Game of Thrones - I give up

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
I don't understand this mentality at all, or even the outrage surrounding this part of the series. When I read the books I was all "Oh, snap!" and then just kept on reading.

You people confound me.
 

Nuxxy

New member
Feb 3, 2011
160
0
0
"In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die." That's words that have stuck with me through the books, ever since Ned died. And that's why there are so many characters, because to choose to favour anyone is to choose to make an enemy of someone else. It's not just a trite maxim that sounds good - it is the truth that everyone in The Song of Ice and Fire has to live by.

Ned and Robb tried to go the high moralist route - "I'm not playing your game, I'm trying to be a good person and ruler" - but chosing to not play doesn't protect you from those who are.

I'm reminded of Killian's words in Iron Man 3, that the greatest gift Tony gave him was anonymity; ie: you can be a villain, but don't make yourself a target. It's the other side of the coin to the Starks, and the Lannister's are about to learn it the hard way.

I hope that didn't spoil anything for anyone.
 

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
Vigormortis said:
I feel compelled to point something out:

A lot of the people I see saying they love Game of Thrones because of how edgy and grim-dark it is are the same people I often see complaining about how much they dislike modern games, super-hero films, etc because those things are edgy and grim-dark.

Yeah. I don't get it.
I think the difference is Game of Thrones isn't trying to be edgy, it's more like here is a fantasy world, now how would events play out if all these characters act like humans. Whereas Call of Duty is like: we've spent a bunch of money on this game, let's make a controversial sequence so we can get free advertising and make back that money. Yahtzee has commented on how COD seems to feel contractually obligated to put in something shocking in every game. But in ASOIAF, shocking things happen as the plot demands them to.

Basically, GOT's heart is in it, but COD's and other things people get annoyed at for being edgy, are not.

Just realized this video sums up what I was trying to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZjX65NYVGM
 

lapan

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,456
1
0
fieryshadowcard said:
lapan said:
Soviet Heavy said:
I actually approve of the scene, in both book and tv series. Martin has a major problem. TOO MANY CHARACTERS. So I approve of cutting down the batch a bit, even if he does introduce two more for each he bumps off.
He seems to kill of the most interesting characters though and keep the uninteresting characters around for ages.

rcs619 said:
I'd have liked if he didn't resurrect Catelyn though. She and Sansa always were my least favorite Starks.
Under different circumstances, Catelyn would have been more fit to rule than Robb. A lot of Robb's downfall came because he didn't listen to his mother. Yes, she made one of the biggest mistakes in his entire campaign by freeing Jamie, but it has been suggested several times, even by the Blackfish, that Catelyn had quite the nose for politics, something her son sorely lacked. But keep in mind, in Westeros where women enjoy little and less political power more often than not, Catelyn is reduced to being virtually powerless with no say over the fates of her children. Her perspective is first and foremost that of a forlorn mother. Do not dismiss her as Lori from Walking Dead, who just wanted to do laundry.

Also, I actually quite like Sansa's arcs, particularly after she leaves King's Landing. Her being insufferable in the beginning was deliberate. She's a child with a child's outlooks on life which does her no good in the political sense. She then spends at least a year deprived of any real learning experiences until Littlefinger helps her escape, and now she has perhaps the best teacher available to her in this game of thrones. The Starks sorely needed a politician, and Sansa from the start with her interest in court politics and social queues was always the best fit for that. Robb, Ned, and Jon NEEDED a political mouthpiece; instead, they drove themselves into a corner with no allies to help them. In Jon's case, it was really his only choice, but the other two had plenty of choices. So yes, while Arya learing to kill is the cooler more overtly interesting storyline, there is quite a bit of merit and intrigue as far as where Sansa is going, especially once The Winds of Winter comes out.
Maybe Catelyn would have been more likeable if she didn't use every free moment to lament her dead children. And yes, Sansas personality evolved to the better, but her story-parts were still rather uneventfull and uninteresting.
 

The Hero Killer

New member
Aug 9, 2010
776
0
0
Being a huge fan of the recently finished Spartacus, I never could understand the complaints about the sex and violence on Game of Thrones. This show is PG compared to what goes down in over there in Rome.
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
Nuxxy said:
I'm reminded of Killian's words in Iron Man 3, that the greatest gift Tony gave him was anonymity; ie: you can be a villain, but don't make yourself a target. It's the other side of the coin to the Starks, and the Lannister's are about to learn it the hard way.
I have nothing to contribute to this except a giggle over the fact that Tony's surname is, in fact, Stark.
 

Hawkmoon269

New member
Apr 14, 2011
145
0
0
It's always darkest before the dawn.

And dawn for Westeros is, like the next Spring, a way off yet.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0
Blunderboy said:
Well you can't handle anything that isn't all kittens and rainbows?

Man that sucks. I like it when shit goes South in these things. A perfect fantasy world is a boring fantasy world.
Agreed. Prince Charming is far more interesting when the Prince has to deal with a realm of unwashed whores, murderers and evil monsters. Then he realizes that the people he had put all his trust in were even more monstrous than the obvious exterior threats to his kingdom. Then he realizes his head has been removed from his body.

I like good endings as much as the next guy but sometimes, you just gotta get dark and mess with your audience.
 

NortherWolf

New member
Jun 26, 2008
235
0
0
Eh, Martin is a mediocre writer with a over-zealous fanbase.
Question for the fans who think APTTSRS is Da shisnits and totlz realistic; What exactly do you think the middle ages were? Black Plague victims sodomizing babies?
Martin is a fantasy writer, who uses Mystical Snow ZOmbies-Faeries-whatever as a plot point(a plot point that from what I've been told does jack shit for...Any of the books?) but you guys claim it's realistic? Yeeeah...
 

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
NortherWolf said:
Eh, Martin is a mediocre writer with a over-zealous fanbase.
Question for the fans who think APTTSRS is Da shisnits and totlz realistic; What exactly do you think the middle ages were? Black Plague victims sodomizing babies?
Martin is a fantasy writer, who uses Mystical Snow ZOmbies-Faeries-whatever as a plot point(a plot point that from what I've been told does jack shit for...Any of the books?) but you guys claim it's realistic? Yeeeah...
Who ever said it was realistic?

In fact, who said anything about the middle ages?

What on earth are you talking about?


The only statement I could decipher from all that which made any sense was about the over-zealous fanbase. Which I agree with, there are some weirdly obsessed individuals out there, but they're still preferable to Twilight fans.
 

NortherWolf

New member
Jun 26, 2008
235
0
0
Stu35 said:
NortherWolf said:
Eh, Martin is a mediocre writer with a over-zealous fanbase.
Question for the fans who think APTTSRS is Da shisnits and totlz realistic; What exactly do you think the middle ages were? Black Plague victims sodomizing babies?
Martin is a fantasy writer, who uses Mystical Snow ZOmbies-Faeries-whatever as a plot point(a plot point that from what I've been told does jack shit for...Any of the books?) but you guys claim it's realistic? Yeeeah...
Who ever said it was realistic?

In fact, who said anything about the middle ages?

What on earth are you talking about?


The only statement I could decipher from all that which made any sense was about the over-zealous fanbase. Which I agree with, there are some weirdly obsessed individuals out there, but they're still preferable to Twilight fans.
Several posts before mine claism it's realistic or "The real world isn't happy ll the time."
THe middle ages is the closest time-period I could think of, as Martin has said his books draw inspiration from the English-French wars of the time.

Oh yes, Twilight brings nothing to the table, Martin can at least write.
 

SquidSponge

New member
Apr 29, 2013
75
0
0
It was indeed shocking - my problem with GoT is that I'm rapidly running out of characters that I like. Mostly it's just Varys (and how much screentime does he get?) and Tyrion Lannister. Daenerys Targaryen maybe. And with GoT's famously flimsy plot armour, I'm pretty sure one or more of those is screwed. If/when Tyrion's gone, I'll have pretty much no reason/motivation to continue watching.
 

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
NortherWolf said:
Stu35 said:
NortherWolf said:
Eh, Martin is a mediocre writer with a over-zealous fanbase.
Question for the fans who think APTTSRS is Da shisnits and totlz realistic; What exactly do you think the middle ages were? Black Plague victims sodomizing babies?
Martin is a fantasy writer, who uses Mystical Snow ZOmbies-Faeries-whatever as a plot point(a plot point that from what I've been told does jack shit for...Any of the books?) but you guys claim it's realistic? Yeeeah...
Who ever said it was realistic?

In fact, who said anything about the middle ages?

What on earth are you talking about?


The only statement I could decipher from all that which made any sense was about the over-zealous fanbase. Which I agree with, there are some weirdly obsessed individuals out there, but they're still preferable to Twilight fans.
Several posts before mine claism it's realistic or "The real world isn't happy ll the time."
THe middle ages is the closest time-period I could think of, as Martin has said his books draw inspiration from the English-French wars of the time.

Oh yes, Twilight brings nothing to the table, Martin can at least write.

Ah fair enough.

Always got the fact that he draws on medieval Europe for the general "feel" of the universe (right down to Westeros, in it's own way, being geographically representative of Great Britain, a feel helped by casting Northern actors (and actors willing to put on a Northern accent) to play Starks). Didn't realise there were people trying to claim it was realistic, or anything other than a fantasy land.

Gotta draw on something though - all fantasy draws on some kind of reality.
 

wings012

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 7, 2011
780
227
48
Country
Malaysia
I do have issue with what has transpired, but not so much because people died but more of... now what. The Lannisters now get to continue sitting in their asshat spots for god knows how long now since their current biggest threat just kicked it.

Though with the burnt leeches, I suppose they'll get what's coming to them soon enough.
 

AkatsukiLeader13

New member
Mar 12, 2012
56
0
0
Actually as of the latest book most of the good to morally neutral major characters are still alive. And that's including Tyrion. So if you like the Imp (like a lot of people) you have nothing to worry about for at least three more seasons if not more. In fact in the novels Tyrion is a POV character which puts his odds at surviving the whole thing much higher than most characters as he's only killed a few of those characters. If I remember correctly he's only killed three POV characters (barring minor single chapter POV characters) and we've now seen them die in the series, Ned, Catelyn and Robb.

Cat will be resurrected by magic so while she dies at the Red Wedding she comes back to life.
 

AkatsukiLeader13

New member
Mar 12, 2012
56
0
0
Wings012 said:
I do have issue with what has transpired, but not so much because people died but more of... now what. The Lannisters now get to continue sitting in their asshat spots for god knows how long now since their current biggest threat just kicked it.

Though with the burnt leeches, I suppose they'll get what's coming to them soon enough.
Trust me, we're only halfway through the third book. Season 4 will have the other half, where the Lannisters start getting theirs. As I said we had the Red Wedding, now we're waiting for the Purple Wedding.
 
Mar 9, 2010
2,722
0
0
Feel free to spit your dummy out because the story isn't catered to you and you alone, as long as there's not enough of you to get the show canned the rest of us will see it through till the end.
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
omega 616 said:
None of that can be shown any other way, it has to be with blatant sexual scenes? Sounds like iffy writing
Sorry if I'm dragging you back into the conversation, I just hear this a lot, how nudity is a fanservice and how it is "not really needed". It's the same in the books. People get naked, people have sex, there are detailed descriptions in most cases, in some cases a bit less. That's why, when characters in a book/series have sex, you have three choices: a) fading to black after a kiss b) showing most but not all c) showing a lot. Both the books and the series opted for the b) and c) options, because a) option is silly. It has always irked me, when someone has sex and they are strategically covered and will not show naked bodies to each other even though they just had sex. That happens due to censoring and it happens because our culture kinda doesn't show naked people and sex in prime time on television, we frown at public nudity and we cover our children's eyes when there are naked people on the screen (or the street). It's dragging me out of immersion because I know this happened because of meta reasons; it looks like the characters on the screen know that I am watching and they are behaving like... well, actors and not people they are acting. Lately, censoring sexual content became less and less strict and we can finally show people acting like people when they are being intimate. It was in the books a long time ago anyway. Since the book is detailed on almost everything and it shows characters as people of flesh and blood, there will, naturally, be sex. And it will also be detailed because it would be silly if the author details every single meal on a feast and intricate embroidery on someone's clothing, but is scared to write about a penis entering a vagina. I understand if that's strange for you to watch and it puts you off, but there is literally no logical reason for it. You are missing out on an incredibly well made story, in both the TV show and the books themselves especially, because of an illogical and probably cultural disdain to look at naked people (and because you immediately link it to pornography. Which is not true; naked people don't immediately mean that the material is pornographic).

Legion said:
It's the scenes involving Theon screwing random girls, or the brothel girls having sex that were completely made up for the television show that irked me
Theon is having a lot of sex in the books. They made his scene with the whore Ros for the show, but it is directly said that he had sex with numerous women throughout his life in Winterfell. That scene was maybe created for the show, but it is by no means different from the book nor does it deviate from his character in any way. Some poster already said that because of his lack of real power, Theon constantly tried to show it by dominating women. There is an especially horrible scene when he has sex with the captain's daughter in the ship while he travels to the Iron Islands, in book two and season two. The scene is directly copied from the book, but is way less horrible and way less implicitly misogynistic than it is in the books where it shows what opinion Theon has about women. It is a very important part of his character and without it, we would understand him poorly. Of course, we can argue that it could've been said "Theon forced the woman to oral sex because he hates when women try to talk to him. The weather is also very nice", but when we saw the scene, it had a much greater impact and it gave us insight into his character in a much better and purer way. When it comes to brothel girls and sex, there's much of it in the books as well. I don't think there's a single out of place and out of character sex scene in the show. Maybe people thought so because it has much more impact to see something visually in a show, than to read about in the book.
______

About giving up on reading/watching after the Red Wedding; really? Sure, it shocked me too when I read about it, but it absolutely forced me to read not only further, but faster. It's horrible and shocking and sad, but it is necessary for the overall progress of the story. A book that large, with so much different details and people and wars and plots, it would be bad if the story was stagnant and focused around a few characters with plot armor. The Red Wedding completely changed the stakes and many plots; it created possibilities for something new and fresh. Watching Robb trying to get to King's Landing and kill Joffrey for 10 seasons or reading about it in 7 books would've been pointless and ridiculous. Something had to change, and change it did. I was shocked and sad as well, I couldn't believe what I read, but it got me far more interested in everything. I did not think about stopping there, not for an instant. I simply don't understand why would something like that force anyone to lose interest. Don't you want to know what happens now? "Rooting" for someone is not the sole purpose of the story. If you rooted for someone who died, there will always be someone who will vow to avenge those that were killed. Someone who will fight back still. Someone who will do something interesting, something that will make you flip your table. A Storm of Swords has many interesting and incredibly important moments yet to come after the Red Wedding. Stopping at that point seems to me like you were never even that interested in the whole story and setting, other than a few characters that you chose to identify as heroes (and you chose it yourself, because the book never implicitly states that anyone is the hero).
 

Vale

New member
May 1, 2013
180
0
0
Guess what, the Yugoslavian Wars didn't get a happy ending either.

You should probably stick to less depressing media, I think.
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
To the poster who stated that the War of the Usurper was on the moral high ground because the Prince (Rhaegar) kidnapped and (probably raped) Ned's sister, well... not so much. One of my many problems with the TV show (which I hate) as opposed to the books (which I love) is that there is enough information and perspective in the books to give you an idea at just how intricate the plot of the story *really* is. That, for me, does not come out in the series. But for those of you who have not figured out the very obvious hinge of the series (at least obvious in the books) regarding Prince Rhaegar and the events that followed:

Prince Rhaegar did not kidnap Lyanna Stark. They eloped, willingly.

Prince Rhaegar was very aware of Targaryen tradition and history. In a scene in Qarth, Dany has a vision of Rhaegar, with Elia, commenting on the dragon needing a 3rd head (a Targaryen tradition). The obvious assumption is a 3rd child, but in Targaryen fashion, it could easily mean a 3rd person in the relationship, as the Targaryens are known for polygamy, despite their attachment to the Seven. Martin, himself, confirmed that the Targaryens are not against polygamy.

Lyanna, like all of Westeros' women (including Cersei, as confirmed by Cersei herself) was infatuated with Rhaegar. He fell in love with her at the famous tournament at Harrenhall and later ran away with him. Robert interpreted this as a kidnapping, which was the catalyst for the war. The real question is what Ned thought about it, but he never gives an indication.

However, all indications are that Rhaegar was a knight-poet of the highest morals and integrity, more willing to take up the lute and sing a song than steal and rape a woman, as clearly indicated in Dany's visions and the commentary from multiple characters, notably Ser Barristan Selmy. Also, later indications from Ser Jon Connington clearly state that Rhaegar was infatuated with the Stark girl, but never gave any reason that he would kidnap her. Kidnapping and rape are just as absurd for Rhaegar as it would be for Ned to actually sleep with another woman AFTER marrying Catelyn. Everyone should keep Ned's own sense of honor in mind.

When Ned and Howland Reed came to the "Tower of Joy" where Lyanna was, it was noted that she was found in her "bed of blood" which is a common reference to childbirth. Further, at the same time, Rhaegar was dying on the Trident, but Lyanna was protected by no less than 3 of the Kingsguard, including Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, and the Lord Commander, Gerold Hightower.

Now, why would the Kingsguard be protecting some kidnapped woman? They said, in Ned's vision, they took vows. If that's correct, then either they violated their vows by leaving Rhaegar to die on the Trident, or they are keeping their vows, by protecting his wife and, more importantly, his heir. As she was dying in the Tower, Lyanna made Ned promise something, which he never told.

What would that be?

That Jon Snow is the son, possibly legitimate, of Prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. If Robert had known this, he would have killed Jon. This makes Jon a contender to the Iron Throne, but his secret is still out there, known only to Howland Reed, the only current survivor from the Tower incident. Howland Reed also has the proclamation from King Rob Stark legitimizing Jon's birth as his heir (thinking Bran and Rickon were dead). This means that when Howland Reed appears, he can not only confirm Jon's birth, but also provide his legitimacy, as proclaimed by the King in the North.

Ned never violated his vows, which would be terribly out of character. Rhaegar never kidnapped and raped Lyanna, which would be terribly out of character. Lyanna didn't kill Rhaegar for kidnapping her, which would be terribly out of character (she has the "touch of the wolf's blood" for a Stark). Jon is the son of the Prince and a highborn lady and stands as one of the potentially legitimate claims to the throne currently alive. Yes, three. Read Dance with Dragons.

Overall, I can't stand the show. I went into Lord of the Rings knowing things would be changed and I cringed, but I loved it. Every change made sense and did no damage to the characters or story. I am a bit of a purist, but not insufferably so. However, in GoT too many things are changed, too many things are pointlessly (in my opinion) added, making characters into something completely other than what they are in the books. And why the hell do we need scene after scene of a Theon? Are we going to have to endure this in the post-Storm of Sword events... AGAIN? There was enough of him in Dance that the thought of watching Ramsay torture him for 3 seasons of the show is downright irritating.

My thoughts on how off the show is, for me, can be summed up by pointing out the thoughts of someone who watched the show and then the read the books. They indicated that they were put off by the books because, one of their favorite show characters, Catelyn, is an obnoxious ***** in the books. Yep, she is. That's the problem. You can't "make Cersei sympathetic" or completely change a character like Catelyn and still have people like me, who are in it for the characters as much as the story, and keep us as fans. It's just too much.

Tyrion in the show rocks though. Despite the fact that he's nowhere near as repulsive as he's supposed to be. Eh. I can pass on that, considering the actor's on-screen ability is just great. Most of the rest of the cast was pretty poorly cast though. :/