Game of Thrones - I give up

Comrade_Beric

Jacobin
May 10, 2010
396
0
0
Settings where the main characters cannot die are inherently boring to me anyway. Of course I don't want them to die, but if the characters are immune to the consequences of their actions, it breaks all the tension. Luke Skywalker could not die. Han Solo could not die. Leia Organa could not die. Star Wars, as an example, is a setting where the characters simply cannot die. For me, there was no tension in the Battle of Hoth, for example, because Luke was literally immune to the possibility of death. George R.R. Martin understands that characters who are immune to death are boring in some way and has made sure that you are well aware that no one is safe in his setting just because you like them. Being a main character is not safety. Because of this, when a character you like gets into a dangerous situation, you absolutely feel that tension. Are they about to die? Martin has killed better people for less. That's excitement. That's engagement. That's good storytelling.
 

Neuromancer

Endless Struggle
Legacy
Mar 16, 2012
5,035
525
118
a homeless squat
Country
None
Gender
Abolish
I wonder how people who were attached to Robb will feel about what happens after the Red Wedding, namely

Cutting his head off and replacing it with Grey Wind's.

If they keep it in the show, that is. Which I hope they do.
 

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
HellbirdIV said:
lucky_sharm said:
Did you expect any less when you watch an episode without knowledge of previous events or any real interest in the ongoing plot? People are awfully quick to dismiss stories as "grimdark" when events occur beyond their understanding
Nice strawman defense. I don't care about the story - not even a little. What bugs me is the content and how it's framed and shot for Maximum Grimdark, despite the fact it makes very little actual logical sense.
You mean it's framed and shot to get the most emotional response out of people? In other words, to be good tv? And people being killed isn't 'Grimdark', unless you have a weird definition of that.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
ArnRand said:
HellbirdIV said:
lucky_sharm said:
Did you expect any less when you watch an episode without knowledge of previous events or any real interest in the ongoing plot? People are awfully quick to dismiss stories as "grimdark" when events occur beyond their understanding
Nice strawman defense. I don't care about the story - not even a little. What bugs me is the content and how it's framed and shot for Maximum Grimdark, despite the fact it makes very little actual logical sense.
You mean it's framed and shot to get the most emotional response out of people? In other words, to be good tv? And people being killed isn't 'Grimdark', unless you have a weird definition of that.
Well, if you just parachuted into the series and have nor developed any feelings towards any of the characters and self admittedly don't care about the story, it makes a lot of sense. Not that that's a good defense for much of anything, but it does make sense.
 

elilupe

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
I'm going to use a quote I recently found on avclub.com, by the great Tasha Robinson, to illustrate why I think you should pick up the books/show again. Obviously I personally respect your decision of you decide to go back or not, but I thought I'd just put this here.
Be warned, it's kind of long, but worth it.
I have a long-brewing theory that Martin is the world's most cynical romantic. I've never yet read a Martin novel or story that ended in utter despair for any character who hadn't thoroughly earned it-and I've read him extensively, from his 1977 debut novel, Dying Of The Light, to his many short-story collections and the entire Song Of Ice And Fire series. His work has always embraced bleakness, loneliness, and hardship, with tough-minded people muddling through traumas that perpetually threaten to break them. His protagonists rarely get exactly what they want; often, they can consider themselves lucky if they become wise enough to realize they wanted the wrong thing. His characters often make hard, ugly choices to survive, but those choices make them stronger and fiercer, and more capable of protecting themselves from the hatefulness of the predatory worlds they live in.

Martin's cynical side can be overpowering: Characters who start his stories with naive faith in honor, loyalty, or love-especially their own one-sided, demanding love, as opposed to a mutual bond-are commonly punished for their beliefs. But his romantic side holds just as steady, with the most steadfast and worthy characters prevailing. As I put it in that Gateways, "For a man whose writing is so often ruthless and uncompromising, he has a hell of a sentimental streak when it comes to questions of injustice, honor, nobility, personal dignity against long odds, and wrongs that need to be righted at any cost."

I've said this over and over when writing about Martin's work. What he does better than any author I've ever encountered-what defines his writing for me-is his masterful skill at exploiting the tension between the desire for justice and the availability of that justice. But that doesn't mean there is no justice, just that it's always hard-won and thoroughly earned. Robb and Catelyn's grotesque ends complicate the search for justice considerably, and move it far into the future. But it doesn't make the quest impossible. It just means it'll be that much sweeter and that much more satisfying when it finally arrives.

Maybe this'll change your mind and get you to continue reading the great books and watching the fantastic show, maybe it won't, oh well. This is my reason for continuing with Martin's work, and I'd thought I'd share it!
 

Flamb3Nobunaga

New member
Mar 4, 2013
39
0
0
Yeah, I think I'm done, too. It was right about the time a pregnant woman got gut-stabbed, I decided that maybe this wasn't for me...
 

GAunderrated

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
thejboy88 said:
Okay, those of you who watch the series and know the book probably know what this is all about as it concerns the events of the most recent GOT episode, "The rains of Castamere".

Basically, I knew the ending was coming. I've known ever since season two, which was when I was really into the books. And it was the point in the books where, reading those events, made me so angry and so disgusted with the story, that I literally threw the book aside and never picked it up again. And to this day I've never returned to the books to find out what happened afterwards because I was so upset at the time.

The only reason I watched the show after that was because I held out hope that maybe they'd handle that part of the story in a way that didn't anger me as much as the book did. That was not the case. Once again, this story has made me feel terrible, and so, like with the books, I have decided to abandon the entire thing.

Now I am not saying that I think Game of Thrones is a bad show, far from it. The acting, the way the story is told, all of it is great. But as with all things, there is a line for me. A point that, if passed, forces me to turn away from such stories. And now, GOT has crossed that line.

Call me foolish if you wish. Call me hopelessly old-fashioned for wanting things to turn out happy for the heroes and for everything to be okay. But I'm just like that. I want there to be a light at the end of the tunnel in stories like this. And after this, there is no light bright enough to possibly make this dark and bloody tunnel worth passing through.

I'm done with it.
There is no light because you stopped reading the book. Sorry there isn't a textbook happy ending but if you got that butthurt over a character or two dying then you are watching the wrong type of shows to begin with. I feel no empathy for your type of attitude.

Stick with cop drama, disney shows, and any show dealing with highschool. Those often have some sort of happy ending.
 

GAunderrated

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
Flamb3Nobunaga said:
Yeah, I think I'm done, too. It was right about the time a pregnant woman got gut-stabbed, I decided that maybe this wasn't for me...
That was in the show not the book so you should probably let the directors know that.
 

blaize2010

New member
Sep 17, 2010
230
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.
I concur with this dude.

Yeah, it's a harsh, kinda morose world. But it's also amazing. It's the only series that has ever made me tear up, it's the only one I've ever seriously been furious over. To give it up just because of this one quite frankly beautifully written event seems kinda stupid to me.
 

soulfire130

New member
Jun 15, 2010
189
0
0
Interesting. I think I'll get the books just to see what happened. I was curious about GoT but it never really piqued my interest. Now I have to read what happens. Why read it? Reading gives me something to do besides play game and watch TV.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
CrossLOPER said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I wonder how many animals were skinned alive to provide for the fur used in that show. Entertainment > Life
Apparently they use by-products from meat processing plants, if that makes you feel any better.

http://game-of-thrones.the-fan-site.com/article/detail/id/22/Does-Game-of-Thrones-Go-Too-Fur

I do find it kind of odd that they are going for the authentic medieval look and use real animal furs, while everyone has straight, clean teeth and perfect skin and hair. I'm not saying that people looked like deformed monstrosities, but tooth bleaching wasn't too high on the list of priorities.
As a culture, we've turned rotten teeth into a sign of evil and corruption. Even if it were just to buck stereotypes by showing that's not the case, it would be hard for audiences to see it as anything but silly if everyone had gutter mouth just for authenticity.. think we're ok with the measures they already go with

Captcha: Romney/Ryan - Describe this brand with any word(s)


I think I'm going to be sick.
 

Azahul

New member
Apr 16, 2011
419
0
0
Mr F. said:
I really cannot see the logical failings there. Stories like LoTR, yeah, I can see the logical bullshit (Why not fly? Why do the heroes magically avoid all arrows at all times? Why has technology stagnated? etc). But AGOT is clever, it is logical and if you follow it closely, it is... slightly predictable.
Ok, this is a pet peeve of mine. I agree that the Red Wedding makes perfect sense in the context of the story. No arguments there. I just take issue with recycling some of the most fallacious arguments about "plot holes" in the Lord of the Rings. So, in order:

Why not fly? Because Sauron is an incredibly powerful Dark Lord with hosts of flying monsters (ravens, fell beasts, and more) at his disposal. The eagles only enter Mordor once Sauron is actually dead, his forces scattered, and his magic unraveling.

Why do the heroes magically avoid arrows at all times? Well, first of all, Boromir gets shot down by arrows. Really, the only time the characters are magically evading arrows is during the escape from the Mines of Moria, which is more artistic license on the movie's part and not something I really recall from the books. Even there, it's dark, goblins are crap shots with terrible bows, and the heroes are a small and moving target. In all the other cases with lots of arrows flying around it's in the midst of a large battle with thousands of combatants on either side, and even GRRM doesn't tend to have characters die from stray arrows in the middle of a fight. In fact, between Boromir's death and Faramir's fall, LOTR makes more of the fact that any man, no matter how mighty a hero, can be cut down by an arrow a lot more than ASOIAF does.

Why has technology stagnated? It hasn't. The Third Age is the age after the Fall of Numenor. Technology had been advancing (not in terms of weapons and armour, because the world was largely at peace, but culture and art and medicine and the understanding of magic), until the hubris of the men of Numenor and the manipulations of Sauron brought everything crashing down. The Third Age is Middle Earth in recovery. Technology hasn't been stagnant all this time, it's risen and then regressed. On top of this, the most powerful force in Middle Earth has historically been a race of immortal, nature-loving beings who never sicken and really have no force driving them to technological innovation. Over on Sauron's side, where there is a drive for industry, we have rudimentary assembly lines, factories, and even explosives and the invention of gunpowder during the Third Age. And it's not like A Song of Ice and Fire is exempt from this trope. We're talking a setting with something like a ludicrous 5,000 year documented history, without technology ever going much past the faux-Medieval stage of almost all Western fantasy. Sure, it's been said that the record keepers are probably wrong about how extensive their history is, but it still doesn't give the impression of an advancing world. Frankly, ASOIAF always struck me as much more stagnant than LOTR.
 

xplosive59

New member
Jul 20, 2009
969
0
0
If there is a reason to drop GoT it wuld be the horrible pacing. There is such a large cast of characters that keeps expanding that to deal with their stories seperately means that the cast is fighting for screen time.
 

Kai Kuhl

New member
Nov 13, 2012
16
0
0
Killing the good guys was just the best thing that could happen. It doesnt just advances the plot, making Daenerys useful,being the last person with a claim the viewer can root with, but is also in that medieval feeling the story vibes in.
Out of a medieval perspective, they deserved that, and its also a realistic depiction of medieval events. I mean, Theoderich the Great killed Odoaker in a similar fashion, and he is regarded as one of the better Kings of Italia.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,757
4,295
118
Country
United Kingdom
Kai Kuhl said:
Daenerys... being the last person with a claim the viewer can root with
Stannis would like a word with you, traitor.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Gorrath said:
dagens24 said:
Have fun dealing with real life trauma when you can't even deal with fictional trauma.
Consider for a moment that some people read fantasy to escape from reality and to enjoy plots where, though things may seem dark for a time and bad things happen, that there is or will be a brighter side. Grim dark everyone dies is the truth of the real world, and fantasy can be a shelter from that truth. So, having your fantasy fiction constantly remind you that the world sucks and everyone's gonna die might put someone off of reading it. It's not about an inability to deal with it, it's about a desire to avoid it in fiction because one has to deal with it in real life. I am not one who avoids it, but I can see why others might want to.
A little off topic, but this has been my problem with made for TV drama for the last ten years. I don't watch Game of Thrones (don't have HBO or Netflix, so there isn't much in the way of legal options for me to watch it), but man do I hate how grimdark and cynical everything got in American television after 9/11. I don't know about everyone else, but I was getting enough "terrible people doing terrible things" from the news at the time, I had no interest in seeing it in my fiction. I still don't, quite frankly, and I'm glad that we're finally starting to get the occasional fun show again, like Defiance.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,757
4,295
118
Country
United Kingdom
Owyn_Merrilin said:
A little off topic, but this has been my problem with made for TV drama for the last ten years. I don't watch Game of Thrones (don't have HBO or Netflix, so there isn't much in the way of legal options for me to watch it), but man do I hate how grimdark and cynical everything got in American television after 9/11. I don't know about everyone else, but I was getting enough "terrible people doing terrible things" from the news at the time, I had no interest in seeing it in my fiction. I still don't, quite frankly, and I'm glad that we're finally starting to get the occasional fun show again, like Defiance.
Game of Thrones can't really be analysed as part of any post-9/11 trend. The first book was published in 1996, and A Storm of Swords (which contains the scene in question) was published in 2000. If there is this "post 9/11 grimdark" trend, GoT is unrelated, and would exist regardless.

I embrace what happened in A Storm of Swords primarily because fiction is dominated by the optimistic and the predictable. Even the "gritty" stuff usually has a foreseeable happy ending: in most cases, the "dark" stuff will happen in the second "act", and will merely serve the purpose of giving the hero purpose and drive to do some soul-searching and eventually come out on top. If you're after "happy ending" escapism, try almost any film ever made (apart from The Wicker Man and Nineteen Eighty-Four).
 

lawsome1997

New member
Apr 14, 2011
4
0
0
People who think shows are darker now really haven't read any of those dark comic books from the 70s.

There has always been dark things and light things. But to say that TV has become more about sin since 9/11 is pretty silly. because there are non-cynical shows around now just like there were in the past, but nobody watched them because they're all like Glee.