One concept that has helped people to understand the characters is to consider them as characters in a Greek Tragedy; each character has a main virtuous trait that eventually they take to an extreme and that extreme is what causes their fall. Catelyn Stark cares about her faimily (which is generally considered a good attribute), but her loyalty to her family causes her capture Tyrion because she thinks he might have been involved with Bran's fall, later it causes her to release Jamie on the slim chance that this might get her daughters back. This works for a lot of the characters.
As far as remembering who everyone is get a cheat sheet that tells you which characters you actually need to focus on and gives the basics on what they are about. Pretty sure there's a couple floating around the internet.
Honestly I think some of the problems you saw are that HBO is worried that there isn't a market for Fantasy Political Drama (or whatever you want to call it.) I think there were fewer sex scenes where there was no real point to the sex scenes (beyond including boobs) after season one. There are still sex scenes they just tended to serve some purpose to the narrative after season 1.
The show is not for everyone if you don't like don't watch it. I get annoyed when people refuse to give the show a chance, but you clearly have so if you don't like it that's cool.
The reason why Game of Thrones is confusing and convoluted is the clusterfuck of a development team the show has. Almost every episode is written and directed by different people and that twists everything into one mess of a plot. Characters change their behavior at will, Cersei, her brother and Deneris being the most shining examples. That's not depth, that's the show's creators wanting to go in different directions.
You mentioned The Wire and in contrast that show actually has main themes by which the story is crafted, while GOT has a shit ton of plot points that go nowhere. There's no philosophy or subtext, just a hollow shell of intrigue and stupid betrayals. The only messege I'm getting from GOT is that everyone is shit except when the scene demands they aren't. Hell, it might be due to bad acting and bland dialogue. I can't give you a GoT quote that isn't something repeated multiple times throughout the show. Yeah, I get it, the night is dark, winter is coming, a Lannister always pays up, Jon Snow is a bastard and he knows nothing. Shame, because I'm kind of a quote junkie. I started watching True Detective for the awesome lines coming from Rust and Marty, but what kept me to the end was the amazing writing and depth the story had.
This comment turned into more of a rant than a response to yours, so I'll have to wrap it up. My last thing to say would be this- I enjoyed GoT while my brain didn't dwell on it too much, when I gave it a deeper analysis, my opinion lowered steadily.
I'm going to try and put this the nicest way possible, you have no idea what you're talking about. What you call a "clusterfuck" of development is standard operating procedure for any major television production. The show has multiple writers and directors, but they don't work in a vacuum.
Furthermore I'd like to see an example of characters acting differently from episode to episode based on what you observe to be the writer's or director's will.
I don't see where the bad acting comes from, the show has some great moments from larger and smaller actors alike. Dinklage is probably one of the most shining moments in the show, and he's back by a wonderful Lena Heady and fantastic Charles Dance. I would honestly say Shae is probably the weakest actor of the cast, but even then she has fairly small amount of screen-time where she isn't with another, much better actor.
Also disagree about there not being any memorable lines that aren't the ones repeated in the show. Jaime in particular gets lots of them through season 1 and 2. Including the " There are no men like me. Only me." line that really captures his character.
Dunno if it's overrated but I can tell you this... It was advertised wrong. It was advertised as this huge action packed medieval series like a Dragon Age type show. Instead it's Downton Abbey with kings, queens and knights. And that's fine if you like it but I expected steak and got chicken instead which left a bad taste in my mouth. LOTR had the same issue. Advertised as action packed but that Clerks 2 scene pretty much sums up the trilogy.
Dunno if it's overrated but I can tell you this... It was advertised wrong. It was advertised as this huge action packed medieval series like a Dragon Age type show. Instead it's Downton Abbey with kings, queens and knights. And that's fine if you like it but I expected steak and got chicken instead which left a bad taste in my mouth. LOTR had the same issue. Advertised as action packed but that Clerks 2 scene pretty much sums up the trilogy.
Debating Chris on Game of Thrones, a User's Guide or; A Song of Spite and Ire.
OK, Kyle. Listen up. Chris has made a reasonable entrance in this debate but he's left himself wide open for a lot of attacks. To win this, you're going to need to concede ground where he's strong and fight where he's weak, thus pushing the debate onto the ground you want him to be on. You will need to, dare I say it, Robb Stark this debate while steering clear of pretty nurses. Got it? OK, let's do this. Chris really only made four points. One is strong as hell, one is kinda middling, two are pretty weak. Let's rock.
Chris's Strong Point
1. The Whole Sex Thing: OK. Here, you're going to give up the fight. Look, Chris is right on this one. There's basically no defence available to you. When Honest Trailers has pointed out how much the show basically tries to sidetrack you with boobs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaD8rouJn0], you know you're beat. It's called "Honest" Trailers. Why would they lie? Don't try to get into the 'sexposition' defence; it's crap and everyone knows it. Just ... concede this one. He has the show dead to rights on it. Above all else, avoid fighting here. He will win. Cede the ground and try to score points elsewhere.
What's weird is that the books don't have this flaw. I can think of, like, two really explicit sex scenes in the books, and one of them is explicitly done to be a full on gross out. The show really amps up the sex and tones down the thing that all the readers come for: The lengthy, near pornographic descriptions of food.
Chris's Middling Points
2. Structure. This one is where you want to kind of half-retreat if you have to, but push back where it's most important. See, Chris is right that the show has some... structural issues. Episodes don't really happen here. There's no in-episode arcs that emerge and resolve in the same episode, even thematic ones. Shit, they seem to actively avoid that kind of stuff ? Is there any reason Theon's fateful decision in season 2 couldn't have been dealt with in one episode? So, if he decides to argue episodic arcs, gracefully accept defeat, although point out stuff like The Wire also tended to allow for pretty amorphous boundaries for episodic arcs.
You will, however, push the hell back on his wider argument of seasonal arcs, which are actually very neatly defined. Season 1 charts the course what caused the War of Five Kings. Boom. Done. That is an accurate depiction of season one, and that's as sensible a seasonal arc as any. If he argues against this, turn it on him. Argues, "OK, so what about Daenerys?" You turn around and point out, "The attempted assassination on her created the initial rift between Ned and Robert, indirectly leading to Robert's death." He tries to argue, "What's Jon Snow got to do with all of it then, huh?" You turn around and point out that The Wall's importance to the North and unimportance to the South is one of the rifts that shapes the war. Etc. etc. Season 2 charts the beginning of The War of the Five Kings until the end of its greatest battle: The Battle of Blackwater. So on, and so forth. (Just SAYING what Season Three charts would be a spoiler.)
With that in place, it's able to play the long game. Why are the White Walkers pointed out as quickly as possible, then let to sleep in the background? For the same reason Norway is constantly being mentioned in Hamlet but never allowed to come to the forefront: It's the threat everyone's ignoring while the personal politics engulf all, the thing that will doom everybody for the sake of their own personal pettiness. That's fucking classic, it is. Foreshadowing, motherfuckers, and seriously, comparing Heroes to this show is insulting to Game of Thrones. Heroes was a show whose theme was practically non-existent and whose narrative arc was deliberately clipped. Oh look, it's the end of season one and there's a giant fight between Peter and Sylar and Peter's and Nathan have sacrificed themselves to save everyone! LOL JK he's fine and we reset his power level because it was becoming problematic. Fuck Heroes, seriously. At least when people DIE on Game of Thrones they stay fucking DEAD.
Lady Stoneheart? I've never even heard of her!
Chris's Weak Points
3. So Many Characters OK, yes, it's true. Game of Thrones somewhat suffers from an abundance of characters. But geeze, complaining about their names? If he does that shit again, just point out that yeah, Tyrion's a weird name! Not like, I dunno, Tyrone. (Yes, Tyrion and Tyrone actually share a derivative.) It's a fantasy universe. There's going to be some weird names. Also, Ned was somehow short for Eddard.
You can again fight back a bit here in a few ways. Point out that other shows have done lots of characters and nobody's bitched about ... again... The Wire. Point out that really, all the older men thing is hardly true. Joffrey is totally an older white guy. Cersei? Older white guy, there. Bran Stark? Such an older white dude! Khal Drogo! Totally an older white dude! (I kinda wish he'd been less white, actually, but eh.) And if you can't tell Ned from Robert from Littlefinger, I have no idea what to do with you. THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE. What the heck?
So yes, agree there's a lot of characters to keep track of. But seriously, just ask him: Can he really not tell the difference between, say, Stannis Baratheon and Tywin Lannister? Because if you can't tell one from the other at a glance, then the problem is with you, not the show.
4. Theme and Thesis: Here you will attack. You will attack and attack and attack. This is Chris's weak flank, and he's exposed completely. RIP INTO HIS BUTTOCKS WITH YOUR TEETH.
Wait, that came out wrong. Let's try again.
Chris charges that Game of Thrones lacks thematic unity or a clear thesis statement. Is it a high fantasy show? Is it a dark ages version of House of Cards? Is it a personal drama about the dynamics between unlikely allies and enemies? Yes. Yes it is! Counter with Breaking Bad. Was Breaking Bad a social satire highlighting the failings of America's health-care system? Was it a dark character study of a man who tasted evil and found he liked it? Was it an exploration of how we all break the rules to get our own ends, that anyone can 'break bad'? Yes, yes it was! Man, it sucks when shows can't decide what they want to be!
Game of Thrones clearly understands what it's about: It's about honor, and the lack thereof. It asks whether honor is a failing, always to die at the hands of those prepared to exploit it. If there were enough noble men in the realm, then they'd support the Watch and the Wall would easily hold the White Walkers off. But as we see for two full seasons, honorable men get beheaded in the Sept of Baelor. Small wonder there are few honorable men.
Everything else comes out of this. The show spends a lot of time showing the suffering inflicted on the 'pieces' in the Game: Talisa highlights the men dying on the battlefield for Robb's sense of honor, Sansa shows the suffering of women married off and treated as chattel for the sake of a political plot. The show refuses to let all the politics be bloodless, people suffer for honor and the lack thereof.
Hammer Chris here, Kyle. He's left himself wide open by claiming the show lacks clear theme. Bring up honor (or ideals as a close cousin) as that theme and chart it on any character. The Starks, Robb and Ned and Catelyn? How honor leaves you wide open to treachery. The Lannisters? How a LACK of honor breeds dissent and infighting. The link between duty and honor is a key theme. Again and again, the show revolves around questions of honor. That's the theme. That's the word to play by. If he tries to back out of this, destroy him.
You have this, Kyle. Chris has left himself more open than not. Don't respond to the sex point, it's a trap. Spar with him a little on the issue of structure if you have to, you can win there.
I think the show works better than the novels, in that there are far too many characters to keep track of otherwise. I can acknowledge the whole lack of resolution. However, have become accustomed to the crockery that occurs in anime, at least the characters are interesting enough to watch.
If, however, the payoff to the series ends up going poorly, the entire series will fall apart. Until such time, the medieval politics is interesting enough. I understand Chris' points, even agree to a certain extent. If the show had been hyped up to this extent BEFORE I'd started watching, I'd agree. This is precisely why I have yet to watch Breaking Bad (though I imagine I will like that as well).
However, until such time as GoT drops the ball, it continues to be compelling and better than a lot of alternatives. In many ways, it reminds me of the manga Berserk. At this point, I have given up on the manga, it's taken too long and failed to resolve anything in a satisfying manner. GoT COULD fall prey to this, but it hasn't yet, and the character dynamics/stories remain satisfying (some more than others, granted).
Right there with you. I decided to watch this series because one of my friends raves about how great it is. The first scene was pretty good, and the flesh golems, "White Walkers", actually drew me in. After that the show was completely predictable for the first two episodes, and no I haven't read the books though that is coming up soon. I was sitting there going 'learn the difference between foreshadowing and telegraphing guys'. After that it starts to get better, but the lack of tonal variety just makes the entire series feel flat and uninvolving. "Winter is Coming" is just a catchphrase, kinda like the BSA's "Be Prepared". It's supposed to act as a warning about the evil things that go bump in the cold, but it's become cliche in the story.
As for my friend, he can't understand why I'm not hyped about this series, but I think his primary interest in Game of Excess we can get away with because we're HBO is anatomical and hormonal. From what I've seen, that is the primary audience that is being targeted by this series, kinda like the guys at HBO decided to make an action-porn and then shoehorned a story into it. On the other hand, another friend has told me that the books aren't much better about the gratuitous blood and boobs.
Ok, laughed my ass off thanks to the middle finger dance, that was awesome. As for the debate, I find it less difficult to find the ways in which someone's wrong about something than to present an actual point sometimes but I will try.
Constant shift of focus is attributed to the fact that in every conflict, there are multiple sides to it. It would be good if there were only two but westeros is comprised of seven kingdoms. So we have the ambitions and plans of each one laid out for us. And they are laid out pretty well. One is about family, the other is about legacy, another is about honor, the one after that is about the right to rule and so on. This is actually quite close to how real life large scale conflicts take place. That's why the show is good in my opinion. Not because of the way fantasy and sex is incorporated into the experience but because it is a more realistic and down to earth demonstration of bad things happening to good people and how putting your ethics in the front seat instead of the back will get you killed. Even the ones we perceived as good guys have made some pretty big mistakes along the way (Ned didn't trust Jaime because of his murdering of King Aerys but never bothered to find out WHY he did it) and that pretty much solidifies the fact that just like in real life, as long as you are human, you make mistakes and you pay for them. As for the writing, I think it's attributed to the books. It works because it sacrifices main POV characters to successfully keep the story going. This is not something seen often. The main character protection bubble does not apply here and I adore that.
The show DOES suffer from an overabundance of characters (stannis for example, the dude that banged the witch in the red dress) is mentioned in season 1 but doesn't actually appear until season 2) and the fact that they keep introducing new ones doesn't help. On the other hand though, it gave me incentive to go back and rewatch certain episodes and I liked that I noticed stuff I hadn't the first time around.
When it comes to payoff, the first season was never about the upcoming winter, it was about the upcoming war. After Ned discovered who and what Geoffrey really was and Robert had to go, the phrase's meaning went from a literal one to one of 'shit is gonna hit the fan'. Things were fine up to that point but now we are dealing with bastards, off-world maidens with fire resistance north of 9000 and lots of other stuff. It is pretty obvious from the first episode that the quiet times are done.
The Red Wedding's significance stems from what Robb had actually achieved during his career as the lord of winterfell. He had zero defeats in the field, beating the Lannisters time and again, but more than that, he was one of the show's last remaining morally sound characters and "good guys". When 3 of our good guys get killed, the guys you rooted for, it hurts a bit. Chris saw what kind of a king Geoffrey is and what kind of a king Robb is. It couldn't have been too hard to understand that the number of good people that fight to sit on the westeros' throne is getting smaller and smaller.
I agree that there are bewbs for bewbs's sake in the show but the red wedding was important because Robb Stark could have defeated the Lannisters in fair combat as he won every battle until then.
I can agree on the basic line that GoT is overrated. First I loved the first season as I did not like the first book that much. The book was just stretching too many unimportant things into several hundred pages. The first season removed and compressed a lot of this stuff and I was fine. But the second book is FAR superior over the second season. I did not continue watching the other seasons as they had completely lost me by changing the actions of some characters to "people to stupid stuff to further the plot" tricks. For example the capturing of the rangers behind the wall was completely rewritten and too far away from the book... And also too far from any actions those people would normally do.
1. This is really the only post this thread needs. You should probably just appear on the show yourself.
2. The books absolutely do have random sex scenes for their own sake. Lesbian Dany, anyone?
3. I will always maintain that Breaking Bad had NOTHING to do with healthcare. At all. Spoilers from the early days of a show that ended a year ago He doesn't even HAVE cancer for most of the show. Well, he technically still does, but...You know what I mean. He always has access to the treatment he wants. Hell, in the first season, he says he doesn't WANT help, because he thinks it will just prolong his death unnecessarily. He ALSO says that he's not making money for himself, he's making it for his children. Nothing. To do. With healthcare.
So his main problem with the show seemed to be scope? That's all I got out of that video. He doesn't like following multiple stories. Well, Game of Thrones is a show about scope. So it's obvious why he didn't like it. He seems to like... less complex shows, which is fine. Not everyone likes to get involved in fiction like that - to each his own.
Also I don't get why everyone is afraid of sex in shows. The show is based on a very dark age/medieval society where these things are not exactly uncommon. It's not really porny either... a lot of the scenes are actually very uncomfortable. Hell a lot of them could probably be classified as rape. It's just part of the world, not a fan-service.
I'll give Chris that the show has too much sex for pretty much no reason other than to keep people watching. But the reason for all the characters, which you're supposed to be able to remember the names of because of their distinct personalities, is so that you know more of what's going on.
Chris says the show is unfocused, the whole point is that the characters, except for a small number, don't believe they live in a world of magic, dragons, and scary ice monsters that make zombies. The white walkers are coming and if they don't do something about it, they're all screwed, but they don't believe that that's the truth.
The political intrigue is because these people want to position themselves into places of power. The violence is because violence was and is part of all worlds with humans in them. The sex is in there for similar reasons. Some of the sex is plot driven, some of it isn't.
The thing about this series, even more so in the books, is that there are clues dropped here and there to things that will happen much later. Starting this season shit will really be going down. And that's part of what's fun about it. You get placed into the world, you start picking sides, and then when the shit goes down, you get thrown around just as much as the characters.
The show and the books are companion pieces. The show makes the books better, and the books make the show better. If you don't experience booth, then you are missing out on part of the experience.
Looks like I was late for the dump. But since I'm bored anyways, heres my counterarguements, starting from the top..or beginning:
1. "This show is not well structured. Is this high fantasy, is it political drama?"
Hmm, yes. I can see your problem. This show doesn't focus on just one thing, so it IMPOSSIBLE to tell whats going on. I mean, is Futurama a drama, a comedy, a a love story? Seriously, a show can be more than one thing. If you HAVE to describe it with one thing, how about "Medieval political drama with magical influence"? Doesn't that just about cover it? The show focuses on all the families (and if you don't remember each name, thats fine, but remembering the family names, at least the ones important to the plot at the moment you're watching (and you're being reminded every third second) shouldn't be that difficult), and the relationship between them. There is no main person, and anyone can die at any time, thats the premise that gets nailed into you at the end of season one when the guy, who everyone thought was going to be the main person because of his storyfocus and his "hero" tropes, gets killed off! And it opens up this forked path for the entire stark family. Suddenly they hare spread to everywhere and have to manage on their own. Thats brilliant storytelling if I've ever seen it.
The only bad part of the storytelling is the Deanerys part, and this is because she is so removed from everything else that is going on. I don't think even George R.R. Martin expected her story to drag on as much as it did when he wrote the books.
2. "What is "Winter is Coming"?"
They explained this very closely in the show, makes me think you weren't paying much attention. "Winter is coming" is the tagline, or motto, or saying if you want, of the Stark family. This is because they live up north where its absolutely freezing during winter. And, like you said, they don't even know how long winter will last. This is why the Starks have to always be prepared with enough supplies to last for many a year. How does this relate to the show where it isn't winter yet? You can also look at the motto like this: "be prepared for bad times" or "bad times are coming, so be prepared". And as you might have noticed; bad times came.
Its also the underlying theme for the whole show. What is winter exactly? Its cold, death, north..generally bad times. What about the Lannister family? "Hear me roar". They are lions, red caped, warm colors, and live down south. Starks vs Lannisters which are the underlying theme for the 3 first seasons are "cold vs warm".
Then theres the white walkers, coming from the north, and attacking the south. Again, warm vs cold. Danerys? Exactly the same thing.
Now remember the name of the books? "A Song of Ice and Fire".
3. Names can be daunting for some of us. I never remember a name the first time I meet someone..or the second..or third. I STILL don't know the name of some off the classmates I had during highschool! Why is it then that I have no trouble remembering the name of the important characters in the show? Because they keep hammering them into our heads! You hear the word "Lannister", "Tyrion", "Stark", "John Snow", "Danerys", "Carl Drogo" (Yes I did that on purpose), "Viserys", "littlefinger", "Jamie" etc every single episode! Of course you can't be expected to remember them after hearing their names once, but after 3 seasons? Comon. This is a weak arguement. What you should have been arguing was for the names of all the unimportant characters..of which there are many. "The fat guy", "the other fat guy", "the hot redhead", "the girl who had a ghost in her vagina", "The dude with an ugly face who tried to steal the dragons" etc.
This could also be explained by going into the books a bit. You see, in the books there where chapters based on Each important character. Ned stark has the first chapter (after the prologue), then one with John Snow, Then one with Bran, and so on. These are the people that the show focuses on, because the story is seen from their eyes in the books. But that also leaves out all the hundreds of characters who doesn't have a chapter by themselves. They don't get as much focus in the show, and thus they are harder to remember.
And you can't put up a picture of two characters who are brothers and say "Hey, I can't see the difference". Doesn't that just mean that they did a good job?
4. "The red wedding was boring because blabla"
Yeah. The characters who died only drove the main story for 3 seasons... I fail to see how you found that boring. Again, it feels to me like you haven't been paying attention. This would be like Breaking Bad killing of Jesse at the end of season 3 and you going "then some guy died and I didn't really care. Was he even part of the show?"
5. The whole "boob argument"
Yepp. Free point to you. The show does have a lot of boobage in it. Then again, so did the books the show was based on. And its not solely to attract white nerds by tossing in random porn. Some of it is actually storydriven and gives the show an atmosphere of being more realistic and grown up..because, opposed to popular belief in America, people DO have sex in real life. It's just that theres too much of it, and at the wrong times. Theres just no reason to watch two lesbians have sex while Littlefinger talks to himself for 5 minutes straight. It also makes it awkward to watch the show with your family..
6. "She does that because the guy wrote her to do it!"
..Really? Do I even need to point out the flaw in your argument here?
7. "within 30 seconds for each point"
Yeah. I'm failing completely at that here. But, unlike what you said, you can't explain to people within 30 seconds why this show is good, EXACTLY because you'd only be scraping the surface where all the "softporn, too many names, weirdly structured, incest, torture, floppy penises" jokes are. The show has a lot of depth, and you can't explain all of that within 30 seconds. And THAT is why I love this show. Exactly because its not an easy show. It doesn't hold your hand with plotarmored characters, easy story and easy to follow structure. You have to pay attention every step of the way. And once you crack that surface, it is one of the best shows on the planet.
Honestly, we all know what is going on. Lets not kid ourselves and be adult about this.
Everyone suffers from Hipster Syndrome. You can self diagnose when you hear yourself using the word "overrated."
My girlfriend hated Frozen because everyone wouldn't stop screaming about it. Hated the movie when we finally watched it, never gave it a chance. Well, she loves it now but that's not important.
The point is, you are not gonna enjoy something if you walk in thinking "Ugh gotta watch this bitchass show because all these people aren't shutting up about it and hate me because I haven't watched it."
Vegosiux said:
Jokes aside, I paid full attention and didn't like it. Can't really put a finger on why, but my reaction was pretty much "Huh? This is it? It's definitely not pure distilled awesomeness I was told it was going to be." Basically, the way it all turned out, it was simply mediocre, I saw nothing special in it. I would have likely disliked it less had I not been paying full attention.
Maybe the hype is the reason, actually. Or my inability to comprehend just how much of hyperbole people are capable of, who knows. But if you drab on and on about something that's "The best thing since sliced bread", I'm going to expect the best thing since sliced bread, not merely "Something decent enough it might be above average".
And from your video it seems like you just hate your friends or hate the internet because they keep bragging about the show.
I was hoping for something more serious or with more creditability, but I feel like you used this massive stage you were given to ***** about a popular show in the most personal and emotional way that verges on flame baiting. I feel like there is a certain responsibility expected of those who make videos like this to be critical and examine the real questions,.....and not get bogged down and wade into the flame wars that fan boys have. I feel like this video had a lot more mud slinging than real criticisms.
It is certainly NOT overrated. Granted there are many that dont enjoy the show but, the fact that HBO's servers were hit tonight with so many damn requests so people could watch that it might have well been hit with a denial of service attack, certainly shows that it isn't overrated. High production values, good story, and amazing acting. Is a good show.
The show is overrated, but it is also extremely important because it introduces fantasy to mainstream television audiences.
I exclusively read fantasy literature, I have read the GoT books to date, and I even read all the books before watching the TV show. The TV show is good and I actually prefer it to the books. But. BUT. There is vastly superior fantasy literature out there. You are absolutely correct in that game of thrones doesn't know what genre it sits in. It hints and magic, without any magic. It hints at dragons, but the dragons are useless babies. It hints at powers and mystery and intrigue all of which can be explained away with the ignorance and mythical lore of the age. All of this and more hides the deeper truth. G R R Martin is a troll, who deliberate lays down fantasy tropes then fails to resolve or deliberately trolls them.
For example, the dire wolves are introduced as so mythical as to be unheard of. The starks are hinted at as having a 'mental connection' to the beasts, but this never really goes anywhere, except bran, but bran is some fantasy trope 'shapeshifter' then what were the other starks? Arya is separated from her dire wolf very early on, then we hear rumours of some queen she-wolf, then nothing nothing nothing nothing and its still unresolved. The dire wolves at this point are so boringly unremarkable we have forgotten they are there.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
