. Mofftis are amateurs in the game of making fans wait compared to GRRM.

I first came across A Game of Thrones (book 1, that is) by picking it up when browsing the English Books - Fantasy/SciFi section at a local brick-and-mortar bookstore and thought it sounded interesting. Bought it without having read any online reviews and all, because I had never even been on the Internet yet, this is how long he's kept us waiting (and I was an early adopter that still can hum the dial-up song).

I know the dial-up tone very well too. But I was quite late internet adopter, year 2000, and it's my first office.

Did you get it fresh exactly in 1996 or couple of years later?

So for every single new one published back then, did you still get the excitement after the waiting periods?

 

I read the books in 2012 (so by that time everything is already published) and stupidly thinking that Winds of Winter would be published on the same year. A year a book, that is reasonable right? :p I had never waited for book. I read Harry Potter when the first three books was out, given by my brother, then bought the fourth myself, got ebook for the fifth but lost interest and haven't actually finished reading it since. So there was no attachment/excitement but I remember there were new book every year.

 

So NOW, it has ONLY been five years waiting for me, can't imagine 21 years!

 

And the show's certainly going to see a lot of action this season (if rumors are to be believed, also between Dany and Jon :P).

Anyway, by action.. you mean interaction or romance? Gah.. I hope it's not the later. Aren't they aunt and nephew? But it's quite likely that he would request for dragonglass if Sam managed to inform him, but I suppose he could send someone else (Sansa maybe), because I see Jon as someone who is more likely to try to protect the wall hands-on.

 

I used to be annoyed with Jon, because he whined all the time :p (in the book, he never stop whinning about his hand), in the show he is grumpy. But the last two seasons I come to appreciate him more especially after Battle of the Bastards and Hardhome, that's why I suppose he would be going back to the wall, and probably Dany is the one coming.

I also think he would die again, and that's what Beric is for.

 

The good thing about watching GoT for me, I don't have any attachment or feeling with any characters, so if they die, there are others. But I do hope if they kill characters, it's for good death like Hodor, eventhough that is the closest that makes me feel something.

 

Actually there are a lot of good death in GoT, which begrudgingly, makes me appreciate GRRM more, since he wrote the first book in 1996, and it's still shocking even for 2011 or now to kill Ned halfway through the first book.

 

Btw, what were your reactions to those shocking scenes when you read it the first time?

For me, nobody around me read the book (at least I didn't know, that my ex-boss actually a bigger fan than me, the one who gave me World of ice and Fire), so I 'endured' every shocking moment alone. I remember cursing to myself for Ned's and Tywin's, and jaw dropped for Oberyn.

 

Also, do you have any expectations or predictions, anyone?

 

My prediction: Wall Is COMING DOWN!

[Arcadia]

As I've said before (but it's been awhile so I'll repeat it, just in case ) I read the first two books, liked them, discovered there was no end in sight, and haven't read one since.

 

Even so, based solely on what I remember of the first book ... I agree, there's going to be conflict between Jon and Dany, and the wall's coming down. Which makes me wonder if that's a little too obvious, if I got the same vibe from only the one book. :p

 

Yep, the deaths shocked me.

[Caya]

 

I know the dial-up tone very well too. But I was quite late internet adopter, year 2000, and it's my first office.

Did you get it fresh exactly in 1996 or couple of years later?

So for every single new one published back then, did you still get the excitement after the waiting periods?

 

I did get it in 1996 - I might even have had a first-edition copy, but it's hard to tell because I loaned it to someone and never got it back, then bought a new one, and repeated that a couple times in the first years when no one but me knew the series (I tend to set books free a lot) ... I think the one I currently have is the fifth copy or so. :D The second one came rather quickly after the first, so there was not that much of a waiting period iirc, but by the time the third rolled in (still in a fair time frame) I had already found a small message board community (what is today's westeros.org forums, though I don't think I've been active there in ages) and yes, did we ever do a countdown for that one, and breathless readings, and then the first one hit the Red Wedding, and then there was the Trauma Recovery thread. :lol:

 

By the time the fourth came in, we'd been waiting a looooooong time, and excitement was a bit dampened by the fact that it was, well, half of a book (and later, by the contents of said book, to be honest). But the second half was to follow only a year later, right? Right?? Yeah, right. There was a general feeling of fatigue mixed with the excitement when it finally did come out, and nowadays from what I've gathered it's more a question of *if* the next one will ever come out rather than *when* over there.

 

 

Anyway, by action.. you mean interaction or romance? Gah.. I hope it's not the later. Aren't they aunt and nephew? But it's quite likely that he would request for dragonglass if Sam managed to inform him, but I suppose he could send someone else (Sansa maybe), because I see Jon as someone who is more likely to try to protect the wall hands-on.

 

Afraid I meant the horizontal kind - don't fret, just like the Wight Dragon, it's just internet rumor/speculation at this point. And yes, he's her big brother's son, but they're Targaryens, in that family that's almost too distantly related to marry. :P

 

 

Actually there are a lot of good death in GoT, which begrudgingly, makes me appreciate GRRM more, since he wrote the first book in 1996, and it's still shocking even for 2011 or now to kill Ned halfway through the first book.

 

Btw, what were your reactions to those shocking scenes when you read it the first time?

For me, nobody around me read the book (at least I didn't know, that my ex-boss actually a bigger fan than me, the one who gave me World of ice and Fire), so I 'endured' every shocking moment alone. I remember cursing to myself for Ned's and Tywin's, and jaw dropped for Oberyn.

 

Ned's death was actually what made me stick with the series in the first place. I read the first book, totally unspoilered because how could I be, and found it pleasant and well-written but so predictable ... I mean, noble family from the Pure North (with some sort of wolf powers) comes to the Corrupt South and cleans up the place with their virtue, how many variants of that had I read already? And then the book went, I'll show you predictable and Ned's head went off and I stared at the thing in both shock and newfound respect.

 

I also think GRRM writes deaths extraordinary well. Unlike the show, where apparently people have been dropping like flies lately (again, don't watch), he never kills a main char for sheer shock value, but there's usually a solid reason, and if you look closely, each of them is given a chance to turn around at some point (but obviously doesn't take it). Like Ned, for whom imo it was Lady's death. At this point he should've realized what he was in for and that his friend was not having his back quite as much as he had believed. If he had refused to kill the innocent animal, laid down his appointment and turned back, he'd still have an intact family, the North would be in a lot better shape, and the wights would find their conquering a lot harder. Ah well, missed chances ...

 

 

Also, do you have any expectations or predictions, anyone?

 

I'm still kinda fond of the Tyrion is a Targ theory, but I fully admit it's a long, if not entirely unfounded, shot.

[Van Buren Supernova]

As I've said before (but it's been awhile so I'll repeat it, just in case ) I read the first two books, liked them, discovered there was no end in sight, and haven't read one since.

I actually don't remember knowing that. That is self preservation, since you like it. I don't know if I could stop if I were you.

But what about spoilers etc, you don't mind?

One of the reasons about why I read the books is because I wanted to watch the show in peace. I was totally unspoiled and that is the best part because I got to it before it's too hyped. I don't know how people who don't want spoilers manage it nowadays, it's everywhere.

 

 

Even so, based solely on what I remember of the first book ... I agree, there's going to be conflict between Jon and Dany, and the wall's coming down. Which makes me wonder if that's a little too obvious, if I got the same vibe from only the one book. :p

Interesting. Not many things were obvious to me, I was struggling to get the characters and book 2 was the hardest because I was not familiar yet and he kept introducing new characters. There were no time to theorize about any implications. :p

But I did predict Lady Stoneheart without knowing anything.

 

 

Yep, the deaths shocked me.

Again, were you spoiled with the deaths. Because I pity those people who were spoiled. The enjoyment suffering is kind of reduced a lot if you know it's coming.

 

 

 

I did get it in 1996 - I might even have had a first-edition copy, but it's hard to tell because I loaned it to someone and never got it back, then bought a new one, and repeated that a couple times in the first years when no one but me knew the series (I tend to set books free a lot) ... I think the one I currently have is the fifth copy or so. :D

Aiz.. can't imagine.

But at least you could discuss it with the book kidnappers?

How was the reception back then? If it's popular, is Ned's storyline known?

 

 

The second one came rather quickly after the first, so there was not that much of a waiting period iirc, but by the time the third rolled in (still in a fair time frame) I had already found a small message board community (what is today's westeros.org forums, though I don't think I've been active there in ages) and yes, did we ever do a countdown for that one, and breathless readings, and then the first one hit the Red Wedding, and then there was the Trauma Recovery thread. :lol:

Trauma Recovery Thread!

That must be really fresh, I imagine the fan base is already big enough by then.

I remember being dumbfounded by the Red Wedding but that is not my most shocking moment. It was quite short in the book thay I thought there must be a twist, that's why I wasn't surprised with Lady Stoneheart.

 

 

By the time the fourth came in, we'd been waiting a looooooong time, and excitement was a bit dampened by the fact that it was, well, half of a book (and later, by the contents of said book, to be honest). But the second half was to follow only a year later, right? Right?? Yeah, right. There was a general feeling of fatigue mixed with the excitement when it finally did come out, and nowadays from what I've gathered it's more a question of *if* the next one will ever come out rather than *when* over there.

Did a little googling, so

Game of Thrones 1996

Clash of Kings 1998

Storm of Sword 2000

Feast for Crows 2005

Dance of Dragons 2011,

 

Six years and counting..

 

The pattern doesn't look good at all!

Do you read the Dunk and Eggs etc series? They are fun.

 

 

 

Anyway, by action.. you mean interaction or romance? Gah.. I hope it's not the later. Aren't they aunt and nephew?

 

Afraid I meant the horizontal kind - don't fret, just like the Wight Dragon, it's just internet rumor/speculation at this point. And yes, he's her big brother's son, but they're Targaryens, in that family that's almost too distantly related to marry. :P

That's true. :D I am just surprised that people are shipping it, same way with shipping Sansa and Jon. Ew..

I guess the Lannister twin also set the bar, and their parents are cousins anyway. Ew!

 

 

Ned's death was actually what made me stick with the series in the first place. I read the first book, totally unspoilered because how could I be, and found it pleasant and well-written but so predictable ... I mean, noble family from the Pure North (with some sort of wolf powers) comes to the Corrupt South and cleans up the place with their virtue, how many variants of that had I read already? And then the book went, I'll show you predictable and Ned's head went off and I stared at the thing in both shock and newfound respect.

 

Yup, exactly my experience too. Even then, well, of course the son is going to rise and avenge the family with epic victory. Nope, not that.

And the villains will rule and celebrate before the other goodies come along.

Nope. Purple wedding, made me almost sprayed water on my book.

Don't fret, the bigger villain, the patriarch would take control, nope, and yup, I read that part in the toilet, what a coincidence and I remember roaring Whuuuuaaaat? was Tywin's. It goes out of the ordinary fantasy trail so much. And it's great.

 

 

I also think GRRM writes deaths extraordinary well. Unlike the show, where apparently people have been dropping like flies lately ..

Agree. It almost seems like they have a 'quota' to fulfill, and I find many of the deaths, like you said, are for shocking values only.

On the other hand, I do understand the show restriction and limitations. If only they can make it better, the deaths kind of losing a lot of mojos. It's almost obvious that they don't have good material to base on once they are over the book.

One I give it to the show runner though. Hodor's. It was at the point that I didn't watch the show, only read the recap, mostly because I couldn't 'get' the episodes and had no choice. When I finally watched it, it was still very good.

 

 

I'm still kinda fond of the Tyrion is a Targ theory, but I fully admit it's a long, if not entirely unfounded, shot.

Why do you think it's long/unfounded shot?

Well, he looks less and less blond as the years go by, and the show don't bother to emphasize his eye colors. However, he interacts with the dragons.. way too well.

 

And one more, I'm not sure if you had read WoIaF, I particularly paid attention to Aery's timeline for this purpose, and the timing really checks, that Tyrion could very well be his offspring.

So I actually don't think it's a long short.

 

Another theory that fascinates me, Bran is the one who drives Aery mad, with his whispers and voices, as shown, Ned in the past could hear him. I know it's Bloodraven, but actually think Bran could be him as well.

[Arcadia]

 

As I've said before (but it's been awhile so I'll repeat it, just in case ) I read the first two books, liked them, discovered there was no end in sight, and haven't read one since.

I actually don't remember knowing that. That is self preservation, since you like it. I don't know if I could stop if I were you.

But what about spoilers etc, you don't mind?

One of the reasons about why I read the books is because I wanted to watch the show in peace. I was totally unspoiled and that is the best part because I got to it before it's too hyped. I don't know how people who don't want spoilers manage it nowadays, it's everywhere.

 

Oh, I read the books not too long after they were published, before spoilers existed. (And now that I know the story STILL isn't finished, I'm glad I stopped.) And anyway, tbh I don't care about it enough to care about spoilers. If it's something I really love, like Sherlock ... I don't know, somehow I find a way to avoid them. I wouldn't be here reading this, for example.

 

 

Even so, based solely on what I remember of the first book ... I agree, there's going to be conflict between Jon and Dany, and the wall's coming down. Which makes me wonder if that's a little too obvious, if I got the same vibe from only the one book. :P

Interesting. Not many things were obvious to me, I was struggling to get the characters and book 2 was the hardest because I was not familiar yet and he kept introducing new characters. There were no time to theorize about any implications. :P

 

I don't remember a thing about book 2 except it involved a lot of fighting and I was surprised to find myself rooting for Tyrion. But Jon Snow and Dany stuck in my mind because they were such a vivid characters in the first book ... and Martin did absolutely nothing with them in the second. Aha, went my fevered little brain; that means they're important in the future!

 

 

Yep, the deaths shocked me.

Again, were you spoiled with the deaths. Because I pity those people who were spoiled. The enjoyment suffering is kind of reduced a lot if you know it's coming.

 

Well, no, because I read the books before there was any TV show. And now I don't really care. It's like seeing, oh, Pride and Prejudice before reading the book ... I know what happens, but it doesn't really matter because 1)  I'm not really that into it and 2) reading and seeing are such different experiences. Reading is always so much richer, you learn so much more about the story by reading it, even if you already know how it ends. Like Apollo 13 ... I was there when it happened, I knew how it ended, but both the book and the movie were great because they presented you with different views of it. The book had more detail, the movie had more emotional depth. In real life there wasn't much suspense because I trusted NASA to bring them home safely.

 

With GOT, what shocked me even more than the deaths was the youth of many of the characters. Especially Dany, and what happened to her. On one hand I thought it was good characterization, on the other hand, it was just ... troubling. And I won't watch the show because I remember the level of violence in the books, and to all accounts they depict it pretty graphically on the show. For some reason I can read any level of mayhem in a novel and not be troubled by it, but to see it ... eh. Not if I can help it.

 

The only book where the violence creeped me out was The General's Daughter, and I think it was because it felt rather voyeuristic; the author was enjoying revealing the details just a little too much, it made me squirm. The film was a model of restraint by comparison. :D

[Caya]

One of the reasons about why I read the books is because I wanted to watch the show in peace. I was totally unspoiled and that is the best part because I got to it before it's too hyped. I don't know how people who don't want spoilers manage it nowadays, it's everywhere.

 

Actually, as long as the books were ahead of the series, GoT readers were comparative models of restraint when it came to spoilers (admittedly, there was a certain amount of sadistic glee involved in many cases :lol:). When Ned's head came off, YouTube was filled with reaction videos of people who never saw it coming filmed by their book reading friends, and the same happened with the Red Wedding and Oberyn's death, iirc. I remember an interview with GRRM's publisher where she basically said, they'd thought that in this day and age, *nobody* would be surprised by Ned's death, but the readers keeping mum to such a degree meant that most people were in fact pretty shocked, and that made the team both quite surprised and very happy (sadists, the lot of 'em :P).

[T.o.b.y]

I guess you need a sadistic streak to work on GoT...

[Van Buren Supernova]

@age, well yes! I'm so glad they age the characters in the show.

@gore I think I'm quite resistent to violence once I determine to treat it as fiction. It's different when it's news or true story re-enactment though.

It's like I don't mind seeing mutilations and gore in fiction but I winced at wounds if I know it's true.

 

@reaction video: oh yes, I remember those! :D The earlier ones were good gems but later ones they have become too popular that I doubt half are genuine now.

 

Didn't have anyone to be sadistic target in season 1 n 2, but during season 4 there was one in office (who was also spoilerphobic like me so he always went in knowing nothing) who always reported to me with his reactions, although I didn't witness first hand, his subsequent reactions were precious enough, curses, panicking and disbelief, together with his shabby predictions of sweet summer child syndrome that I had to hide my evil grin of thinking Oh how he would be crushed! :p

[T.o.b.y]

The characters' youth is one of the less troubling aspects for me actually. It fits well with the overall "close to actual history" feel. Catherine Hogarth was only a teenager too for example when she was married to Henry VIII and shortly afterwards beheaded for adultery. When life expectancy was shorter, people became adults sooner. Also I think I read somewhere that adolescence is a fairly recent concept.

 

I admire how realistic GoT is in spite of magic, dragons etc but at the same time, that's also its main shortcoming imo - what's the point of fiction if it isn't any better than reality? I could just as well be watching a documentary on the Tudors and actually learn something.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I guess partly because it's probably difficult to make pure fiction (can't believe I say this) especially in human behaviors. Because human is so complex, weirdest behavior, evilest human, f*up history, we have it. In a way any fictions despicting human behaviors have some, if not most, truth in it.

 

So to me, fantasy is more like creatures, magics, spell and actually some kind of 'happily ever after' behaviors. Those, to me, sounds more like fantasy but it also appeals for very young audience more and there are probably not enough stories to tell. For more serious, adult base, I think it will always go this way, for genre dealing with war and power struggle like GoT is.

 

Until now, I actually always find it very difficult to digest that people used to watch others kill each other in arena for fun. I mean, good god!

[Boton]

The characters' youth is one of the less troubling aspects for me actually. It fits well with the overall "close to actual history" feel. Catherine Hogarth was only a teenager too for example when she was married to Henry VIII and shortly afterwards beheaded for adultery. When life expectancy was shorter, people became adults sooner. Also I think I read somewhere that adolescence is a fairly recent concept.

 

I admire how realistic GoT is in spite of magic, dragons etc but at the same time, that's also its main shortcoming imo - what's the point of fiction if it isn't any better than reality? I could just as well be watching a documentary on the Tudors and actually learn something.

 

At least in the US, adolescence or being a teenager is an invention of the 1950s. Prior to that, becoming an adult was, roughly speaking, a process of learning to do adult things as quickly as possible.  If you could do them, you did them. Small children worked in the fields; 12 year olds were apprenticed into a trade, and menstruating girls were old enough to be wives.

 

I assume you've watched The Tudors? With the exception of conflating a couple of minor "characters" to not overburden the plot, it is pretty true to history and a very entertaining show!

 

 

 

 from Van Buren:  Until now, I actually always find it very difficult to digest that people used to watch others kill each other in arena for fun. I mean, good god!

 

 

Recently had a conversation with one of the nicest, most gentle men that I know, who also happens to be a GoT fan. We both admit to literally cheering for some of the deaths like we were watching a sporting event.  I think there's something innate to the human psyche that is fascinated by death, and you almost have to work it out one way or another.  Fiction seems like a good way to do this.

[Caya]

Olenna Tyrell, A Tribute

[T.o.b.y]

Olenna Tyrell, A Tribute

:-D If there were an afterlife for fictional characters, I think it would include Olenna and Mrs Hudson sitting comfortably at some elegant little table sipping tea and comparing notes. And I want to know if I can join them.

[Caya]

Comparing notes? They'd be watching and heckling the still-alive fictional characters like Statler and Waldorf. :lol: And I'd love to watch that show, come to think of it.

[Boton]

 

Olenna Tyrell, A Tribute

:-D If there were an afterlife for fictional characters, I think it would include Olenna and Mrs Hudson sitting comfortably at some elegant little table sipping tea and comparing notes. And I want to know if I can join them.

 

 

I don't want Mrs. Hudson to be there quite yet!  But yes, I would gladly spend the day with Olenna.  Maybe I'd pick up some tips.  :-)

[Van Buren Supernova]

Recently had a conversation with one of the nicest, most gentle men that I know, who also happens to be a GoT fan. We both admit to literally cheering for some of the deaths like we were watching a sporting event.  I think there's something innate to the human psyche that is fascinated by death, and you almost have to work it out one way or another.  Fiction seems like a good way to do this.

Oh the deaths yes, but I only 'like' the 'meaningful' ones, instead of quota counting ones. (For example, I find Frey killing a bit too ridiculous and, well, funny to say in fiction, but too fictional and I dislike how easy and meaningless it is)

 

Actually, I can live with all deaths but there are two scenes that always disturb me (Jamie-Cersei and Daenerys-Khal Drogo). I know for majority Sansa-Ramsay is the worst, but unpopular opinion, I don't find that not unbelievable as we know exactly what the characters and the situation.

While I'm disturbed of how consensual scene are being translated and still defended as consensual when it's really not. (J-C, D-KD).

Only in this episode, Daenerys actually said she was raped, but previously no, the show make it as if everything was well and okay with her relationship with Drogo despite the wedding night potrayal that is totally different with what it's supposed to.

 

So yah, the deaths don't really bother me, fictional deaths mostly (except Sherlock's :p)

 

What do you guys think about other's morally questionable actions? Are you bothered by them too?

 

For example,

 

 

SPOILER!

..

 

what Cersei did to Ellaria on the latest episode.

She basically takes her revenge one step further and subject her to watch her daughter rots. Literally.

 

I actually think maybe, I wouldn't have problem doing the same thing, well, maybe slightly less. It's bad, disturbing, and .. fiction. I don't blame her doing that to someone who killed her (innocent) daughter, and when we talk about revenge, revenge is always 'one-up' of the original deed. And Ellaria is horrible, I don't think it's justifiable at all to kill a child and own families because of Oberyn's death, in the duel that he volunteered and very well awared of the consequences.

So yah. She deserves it.

[T.o.b.y]

It's not the individual (im)moral choices of certain characters but the massive onslaught of cruelty and sadism in the show (and the books as far as I read them) in general that disturbs me about Game of Thrones. Yes, off course killing somebody's child because you want to get back at them for something is horrific but it sort of gets lost in the general horror that is the entire GoT universe.

 

And I'll be the first person to acknowledge that it's closer to reality that way than most fiction but for me, the point of fiction is to offer a better alternative.

 

Still, I am morbidly fascinated by Game of Thrones and for some reason can't just ignore it. It's a very powerful piece of work.

[Boton]

The overall level of violence doesn't bother me.  The world is fictionalized enough that it just kind of washes over me with very little impact.  Now, Schindler's List?  The first 20 minutes (the D-Day scene) of Saving Private Ryan?  Those gave me nightmares for weeks.

 

I really don't like that they kind of ret-conned the idea that Dany was raped to match what the fans wanted and what presumably happened in the books (haven't read them).  Originally, they softened things up so that the Kal Drogo and Dany marriage wasn't all rapey, and I liked that.  I absolutely hate the trope that anything set in the middle ages (even a fictionalized one) has to have the obligatory scenes of people going to the bed chamber, bride frightened out of her mind, and groom ready to forcefully claim his territory.  I mean, even arranged marriages worked out sometimes - maybe even more often than we think - and it is unrealistic to think that every groom is violent and every bride experiences her first time as rape.

 

Van Buren said:

 

 

what Cersei did to Ellaria on the latest episode.
She basically takes her revenge one step further and subject her to watch her daughter rots. Literally.

I actually think maybe, I wouldn't have problem doing the same thing, well, maybe slightly less. It's bad, disturbing, and .. fiction. I don't blame her doing that to someone who killed her (innocent) daughter, and when we talk about revenge, revenge is always 'one-up' of the original deed. And Ellaria is horrible, I don't think it's justifiable at all to kill a child and own families because of Oberyn's death, in the duel that he volunteered and very well awared of the consequences. 
So yah. She deserves it. 

 

Man, I was on the fence about this.  On the one hand, I think I could pretty cheerfully make my enemies suffer, especially if they killed one of my loved ones. On the other hand, torturing someone says more about your own soul and your own character than it does about the person you are getting revenge on. If Cersei had forced Ellaria to watch her daughter be beheaded, I would have been behind it, because the daughter wouldn't have suffered but Ellaria would have.  But this was a bit over the line into needless sadism.

[Surelock]

The thing about Game of Thrones that I dislike is that it seems to get too repetitive with its themes. 

 

Its main thesis seems to be about the darkness of humanity which is fine but after seeing so many episodes and reading so many books about this matter in the Westeros-verse, I've gotten bored of this theme. I think the story feels stretched out.

 

Martin was originally planning the series to be a trilogy and personally I think he should have left it as such. It kind of feels like to me that he's stretching out the story to make fan favourites do cool things etc. 

[Van Buren Supernova]

I really don't like that they kind of ret-conned the idea that Dany was raped to match what the fans wanted and what presumably happened in the books (haven't read them).  Originally, they softened things up so that the Kal Drogo and Dany marriage wasn't all rapey, and I liked that.  I absolutely hate the trope that anything set in the middle ages (even a fictionalized one) has to have the obligatory scenes of people going to the bed chamber, bride frightened out of her mind, and groom ready to forcefully claim his territory.  I mean, even arranged marriages worked out sometimes - maybe even more often than we think - and it is unrealistic to think that every groom is violent and every bride experiences her first time as rape.

 

That is exactly where it went wrong.

So in the book, as far as I remember, Dany was frightened at first, yah, who can blame her? But then apparently Khal Drogo was quite a gentleman, in fact he actually made her feel comfortable, you know what I mean, until she was ready and it was very consensual. That's why my moon my star my sunshine stuff between them works slightly differently compared to the show Drogo in the first night.

 

The rest works out the almost the same, so I was wondering why on earth did they change the scene to rapey if they didn't mean to change the content? Similar with Jamie-Cersei, the content didn't change. Worse, they came out to insist that scene is fitting as consensual. (It's bloody not!)

That is why I think some creators up there don't understand what is consensual. Disturbing actually. I wonder if they had female consultant.

When she said the word on the last episode, yah , like you said, they probably trying to 'fix' that error, although it doesn't fit well to the story anymore.

 

 

 

Man, I was on the fence about this.  On the one hand, I think I could pretty cheerfully make my enemies suffer, especially if they killed one of my loved ones. On the other hand, torturing someone says more about your own soul and your own character than it does about the person you are getting revenge on. If Cersei had forced Ellaria to watch her daughter be beheaded, I would have been behind it, because the daughter wouldn't have suffered but Ellaria would have.  But this was a bit over the line into needless sadism.

Well, unless you consider that that is exactly what she did to Mycrella, made her suffer.

And Mycrella is way more innocent than Ellaria's daughter. 

I don't have a drop of sympathy for Ellaria's character, the way she revenged Oberyn's death (that arguably self inflicted) by killing his own family (what the logic in that?), stage a coup, and then kill Mycrella by poisoning her. The daughters also killed their own cousin while mocking him and having fun doing so and did the Spartacus style of gory by impaling his head. Their own cousin who didn't do anything wrong to them. 

This character arc had become a joke in the show tbh.

Anyway, Dorne's storyline adaptation is my least favorite, the only thing that is good about it is Oberyn.

 

 

The thing about Game of Thrones that I dislike is that it seems to get too repetitive with its themes. 

 

Its main thesis seems to be about the darkness of humanity which is fine but after seeing so many episodes and reading so many books about this matter in the Westeros-verse, I've gotten bored of this theme. I think the story feels stretched out.

 

Martin was originally planning the series to be a trilogy and personally I think he should have left it as such. It kind of feels like to me that he's stretching out the story to make fan favourites do cool things etc.

 

I have to disagree with you, but each on their own.

To me, he has created a very fascinating world, with so many characters, so rich in the backstories and histories.

Insisting of fitting them into trilogy, to me, work the other way around, it would probably still be epic story, but then again, it'd be hard to make it unique, most probably would fall into template of fantasy. So on the contrary, I actually think it'd be boring and predictable that way.

 

I won't argue that there is a bit of stretching in the story, journey, travel, detour here and there, but I actually enjoy those a lot. 

Regarding darkness of humanity as main thesis,

to me, the best theme is: nothing is black and white. Which, actually impress me a lot deal.

 

For example:

 

- characters have redemption arc from both sides.

There is hardly two-dimensional character and the storylines (at least in the book) are built really carefully.

Like Jamie Lannister, when I first 'know' the character I think of him as someone ruthless, and meant to be avoided like plague because he seems capable of everything evil. I was happy when he was captured and actually felt Catelyn releasing him as compatible to releasing a murderous alien in enclosed spaceship. He would wreck havoc and this man deserved nothing but lifetime imprisonment. But then, when the back stories of the character revealed, I started to see him in different light and turned 180 to him.

Other example is when we see Arya does her breaking 'bad' arc, and how the life on the street hardens her and makes her choices.

 

- it's never clear cut.

You can choose to do right that ends up wrong and vice versa.

In other fantasy, mostly we would see a conquest's victory and that is the happy ending or the peak of the story.

What I love about GoT is how they explore that in the direction that we don't normally see.

So we saw Dany being crowd-surfed, new ruler, the savior, breaker of chain, representative of people, a kind of ruler that would bring peace and prosperity to the new era, right? But what we see is the challenge she continued to face and double edged swords. Decisions, decisions that eventually nothing seems to make sense anymore. Starvation, diseases, poverty, criminal activity, misery, rebels and there are people begging her to let them go back to being a slave. We see the non rosy impact of the conquest, the aftermath, the consequences, that even good intentions could pave the road to hell.

 

- The impact of the war and ungloriousness of war.

There are quite a number of works out there that show wars not as victory, and GoT is one of it, I appreciate it a lot.

There are no winners in war, but misery, even for victorious side. And they are good in making us see the point of view of two sides; the reasons, the sacrifice and again, misery. For example: Watchers on The Wall about the war between Night Watch and Wildings. Each of them have their valid reasons. Battle of Blackwater. And I don't remember what it's called, I always call it Battle of The Bastard. The haunting image of Jon being suffocated by the pile of corpses from both side.

And miseries of war is not only experience by the ones active in battle, but also the small folks. People running away from their homes, starve, war criminals etc etc.

 

You can categorize some of those as darkness in humanity I suppose, but to me, there are much more layers, much more depth and I don't see them as being stretched out (if he gets the remaining books out soon enough!!). However, I'm speaking mostly from book pov.

In the show, I do see some saturation here and there.

[T.o.b.y]

It seems sad to me that apparently we need a fantasy series on TV to teach us how horrible war is. Like that wasn't obvious already from history and current events. But apparently not because there are still plenty of warmongers in the world.

 

Despite dragons and so on, GoT feels very realistic to me. It's just like a history book. And that makes the cruelty all the more disturbing. I don't mind the fighting in Lord of the Rings half as much, not even in the extended cut that we have on DVD because that, to me, is really fantastical and I see it more as an allegorical tale so the fighting is merely an illustration to visualize a different kind of struggle. But on Game of Thrones, the violence is real. And seductive! Characters like Joffrey or Ramsay are so horrible that even I, a pacifist, cheer when they are killed. I saw Sansa letting the hounds loose on her soon to be ex-husband and at first went yeah before my brain kicked in with no, wait, this is despicable! Sure, he's a monster. The world needs to be rid of him. But does he have to die like that? If he goes out this way, he isn't really dead because his legacy lives on in a woman he has tortured until she commits the same vile acts as himself.

 

Funny this coming from me who had no problem with Sherlock shooting Magnussen, huh? But even Sherlock seems to take place in a more fantastical world than Game of Thrones. And he wasn't sadistic about it, he slayed the dragon to protect his friends not to watch it suffer. I don't even think revenge was much of a motive there.

 

And the amount of discussion we have had about that one shot! Meanwhile, on Game of Thrones, characters are brutally murdered by the dozen and the fans don't seem to bat an eyelash.