To me Game of Thrones will never be the same (S4E8 discussion)

[Stu35]

He felt like the new hero the show desperately needed.

I think this attitude speaks volumes about the series as a whole and why I find it so refreshing.

Heroes are mortal. Every story in the world has immortal heroes who somehow survive incredible odds, or those heroes who's mortality is a harbinger of greater things and happier endings to come.

I got into the series because Sean Bean was in it, and I fucking love Sean Bean - in season 1 it was clear that the Starks were the heroes, they were the Stoic, Noble Northmen who stand against the corruption and evils of the South - this speaks greatly to me as a Yorkshireman (I think, as a county, we collectively relate to the Starks).

Then Ned Stark dies. No matter - the death of our hero only allows the true hero (Robb Stark) of the piece to come along, win the war, and restore peace and justice to the world...

Yeah, you know where this is going.


Point is, this story is so visceral for me BECAUSE main characters are not only subject to the same rules of mortals, but they're subject to them in the same way as everyone else - They don't just die heroic deaths (although some do), but they die because life just isn't fair.


I've read the books now, and to be honest I've actually started to go off George RR Martin as a writer towards the end (won't stop me buying and reading the shit out of the last two if he survives long enough to publish them), but I've never truly been introduced to a story where main characters can die from something as simple, something as cruelly un-narrative as an infected cut.

I'm sure the concept existed before (as indeed the first book in aSoIaF was published in what, 1996? - Apparently a good friend of mine recommended 'Game of Thrones' to me when we were in high school(late 90s early 00s), I read the blurb and said it looked shit... Funny how the world works), simply saying that this series ultimately introduced me to the fact that stories can have that and still be good.



We live in a world where everybody is trying to shove "gritty realism" down our throats (without ever letting a protagonist die unless it was to allow a secondary protagonist to avenge them), so to see so many "protagonist" characters dying is nice. Even so far as it is heartbreaking.

 

[Loonyyy]

I honestly think there are no 'good' factions in ASoIaF, merely sympathetic characters.
Team #Davos4Lyfe



I'll see myself out...

You don't need to see yourself out. Onion Knight for the Iron Throne! (Come on, who could be a better king?)

 

[TerranV]

Then Ned Stark dies. No matter - the death of our hero only allows the true hero (Robb Stark) of the piece to come along, win the war, and restore peace and justice to the world...

Yeah, you know where this is going.

The funny thing is looking back, its obvious Ned and Robb were red herrings to destract us from the actual "heroes":
-Jon Snow
-Arya Stark
-Sansa Stark
-Bran Stark
-Daenerys
-Tyrion
Although I still don't expect them all to survive the series.

 

[grey_space]

quote

The Viper got cocky, played to the crowd instead of remaining focused and aware of his opponent and got swept. The Mountain rolled on top of him and then killed him with his bare hands.

Death by Hubris. Which suits Martin's modus operandi.

Ned died because of his honour and love for his familly, King Robert died because for his wilful blindness and drunken risk-taking, And Rob died because he thought all wars were fought only on the battlefield.

Oberyn was arrogant and overly confident in his skills, and in his haste to seek out the true killer of his sister and her children, lost track of what he should have been doing, which was staying the fuck away from a grappling match with a psycho called the Mountain

Is it a shame because the character was awesome? Most definitely. Was it perfectly plausible within the context and logical framework of that particular fight?

Also most definitely.

Poor Tyrion. He is proper fucked.

 

[Carrots_macduff]

whenever a popular character dies i always hear people complain and start spitting bitter contemptuous insults at the George and showrunners, because they thought that person was going to save the world, it happened with Ned, it happened with Robb and it happened this week with Oberyn.

You will enjoy this story much more when you stop thinking you know where its going.

 

[Edl01]

So in other words; "I got attatched to a Game of Thrones character and I'm so shocked they died".

This thread happens every year, when some popular character dies. I predicted Oberyn would lose as someone who has not read the fourth book, simply because it doesn't seem right for someone else to kill the Mountain while The Hound is on some random task on the other side of the world.
As for the complaint that The Mountain shouldn't have been able to kill Oberyn; well that's just straight up wrong. The Mountain isn't just a normal Knight, the guy is 7 feet tall, has been in countless wars and is so tough the Hound is afraid of him. The question for me wasn't if Oberyn would win - but how he would triumph over someone like the Mountain. As I said, I really don't think him losing to the Mountain was very suprising and it isn't something that I have found all that shocking.

 

[Creedsareevil]

Besides, you might want to go re-watch some of the more entertaining scenes for a bit. We've got a grand total of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happening for roughly three more seasons once this one ends.

The show authors are well aware of the blight that is the whole ***** arc....

They would be utterly retarded to not weer off HARD, from that black hole of boredom. Heck, i'd rather have a freaking naruto/bleach moment here where the show utterly starts cartwheeling off into some so far minor detail and spins a story around that...

War of th usurper flashbacks? Aegon's conquest? The adventureres of cousin beetlesmash?

 

[Magmarock]

As good as the writing in the shows are I felt that this time they over did it.

Well it had to be done otherwise the books and the show would have to diverge quite severely.

I think it came as less of a shock in the books because in this was very shortly after the Red Wedding. And since Oberyn wasn't a POV character we don't really know him all that well compared to how charismatically he was playing in the show.

It's unfortunate but this descision was taken WAAAAAAAAAY back whe GRRM wrote 'A Storm of Swords'.

That's a good point. Perhaps he wasn't supposed to be so likeable or perhaps after reading the books and still filming season 3 they could've thought of something. Not sure, deviate from the books annoys people following the books too closely still annoys people. All part of the challenge and knowing that not everything translates well from book to show.

Now that I think of it the little stones on Joffey's head a good example. I bet in the book you imagined it okay but in the show it just looks silly.

It's about winning because you're cool and everyone likes you. Nor is it about being different for the sake of being different. Yes any other show would have Onreyn win and there's a reason for that. In screen writing 101 when you build up to something it's good to leave with a pay off that leaves the audience satisfied and not cheated. Gregor Clegane was slow and clumsy while Obreyn was fast and graceful. Me moved around like a ninja proving that speed is better then strength. Without reading the books, it would've been immensely satisfying to see Obreyn kill Gregor. Other way around might be brutal and not falling into tropes, but that doesn't stop it from being a bitter disappointment. Now you know why other shows don't so that kind of stuff.

Surely you've just described exactly why GoT is so refreshing and intersting.

Was refreshing. It won't stay refreshing for long if it keeps doing it. I like Game of Thrones and I want to keep liking it but now the next shock will be if something bad happens to Cersei... again that is. I hope it does.

I edited it. Sorry for the slip, I didn't mean to spoil it. At any rate the show is diverging from the books as we speak. There's no way it could end after book 7 is published.

Sorry for the late reply. I know you didn't mean to spoil it, but the damage was done and I was frustrated with you.

But I've gotten over and I will answer your question from a previous post. When Joffrey died that was a victory for the good guys and I'm not just saying that I'm actually quoting George RR Martian when he was question about Joffrey's death. He said something along the lines of giving the good guys a small victory to keep the audience invested or something. I don't know the full quote.

Point is, while the the show isn't exactly black and white when it comes to god vs evil it's pretty easy to tell who is the good and bad guy between Obreyn and Gregor.

 

[Loonyyy]

Then Ned Stark dies. No matter - the death of our hero only allows the true hero (Robb Stark) of the piece to come along, win the war, and restore peace and justice to the world...

Yeah, you know where this is going.

The funny thing is looking back, its obvious Ned and Robb were red herrings to destract us from the actual "heroes":
-Jon Snow
-Arya Stark
-Sansa Stark
-Bran Stark
-Daenerys
-Tyrion
Although I still don't expect them all to survive the series.

Or there could be no heroes, and just factions with different aims, ideologies, beliefs and histories who all are working towards various goals.

Jon Snow's as useful as a mopey teenager, suprised he isn't taking that bastard sword to his wrists, Sansa's got nothing going for her, Bran, admittedly is doing something, just completely unrelated to the politics and wars which everyone else is participating in, Arya (There seems to be a theme here, someone may still be sore than a certain couple of Paladin types lost their heads because they were a bit thick) is on a mission to stab people who she dislikes.

Super heroic Starks there.

Then Daenerys, who's so heroic, she crucifies people, and occupies a city which she can't hold, and of which a large portion of the population hates her. Oh, and she's got big firebreathing lizards that she can't control. And she occassionally has tantrums and calls for people's heads.

Tyrion, who hates everyone around him for the hatred he percieves they have (Not incorrectly) for him, particularly his own family. And would gladly see them all burn, and he'd like to hold the torch to Tywin and Cersei. And he's done more than a few unsavoury, not just roguish things.

There aren't any heroes, and there's no overall moral view that will be reinforced with their victory. Hell, you've missed some of the most heroic(As in noble, selfless and brave, not as in the hero of the story or "Good guy" of the story) and selfless characters. What about Brienne? What of Davos Seaworth? What of Asha/Yara? What of Ser Barristan Selmy? What of Stannis(YMMV depending on where you're up to)? What about Mance Rayder? What about the Brotherhood without Banners? What of the Blackfish and Edmure Tully(Who really are the closest thing to surviving Starks. The Stark house has fallen. Deal with it people.)? Why Bran and not Meera Reed, hell, the Reeds in general? Maybe Pod's going to save the world? Sure, depending on whether you favour book or show your view on all of these characters will vary, but without a doubt, they have as much, or indeed, more, potential than the listed fan favourites.

There's a lot of trying to work out who the "Hero" or "Heroes" are of the story. Here's my hint: If they wanted a heroic arc, or some LOTR style questing, then there would be one clear objective for our heroes to work for, and they'd have the majority of the screentime dedicated to them working towards it. It would be terrible writing otherwise. It should click for you that that is certainly not the case when we jump from character to character like syphilis in one of Littlefinger's brothels, and we see that everyone wants different things, and even the characters who are most often grouped together (Starks/Jon Snow/Daenerys/Tyrion) (Because they're favourites, not because of any real reason), are completely at odds with each other, and to accomplish their goals, would have to manipulate, conquer or subjugate their fellow "Heroes". Hell, we've already seen this when Stannis, though having a similar outlook with regards to honour as Ned Stark cursed him for a traitor, and worked against his son, even when it was Ned who informed Stannis of the goings on in King's Landing. How do you think Daenerys would react to Tyrion, a Lannister, a member of a family who supported the Usurper, considering her policy of burning and crucifying, should she have arrived in Westoros already? Or to Rob Stark, who's father helped Robert Baratheon, who tried to kill her several times, and who was responsible for the deaths of her entire family?

Like the characters you like, but don't mistake your fancying them for their being the "Main character" or "Hero". Or you'll just be set up for sucker punch after sucker punch.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Some of the things (not all) they cut and added make more sense then what the original, book was ...

The fuck?

Name ONE.

Seriously. Name ONE show creation that "made more sense" or added significantly to the narrative, and why.

Because I can name 10 that were straight up stupid off the top of my head. There were a couple in the last episode alone.

I think the showrunners have done a generally good job bringing books I considered fundamentally unfilmable to the screen in a watchable format, but almost without exception EVERY time they go significantly off-book it's a fucking calamity. Just an embarrassing mess. If I had a nickel for every time an unspoiled viewer whined about some piece of writing and how it didn't make sense/introduced a plot hole/was out of character, and it was some show creation, I'd have enough money to put on my OWN series.

It's not 'elitism'. It's recognizing good writing from bad. There were always going to be changes necessary, the books are WAY too dense and television is a visual medium. But my god, the stuff they fuck up. It's incredible, really.

Point is, while the the show isn't exactly black and white when it comes to god vs evil it's pretty easy to tell who is the good and bad guy between Obreyn and Gregor.

That's not saying much. Short of Ramsay, you'd be hard pressed to find a character more nakedly unlikable than Gregor Clegane. And the show didn't even go into detail about a fraction of his transgressions.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Eh, I could name a couple;

Introducing Tyrion as drunkenly stumbling out to Jon, rather than doing a backflip from a rooftop (?).

Fair.

Downtoning the ridiculousness of dario's looks (with the fucking purple staches and shit, urgh)

Debatable, but likely necessary for the medium. Book Daario would've looked absolutely ludicrous.

Upping the age of most of the characters, maybe it's just because the series is a visual medium, but I would find it hard to take grown men taking order from a 15 year old seriously, also reeks too much of the "young prodigy"-schlock that's present in oh so mush fantasy.

Fair, although it does make some behaviors a bit harder to understand.

The absurd annoying "does Arya actually also die" cliffhanger at the end of the first book, which is pretty pointless.

There are two of those, but I'm not going to hold cliffhangers against the book. It's just a medium difference.

It's also a few weird mentions in the book about how Cersei liked to drink Roberts jizz or something because it was like she was eating hsi sons or something like that, urgh.

Eh. That was perfectly in keeping with Cersei's character.

Now, yes, you are correct in that quite a lot of the changes are really strange, and often for the worse, but Martins work is far from infallible as well, and there are certainly a bunch of little touches here and there that actually has improved.

Certainly he's not infallible, but the show-writers are...not good writers. When they cart dialogue and events over from the book, things are sharp and strong. When they occasionally trim flab, you're sometimes disappointed and wish the show had more depth and context, but you understand the limitations of the medium. When they start improvising content...Talissa, anyone?...you cannot help but groan with dismay and wonder what the hell they think they're doing.

I will grant, though, that there are small flourishes here and there that are fine. The show has just been driving me batty for three seasons now with a series of increasingly bone-headed deviations, which are starting to snowball into all kinds of weird ooc moments, timeline and pacing issues, and straight up stupidity. If that makes me an "elitist book reader" so be it, but the premise that the show is "improving" on the books across the board gives me hives.

 

[TerranV]

Then Ned Stark dies. No matter - the death of our hero only allows the true hero (Robb Stark) of the piece to come along, win the war, and restore peace and justice to the world...

Yeah, you know where this is going.

The funny thing is looking back, its obvious Ned and Robb were red herrings to destract us from the actual "heroes":
-Jon Snow
-Arya Stark
-Sansa Stark
-Bran Stark
-Daenerys
-Tyrion
Although I still don't expect them all to survive the series.

Or there could be no heroes, and just factions with different aims, ideologies, beliefs and histories who all are working towards various goals.

Jon Snow's as useful as a mopey teenager, suprised he isn't taking that bastard sword to his wrists, Sansa's got nothing going for her, Bran, admittedly is doing something, just completely unrelated to the politics and wars which everyone else is participating in, Arya (There seems to be a theme here, someone may still be sore than a certain couple of Paladin types lost their heads because they were a bit thick) is on a mission to stab people who she dislikes.

Super heroic Starks there.

Then Daenerys, who's so heroic, she crucifies people, and occupies a city which she can't hold, and of which a large portion of the population hates her. Oh, and she's got big firebreathing lizards that she can't control. And she occassionally has tantrums and calls for people's heads.

Tyrion, who hates everyone around him for the hatred he percieves they have (Not incorrectly) for him, particularly his own family. And would gladly see them all burn, and he'd like to hold the torch to Tywin and Cersei. And he's done more than a few unsavoury, not just roguish things.

There aren't any heroes, and there's no overall moral view that will be reinforced with their victory. Hell, you've missed some of the most heroic(As in noble, selfless and brave, not as in the hero of the story or "Good guy" of the story) and selfless characters. What about Brienne? What of Davos Seaworth? What of Asha/Yara? What of Ser Barristan Selmy? What of Stannis(YMMV depending on where you're up to)? What about Mance Rayder? What about the Brotherhood without Banners? What of the Blackfish and Edmure Tully(Who really are the closest thing to surviving Starks. The Stark house has fallen. Deal with it people.)? Why Bran and not Meera Reed, hell, the Reeds in general? Maybe Pod's going to save the world? Sure, depending on whether you favour book or show your view on all of these characters will vary, but without a doubt, they have as much, or indeed, more, potential than the listed fan favourites.

There's a lot of trying to work out who the "Hero" or "Heroes" are of the story. Here's my hint: If they wanted a heroic arc, or some LOTR style questing, then there would be one clear objective for our heroes to work for, and they'd have the majority of the screentime dedicated to them working towards it. It would be terrible writing otherwise. It should click for you that that is certainly not the case when we jump from character to character like syphilis in one of Littlefinger's brothels, and we see that everyone wants different things, and even the characters who are most often grouped together (Starks/Jon Snow/Daenerys/Tyrion) (Because they're favourites, not because of any real reason), are completely at odds with each other, and to accomplish their goals, would have to manipulate, conquer or subjugate their fellow "Heroes". Hell, we've already seen this when Stannis, though having a similar outlook with regards to honour as Ned Stark cursed him for a traitor, and worked against his son, even when it was Ned who informed Stannis of the goings on in King's Landing. How do you think Daenerys would react to Tyrion, a Lannister, a member of a family who supported the Usurper, considering her policy of burning and crucifying, should she have arrived in Westoros already? Or to Rob Stark, who's father helped Robert Baratheon, who tried to kill her several times, and who was responsible for the deaths of her entire family?

Like the characters you like, but don't mistake your fancying them for their being the "Main character" or "Hero". Or you'll just be set up for sucker punch after sucker punch.

I was being sarcastic with the word when I called them heroes. Thats why I used quotations. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Either way, those are the six who can be considered the true main characters (or at least the ones with any ammount of "plot armor").

 

[Vrach]

Think of it this way, if it helps. He's an interesting character partly because he comes from an insteresting country. And the show is being faithful to book structure, and in the books he was also sort of an "appetizer" for Dorne.

I've seen it hinted as much, but thanks. I was expecting something like that anyway, though it's gonna be hard to swallow the Dorne bitching about his death. He was killed in a duel he volunteered for, so, even with him being a prince, there's not much legitimate complaint there (unless they go for "did you have to blow up his head?" route, but Westeros doesn't seem to mind brutal murders and again... it's an arena to the death, anything goes).

 

[BoogieManFL]

Same here, pretty much the same as you feel. He was one of my two favorite characters and I really wanted to see more of him in the next season, now there is no doubt going to be several new characters introduced to fill the void left over. Every character that I really liked and wanted to see more of always dies. It happened so many times now that it's not that shocking any more, since it's so expected.

So of all the truckload of characters left in the show, I only particularly like Tyrion and The Hound. There is really only one "good guy" left and he just got sentenced to death. I think he'll get taken to safety, but still that just leaves one. However I suspect the new characters, probably some outraged Martells, will help increase the number of "good" guys. Hopefully at least one of them has the appeal and charisma that Oberyn had.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Ukemi? Seriously?

This isn't Viewtiful Joe XD

Ukemi is a real thing, look it up before mocking it and making yourself look like an idiot.

Also spoiler large files, please.

I'm aware that it's a real thing, when did I say it wasn't?

Way to jump the gun with the ad hominem though, classy ;3

 

[maxben]

There are characters in GoT with grey morality, but Obreyn and Gregor were clearly as representation of good vs evil, and anyone can see that.

Since when is looking for revenge automatically making you a whitecloak? Under that Daenerys's brother was a whitecloak. What Oberyn was was charismatic, which is what people are trying to tell you. He was a violent, arrogant man who fights dirty and fathers bastards throughout the world. Essentially, he was a suave version of King Robert (who was grey as hell). Anyhow, you will later see more about his family that may or may not change your mind about them.

As for Gregor, Gregor is a blackcloak obviously but that's because he is an attack dog. Every leader has one. Technically Roose Bolton or possibly the Umbers were the Starks' attack dog before they betrayed them. That's what Daario is for Daenerys. These are men you send out to do the worst things because they are necessary. Again though, Daario is more suave so we forget that he is a heartless mercenary who would murder whatever.

By the way, I read the books and even then when I saw that scene in the show it was like a punch to the guts, so I do understand where you're coming from. But dont worry, there is always a win on the horizon. By the way, I though Blackwater wasn't the bad guys winning but the other bad guy (Stannis) losing for what he did to Renly (which I think would have been the best King, better than the Starks by far). I feel that if you really break it down there is a lot of give and take in this series and that every awful act by an actor gets a response in one way or another.

 

[Silvanus]

By the way, I though Blackwater wasn't the bad guys winning but the other bad guy (Stannis) losing for what he did to Renly (which I think would have been the best King, better than the Starks by far).

Renly? When did Renly exhibit mettle, or any other kind of leadership qualities?

As Donal Noye said, Renly is copper (to Robert's steel and Stannis' iron). Quick with a joke, amicable, but shallow and dismissive. Even if we disregard the order of ascension, and look solely to the characters' records, Renly is weak: a toddler during the rebellion but gifted Storm's End anyway, completely unearned.

There is really only one "good guy" left and he just got sentenced to death. I think he'll get taken to safety, but still that just leaves one.

What did Jon Snow and Sam Tarly do to lose their good guy cards?

 

[maxben]

By the way, I though Blackwater wasn't the bad guys winning but the other bad guy (Stannis) losing for what he did to Renly (which I think would have been the best King, better than the Starks by far).

Renly? When did Renly exhibit mettle, or any other kind of leadership qualities?

As Donal Noye said, Renly is copper (to Robert's steel and Stannis' iron). Quick with a joke, amicable, but shallow and dismissive. Even if we disregard the order of ascension, and look solely to the characters' records, Renly is weak: a toddler during the rebellion but gifted Storm's End anyway, completely unearned.

I saw him in a completely different light. Renly was an urban man, a politician. He wasn't a warrior like Stannis or Robert but that's precisely what the 7 Kingdoms needed. Renly was the only way for the Starks to return North, the Lannisters to return to the West, and for Stannis to remain on Dragonstone with as little pain as possible. That's why, I think, the Tyrells picked him to rally around (note that they had no reason to fight for any side), they were always the pragmatic ones who just wanted to grow and prosper and knew that a politician is far more important than a King.

And you can see that he was loved! Just reread or re-watch the scenes at his camp. That's what every other leader lacked.

I think a Renly Kingship, backed by the richness and shrewdness of the Tyrells, would have been peaceful and ultimately saved the realm from utter bankruptcy. But both Ned and Stannis rejected him not because of his lack of skill but because of laws of inheritance (and the reason that Ned was so conflicted about picking Stannis is because he knew that Renly was the better choice). The only reason he lost was evil magic.

 

[Silvanus]

And you can see that he was loved! Just reread or re-watch the scenes at his camp. That's what every other leader lacked.

I think a Renly Kingship, backed by the richness and shrewdness of the Tyrells, would have been peaceful and ultimately saved the realm from utter bankruptcy. But both Ned and Stannis rejected him not because of his lack of skill but because of laws of inheritance (and the reason that Ned was so conflicted about picking Stannis is because he knew that Renly was the better choice). The only reason he lost was evil magic.

I don't believe that was the reason Ned was conflicted; Renly had never exhibited any particular skill for politics either. He had not earned a thing in his life, but exhibited a sense of complete entitlement. As far as I can see, Ned was conflicted because he was in a delicate and dangerous situation, he knew it, and the idea of relying on Littlefinger was hardly reassuring.

What is it, exactly, that gives evidence of him being a good politician?

 

[Slycne]

What is it, exactly, that gives evidence of him being a good politician?

Disregarding the books, wasn't there that scene in Renly's camp where he knows the name and problems that one of his rank and file soldiers is going though. I suspect that was how the creators were working in that Renly actually would have been a good king, from a diplomatic/personal politics/rallying the common folk sense.