Yep. Well, didn't finish the fourth one because I was bored out of my mind, but otherwise, yep.ThaBenMan said:
Recap: Episode One
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was wondering about that too. I wouldnt want to be hired to play an intentionally ugly character, one of my favourites characters in the entire book though.Spectrum_Prez said:
So far I loved the first episode but I dont remember that whorehouse from the book. Nice of Jaime to do that for his brother though.
Great summary, Susan. Comprehensive and lighthearted. It explains well the plot (without revealing spoilers) to folks who have not read the books.
In the spirit of explaining what is happening in the story, please let me clarify 3 points that I found in the summary:
- Viserys is a bastard, yes, but the whole getting Danny naked is not so outrageous if we explain that the Targaryens use to marry each other (brother and sister). This is also an excuse that Cersei uses for bumping and grinding Jamie, even though they are Lannisters and not Targaryens
- The "servant" who brings in the note from Lady Arryn is Maester freaking Luwin! He is a bit more prominent than a servant, he's earned his chain links. Donald Sumpter does a great job in portraying him
- Although we may feel more used to the term "Sir" to refer to a knight, the actual term in the story is "Ser" (same thing in my opinion); thus Ser Jorah Mormont. This makes no difference really, only to emphasize that the story is set in a different world and not medieval UK.
I am looking forward to watching the rest of the season and hoping it will go for the full 7 seasons (GRRM has 5 years in which to write the last two!).
Tyrion is, by far, my favourite character. Pete is fantastic as the Imp... we can already infer a deep intellect emanating form him.
In the spirit of explaining what is happening in the story, please let me clarify 3 points that I found in the summary:
- Viserys is a bastard, yes, but the whole getting Danny naked is not so outrageous if we explain that the Targaryens use to marry each other (brother and sister). This is also an excuse that Cersei uses for bumping and grinding Jamie, even though they are Lannisters and not Targaryens
- The "servant" who brings in the note from Lady Arryn is Maester freaking Luwin!
He is a bit more prominent than a servant, he's earned his chain links. Donald Sumpter does a great job in portraying him- Although we may feel more used to the term "Sir" to refer to a knight, the actual term in the story is "Ser" (same thing in my opinion); thus Ser Jorah Mormont. This makes no difference really, only to emphasize that the story is set in a different world and not medieval UK.
I am looking forward to watching the rest of the season and hoping it will go for the full 7 seasons (GRRM has 5 years in which to write the last two!).
Tyrion is, by far, my favourite character. Pete is fantastic as the Imp... we can already infer a deep intellect emanating form him.
It was interesting. I'd read the books and had been looking forward to the show for awhile now. My sister, on the other hand, hadn't read any of the books and knew nothing about the series or the world or anything. We watched the premiere of the show together, and while I ended up explaining a few things here and there to her, she actually managed to get the gist of the story herself and ended up really enjoying it. I was glad I watched with her because it gave me a whole different perspective on things.
To some extent I almost wonder if people who haven't read the books might enjoy the show more than those who have read them and feel the need to nitpick over every detail. If you don't go into it with all the expectations and knowledge you may find yourself enjoying it for its own sake, with the high production quality and, honestly, really well done acting and writing. Not saying that someone who's read the books don't have the potential to love it so far - I did, even though things were obviously clipped in some places, or changed around, it happens when adapting things to film - but there's definitely something to seeing it with an open mind.
Of course... I can't help but hope people who enjoy the show give the books a try. I know the first one might seem a bit long (introducing the world, and the characters, and the history) at first, but the Song of Ice and Fire series is easily among my top three favorites of all time. G.R.R.M.'s writing is by far some of the best I've ever had the pleasure of diving into and I'm glad it's being so well adapted in the show.
To some extent I almost wonder if people who haven't read the books might enjoy the show more than those who have read them and feel the need to nitpick over every detail. If you don't go into it with all the expectations and knowledge you may find yourself enjoying it for its own sake, with the high production quality and, honestly, really well done acting and writing. Not saying that someone who's read the books don't have the potential to love it so far - I did, even though things were obviously clipped in some places, or changed around, it happens when adapting things to film - but there's definitely something to seeing it with an open mind.
Of course... I can't help but hope people who enjoy the show give the books a try. I know the first one might seem a bit long (introducing the world, and the characters, and the history) at first, but the Song of Ice and Fire series is easily among my top three favorites of all time. G.R.R.M.'s writing is by far some of the best I've ever had the pleasure of diving into and I'm glad it's being so well adapted in the show.
Susan wanted to keep these summaries limited just to the information presented in the show. While fans of the books (which we all are) may know some of the bits that are left out or foreshadowed, these recaps are meant to treat the show as if the viewer had no prior knowledge. I even edited out a short bit that I felt gave too strong a hint about the big twist that's coming for the Stark family.Triaed said:
Please keep in mind that some people reading this board may not know what's going to happen next, so let's try not to ruin the surprises.
While Susan is writing about this as a stand alone series, Greg Tito's write up [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/misc/8804-Talking-About-Game-of-Thrones] gets into some of the finer points of the adaptation. It's the best way we could come up with to satisfy both audiences.
To be honest, I wasn't necessarily calling you out. I was just kind of putting it out there for the sake of everyone who's joining in the discussion.Triaed said:
The weird thing is we know a lot of stuff from the books that aren't revealed during the same scenes in the show. I don't think they ever really tie what's going on in Pentos to what's going on in King's Landing in the show, but it's pretty obvious in the books.
Gotta agree with you on this one. I mean, personally, I enjoyed the breasts on display, but I watched the episode with my wife and she ended up being pretty disgusted by the misogynistic overtones. I realize that it's a sort of realistic portrayal of how women have been historically treated in medieval settings, but I really think the show could have down played those elements.Spangles said:
For example, was it really necessary for the lingering close up on Daenerys' breast as Viserys caressed it? It was gratuitous and unnecessary, imo. Viserys' creepy familiarity and objectification of Daenerys could have easily been portrayed without that, or without any nudity at all. As far as the wedding scene between her and Drogo, it was almost tasteful in comparison, but still, could have faded out before the nudity.
Anyway, yeah, the rampant titties and swearing I think took away from the show as "serious" film making, as it seemed mostly tacked on and gratuitous. Hopefully once they get a few episodes in, things settle down and there's less of a sensationalistic feel to the series.
i love Wheel of Time. but i love A Song of Ice and Fire even more. both are extremely well written, entertaining, and thoughtful. but ASoIaF is much more realistic than WoT. to me, WoT is like Star Wars: it's great fun, and we love cheering for Mat Solo, i mean Han Cauthon, i mean... (ok, you get it, i'm sure). beyond that, it's really hard for me to explain what i like about both. suffice it to say i love both.Sober Thal said:
Triaed said:Given that you have no idea how Maester Luwin is unlessSteve Butts said:Yes, I know it's Maester Luwin, and you know it's Maester Luwin, but you haven't read the books, you have no idea who that is and/or why it might matter. Given that a whole lot of new names and faces were just thrown at a brand new audience, "a servant" will do for now, because it really doesn't matter within the context of the episode who handed Ned a piece of paper, merely what's on the paper.Triaed said:Great summary, Susan. Comprehensive and lighthearted. It explains well the plot (without revealing spoilers) to folks who have not read the books.
In the spirit of explaining what is happening in the story, please let me clarify 3 points that I found in the summary:
- Viserys is a bastard, yes, but the whole getting Danny naked is not so outrageous if we explain that the Targaryens use to marry each other (brother and sister). This is also an excuse that Cersei uses for bumping and grinding Jamie, even though they are Lannisters and not Targaryens
- The "servant" who brings in the note from Lady Arryn is Maester freaking Luwin!
- Although we may feel more used to the term "Sir" to refer to a knight, the actual term in the story is "Ser" (same thing in my opinion); thus Ser Jorah Mormont. This makes no difference really, only to emphasize that the story is set in a different world and not medieval UK.
I am looking forward to watching the rest of the season and hoping it will go for the full 7 seasons (GRRM has 5 years in which to write the last two!).
Tyrion is, by far, my favourite character. Pete is fantastic as the Imp... we can already infer a deep intellect emanating form him.
Back in those days, it's not like noble women had much say with who they will be betrothed to. But from the first 150 pages I read in the first book so far, you might enjoy how her character will develop.teebeeohh said:
And all the men should cover up too, to hide that broad chest and manly pecks. Also, what's wrong with nudity? I have more problem with watching a man guts get spilled out than an alien (if that's the same actor, he is awesome) from SG: Atlantis humping some dragonspawn (dragonspawn, get it?).Zom-B said:
Well that's just it, isn't it? There wasn't and usually isn't any male nudity in tv or movies. In the first episode of Game of Thrones, we get Daenerys naked, Tyrion (clothed) romping with no less than 4 naked women and a handful of breast-baring Dothraki women, compared to what? Shirtless Dothraki men? Double standard much?cainx10a said:
I don't have a problem with nudity, but I do have a problem with the double standard that female breast, buttocks and even pubic hair is okay to portray on television and film, but one penis immediately gets an R or NC17 rating and is generally considered obscene.
It's an unfortunate fact that most pop culture perpetuates this double standard, and works like Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones perpetuate it, despite the fact that they do include strong female characters. The problem is that those strong females are still objectified and sexualized, whereas male characters are just as stereotypically portrayed as sexual carnivores, collecting women as trophies where ever they go, as those same women prostrate themselves at the males manly feet, face down, ass up.
As usual,the nudity in Game of Thrones was one sided and gratuitous in nature, rather than tasteful. The scene with Tyrion and the prostitute was the only one that didn't feel forced, that is, until Jaime brought in three extra, giggling, happy whores to service him. Hell, with a name like Peter Dinklage, I kind of expected to see his junk.
Zom-B said:Well that's just it, isn't it? There wasn't and usually isn't any male nudity in tv or movies. In the first episode of Game of Thrones, we get Daenerys naked, Tyrion (clothed) romping with no less than 4 naked women and a handful of breast-baring Dothraki women, compared to what? Shirtless Dothraki men? Double standard much?cainx10a said:
Well, it's not like genitalia is shown right? You either see the man or woman's buttocks, breasts, and that's usually it.
However, Spartacus had a lot of naked men, women, and they didn't hesitate to show genitalia, for men ONLY. They didn't even hesitate to show a homosexual couple consummating their love and these were two manly men type gladiators humping each other ... I will admit, I laughed at each sex scene in Spartacus like a little kid ... because some of them were just ... well ... let's have a threesome with my wife and her best friend! ... then some were meant to be just perverse to show how those slaves didn't have any control over their lives as one man slave is 'forced' to be the toy of many nobles who roll the other way when they feel like it.
I don't have a problem with nudity, but I do have a problem with the double standard that female breast, buttocks and even pubic hair is okay to portray on television and film, but one penis immediately gets an R or NC17 rating and is generally considered obscene. I agree to this point. But I guess it has everything to do with a culture that sees nothing wrong with violence and gore (I have nothing against gore when it's over the top, but realistic gore just ... well ... ruins it for me).
It's an unfortunate fact that most pop culture perpetuates this double standard, and works like Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones perpetuate it, despite the fact that they do include strong female characters. The problem is that those strong females are still objectified and sexualized, whereas male characters are just as stereotypically portrayed as sexual carnivores, collecting women as trophies where ever they go, as those same women prostrate themselves at the males manly feet, face down, ass up.
Meh, not too sure about this point. If you look at the prostitutes that were so quick to shower Tyrion with kisses and ... well ... other gifts ... they were only doing it for the coins. The noble women and even peasants could care less about Tyrion ... poor soul is just a dwarf.
Catelyn is just loyal to her husband and is a traditional woman as well, and definitely strong for what she will do soon enough. And for the sake of spoilers, I will stop here.
Sansa is just your typical noble kid growing into a noble lady thing, and still believes in all the 'good' side of life, the fantasies of a becoming a little princess getting married to a beautiful little prince and what's not and Arya definitely seems to have the right mold to turn into Ser Aria (do dire-wolves get knighthood too?).
Dany is definitely not in control of her life, and she definitely wasn't shoving her ass up to please Drogo, she just didn't have a choice in the matter it seems.
The Queen ... well ... she is just into her brother I guess ... or was that the other way around :s
As usual,the nudity in Game of Thrones was one sided and gratuitous in nature, rather than tasteful. The scene with Tyrion and the prostitute was the only one that didn't feel forced, that is, until Jaime brought in three extra, giggling, happy whores to service him. Hell, with a name like Peter Dinklage, I kind of expected to see his junk.
You sure you want to see a little man with an elephant junk? That could totally hurt a man's pride!
I didn't watch Spartacus myself, but it's the exception, rather than the rule. As to the rest of your comments, I was generalizing, and didn't mean to say the women in GoT in particular were crammed into the mold I so glibly described.cainx10a said:
Anyway, my original point, in agreeing with a previous commenter was that the nudity in this episode of GoT was clearly aimed at pleasing straight young men. I'm not saying that any nudity or sexuality should cater to everyone equally at all times, but this was a clearly a case of pandering to the largest portion of the novel's fan base, that being young men. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, except for further perpetuating gender stereotypes. I understand the source material, and have read it, but GRRM hasn't used women as chattels and the objectification of them as social commentary, merely as part of life in his fantasy world, and in that regards, it doesn't serve any purpose other than to titillate a certain segment of the population and to alienate or offend others.
I'm not really trying to make this into a gender rights or sociological argument, I just think that the nudity and sexuality could have been handled more effectively in GoT (the tv show. the book is an entirely different thing and in that context i don't remember having any problems with it, though i do admit it's been a few years since i've read teh books.)
American culture is very uncomfortable seeing naked men. Not sure why, exactly, but it's true. You can have naked girls all day long, but have a couple of wangs in the picture and OMGTHINKOFTHECHILDRENNNNNNN!Zom-B said:
I do agree that some of the nudity was a bit gratuitous. Dany taking so long to get into the pool, the closeup on her breast as her brother is appraising her...those seemed a bit unnecessary to me. The Dothraki, on the other hand, I thought was perfectly appropriate, given the context. It's a big ol' party to celebrate the Khal's wedding - naturally there's going to be sex.
Of course, you could also point out the gratuitous nature of the violence. Did we really need to see intestines lolling out of the Dothraki warrior's torso? Or the man of the Night Watch's head rolling towards his friend? Not really. But I think the creators of GoT wanted viewers to know right from the get-go what kind of series this was going to be. This is very much NOT Lord of the Rings, with long, loving glances and sword swipes that don't draw blood. This is a place where people shag and death is ugly.
It's fitting you bring up the violence in the episode, as I actually decided to ignore that facet of culture for the sake of keeping things succinct.Susan Arendt said:
I prefer not to generalize overly much, but the American culture, and to a lesser extent my own Canadian culture (though I like to think we're a little more liberal when it comes to sex), has this weird dichotomy where it's okay for children to view thousands of deaths over the span of a childhood via television and movies, yet those same children mustn't ever see nudity or sex or expressions of sexuality, lest they be forever corrupted and end up burning in hell.
It's one of those eternally puzzling mysteries to me, how the American population can be so hypocritical in these two areas. Personally, I think seeing positive expressions of sexuality, including full frontal nudity and simulated sex acts is far less harmful, and in fact I'd even go so far as to say not harmful in most cases (there's always exceptions- i don't approve of, say, a 10 yr old viewing hardcore pornography, but I think it's totally okay for that same child to see both male and female nudity), than watching hundreds of hours of simulated deaths and rapes that are commonly portrayed on TV and film.
I don't have the numbers or the info, and if anyone else has access to them or can point out where they are, I bet that the US has more gun and sex crime with it's "right to bear arms" gun culture and focus on violence as well as puritanical values, than all the countries of the EU combined, where in most places guns are not a cultural obsession and sexuality is viewed in a more positive light. I could be wrong, but my gut tells me I'm not far from the truth.
Anyway, I actually found the violence in this first episode to be fairly tame. The entrails were a bit gratuitous, but the shot didn't linger on it. I'm sure in future episode we'll be treated to some truly graphic violence, but all told, this first episode wasn't too gory.