It seems you could tell yourself the story of GoT from the start to the end going from one logical step to the following .. it's a story (a fantasy story) so I like that there are some "illogical" components, and that sometimes the characters do not follow the most optimal path, but instead go with their instinct/guts/misguided judgment/etc.
The main characters never had that level of illogical components. They were flawed by nature as humans are. Like when Ned Stark told Cersei that he knew about the incest
That was an awesome moment in the show because you could understand and relate to him, though it didn't mean he was making the correct (tactical) decision.
But even if we accept the premise that Jon is stupid and he isn't aware that there is no reason for Rickon to be alive, but instead thinks he can be saved, it's ridiculous to think how many people were around Jon and noone ever questioned it.
Noone is having the discussion whether it's worth sacrificing 3000 lifes. Everyone just accepts the premise so we can have a war of justice that the evil guys are going to win 99% of the time.
And by not discussing it, they make (most of) the viewers less likely to question the premise as well, so in that regard you could argue that it isn't as important. However, I don't like it.
This is the most cynical, enjoyment crushing way to look at any narrative, imo.
Your probably overanalyzing a bit there. This was merely a showerthought, and I don't think he will die nor want him to.
But rather one of the issues GOT has run into in the last 2 seasons is that all of the main characters seem to have plot armor because they really haven't done anything yet. Hence why we never actually feared that Arya might die.
I think getting rid of the plot armor for as many characters as possible will benefit the excitement as it makes those types of scenes more tense.
because his purpose for this battle was getting Ramsay for what he already did to Sansa and now Rickon
Is it revenge or did he attack becasue he wanted to save Rickon?
Because those are two very different things. In order to save a child, you might see a mother run through fire even though the odds are agaisnt her.
But for revenge, humans tend to wait for the opportunity where the odds are in their favor. And there is nothing (previously) in the show that indicates that Jon would attack while outnumbered 1:2 just to get revenge.
I thought Rickon had plot armor. Imagine my surprise when it turned out he didn't.
Rickons entire plot was to incentivize Jon to attack. After Jon attacked, there was no further reason for him to live, especially because the writers probably want Sansa to rule the north.
Personally, I find plot armor to be the laziest term when used to critique a film or series. By the very nature of the narrative, some of characters will make it to the end of the story. Claiming there is often plot armor is a lazy short hand for someone not enjoying a specific plot line or aspect of a scene. Of course it is a trope of some media, but it is more applicable to a show like Sherlock, where characters literally come back from the dead and reasons are backfilled into the story.
But mostly I think that the ”when is this character going to die” is a miserable way to watch a show. GRRM doesn’t kill without reason. When characters are killed, it says something about the state of the world or his views. A better question to ask is who is going to survive all of this and why did the author decide they should. Rather than talking about “plot armor” like the author doesn’t have intent.
I think plot armor is a fair critique for when scenes attempt to show a character in mortal danger, but to the viewer its obvious that the character is in no danger (or tries to pretend a character is dead). Which is fine in a lot of scenes when there's a purpose or plot motivation for the scene that makes it about something else. Like no one expected Bran to die to the white walkers, but there was still good tension and drama in those scenes and they worked.
It's a problem when it's the only fuel for a scene. A prime example to me is in LotR:TT Aragon rides off the cliff while fighting orcs and we're supposed to believe he's dead. Except it's painfully clear there's a 0% chance he's dead and we have to spend several minutes watching characters feel emotions we have no attachment to for very little gain over telling the stories in other ways that don't put the plot armor right in front of our faces.
I think GoT's plot armor seems so bad sometimes because it's had situations where it's done a great job of subverting the idea and killing off characters where you can see a reasonable path & arc forward (the obvious example being that Ned could have been sent to the wall to be with Jon). Overall though I don't think any character arcs suffer too much from it and it's more something you see because of the contrast of characters like Jon vs Robb.
By the very nature of the narrative, some of characters will make it to the end of the story.
Sure, but if we don't know who it is as readers it become more exciting to watch. Again, going back to Arya's death scene. That was a failure and part of that was due to plot armor.
But mostly I think that the ”when is this character going to die” is a miserable way to watch a show.
Hence why you are overanalyzing. I never speculated when he would die I just said he didn't actually have plot armor anymore, and thus could die (unlike all the other maincharacters) - hence why its a showerthought.
Regardless, thanks for the very valuable and respectful opinion on how you think other people should (not) watch shows.
A prime example to me is in LotR:TT Aragon rides off the cliff while fighting orcs and we're supposed to believe he's dead. Except it's painfully clear there's a 0% chance he's dead and we have to spend several minutes watching characters feel emotions we have no attachment to for very little gain over telling the stories in other ways that don't put the plot armor right in front of our faces.
Yeh, though I think it is ok if its just a little sidestory to a battle. In the case of Arya it was the primary story of one of the main characters and it was intended as a cliffhanger. And cliffhangers only work when the viewers truly are shocked/doesn't know what will happen.
I acutally think it would've worked better if they just made it a regular action scene with Arya beating the Waif.
Overall though I don't think any character arcs suffer too much from it and it's more something you see because of the contrast of characters like Jon vs Robb.
I think they suffer from it when the writers try to force "maybe he is death/maybe he isn't" down our throats. And I also think they suffer from it in the sense that the plot has become relatively predictable, and the lack of plot armor is one way to make it less predictable. When I watched the Red Viper vs The Mountain I genuinly didn't know who would win.
That said, I think there are other ways than no platarmor to make a series less predictable. Another way would be by making the motives less clear (aka what you see isn't what you will get). Two examples:
1. What if we didn't know that Littlefinger would show up.
2. What if someone like Varus was working against Danys and manipulating Tyrion? I personally felt that Varus has become quite boring ever since leaving Kings Landing. Having a different side to him would be an interesting twist (as long as it all tied up nicely ofc)
And thank you for your very genuine, not at all passive aggressive answer. It is really refreshing on the internet to have discussions that are so honest and not snarky.
The threat of death is often not for the audience themselves, but for the characters. Jon and the characters in the show believe they are in danger, even if we do not. Aragorn died when he fell off the cliff for the characters in LotR. We, as the audience know they will live. That is fine, since their near death is supposed to evoke response from the people in the world, or change the views of the character themselves.
In Game of Thrones the series made it mark by subverting the expectations of the audience by killing off beloved characters mid way through their story. But that isn’t subversive any more. It’s a trope of the show and borders lazy if they do it much more. It will be cheap. We have to ask ourselves what makes Jon, Dany, Arya, and the others who might make it to the end of this show worthy of living? Why does GRRM decide they should survive all the violence? And the answer can’t just be “because the plot demands it” because that is the reason in every story. The plot demands it move forward.
In the case of Jon, he doesn’t want power and doesn’t want to be a leader. He accepts the burned of the job because other people look up to him. And he doesn’t want war. He is willing to fight, but is by nature, not a violent person. He would prefer not to fight at all if he can avoid it. Which sets him apart from many of the characters in GoT.
On June 22 2016 06:01 Plansix wrote: And thank you for your very genuine, not at all passive aggressive answer. It is really refreshing on the internet to have discussions that are so honest and not snarky.
The threat of death is often not for the audience themselves, but for the characters. Jon and the characters in the show believe they are in danger, even if we do not. Aragorn died when he fell off the cliff for the characters in LotR. We, as the audience know they will live. That is fine, since their near death is supposed to evoke response from the people in the world, or change the views of the character themselves.
In Game of Thrones the series made it mark by subverting the expectations of the audience by killing off beloved characters mid way through their story. But that isn’t subversive any more. It’s a trope of the show and borders lazy if they do it much more. It will be cheap. We have to ask ourselves what makes Jon, Dany, Arya, and the others who might make it to the end of this show worthy of living? Why does GRRM decide they should survive all the violence? And the answer can’t just be “because the plot demands it” because that is the reason in every story. The plot demands it move forward.
In the case of Jon, he doesn’t want power and doesn’t want to be a leader. He accepts the burned of the job because other people look up to him. And he doesn’t want war. He is willing to fight, but is by nature, not a violent person. He would prefer not to fight at all if he can avoid it. Which sets him apart from many of the characters in GoT.
For Dany and Arya it's not simply that they're noble or popular, it's that there are entire arcs built on them that don't relate to the wider story unless their part is not yet over. Whenever you have a story with multiple subplots and geographic locations plot armour will inevitably shield them until they can return to general relevance because otherwise what you have is two unrelated stories which are being told in parallel on the same show which would be absurd.
We, as the viewer, aware that we are viewing a work of fiction constructed for our entertainment, know that this cannot happen. This unfortunately diffuses any tension built up for our benefit. That which is for the benefit of the other fictional characters for their development (like your Aragorn example) is still useful but we cannot be put on the edge of our seats by danger to a character and the more dangerous the scenario the less immersion we feel due to our knowledge that a contrived escape must exist. Plot armour exists, and that's fine, but the writers should know that it exists and work within that limitation.
I will agree that the show sets itself up with this unrealistic expectation that everyone isn’t safe and could die at any time. Which was never the case. Some of these characters are going to make it. The difference between then and now is that we don’t know who will and won’t any more. But I don’t think that lessons the impact of scenes that put the characters near death.
When I watch the Americans, I know the couple is going to survive every gun fight and action scene. That doesn’t make that show any less tense.
About Jon deciding to attack, he did because there was no more support they could gain. They reached a dead end, the only way they could gather more support was by proving Ramsay's hold of the north to be weak, thus the only way to gain more support is to fight Ramsay.
Neither can (or want to) Ramsay back out of the fight. The north is watching, if he falls back to winterfell and play the defensive game, he will lose hold on the rest of the north, giving Jon the influence he desperatly needs to turn the tide. He also knows his army would break Jon's army, and he knows how to force the engagement exactly on his terms instead of Jon's. Being the magnificient psycho he is, how would he miss the opportunity to kill his enemies in one go while also doing it for shit'n'giggles ?
Jon charging right into the army is pure anger. You shouldn't be trying to find something rational about it, because the reason is not "not caring about dying anymore". He literally loses control of himself to fucking kill the cunt out of pure anger, he is out of his mind, he is not that selfaware to make that decission about his own life. There is a glimpse where you see how he understands how fucking dumb he has been after being dismounted, and yes, there he accepts death, but it's because he has no other choice left.
On June 22 2016 06:01 Plansix wrote: And thank you for your very genuine, not at all passive aggressive answer. It is really refreshing on the internet to have discussions that are so honest and not snarky.
The threat of death is often not for the audience themselves, but for the characters. Jon and the characters in the show believe they are in danger, even if we do not. Aragorn died when he fell off the cliff for the characters in LotR. We, as the audience know they will live. That is fine, since their near death is supposed to evoke response from the people in the world, or change the views of the character themselves.
In Game of Thrones the series made it mark by subverting the expectations of the audience by killing off beloved characters mid way through their story. But that isn’t subversive any more. It’s a trope of the show and borders lazy if they do it much more. It will be cheap. We have to ask ourselves what makes Jon, Dany, Arya, and the others who might make it to the end of this show worthy of living? Why does GRRM decide they should survive all the violence? And the answer can’t just be “because the plot demands it” because that is the reason in every story. The plot demands it move forward.
In the case of Jon, he doesn’t want power and doesn’t want to be a leader. He accepts the burned of the job because other people look up to him. And he doesn’t want war. He is willing to fight, but is by nature, not a violent person. He would prefer not to fight at all if he can avoid it. Which sets him apart from many of the characters in GoT.
The thing is with that Aragon scene it changes nothing, all it did was serve as a reason for Aragon to have dreams of things he'd done in the past which he could have had simply by being wounded. It didn't drive any characters and it didn't drive us as viewers unless you foolishly believe he was dead.
Anyways like I said I think GoT does it pretty well. We are pretty sure Jon will survive the battle (and even how he will do it), but the battle still held a lot of tension and excitement and drove a lot of things beyond will he survive or won't he. Especially in regards to how his character might develop going forward based on the results of the battle. That's what the scenes need to keep having for me, and even in a general sense. Have action scenes where death can be a character motivation, but as a viewer motivation give us reasonable doubt on the out come. Not if the character will die, but will the character get captured? Will they be wounded and have that affect their arc? Will they screw something up and face consequences for it later?
Arya with the waif was ok-ish. I think ending the episode with her stabbed serves little purpose, but as the whole it works ok because we're left to wonder how Arya will defeat the Waif while wounded, the possibility that they may take her face and her path forward is being part of a ploy, or some other strange outcome. The only part that didn't work is having the viewer wait for the resolution.
On June 22 2016 06:01 Plansix wrote: And thank you for your very genuine, not at all passive aggressive answer. It is really refreshing on the internet to have discussions that are so honest and not snarky.
The threat of death is often not for the audience themselves, but for the characters. Jon and the characters in the show believe they are in danger, even if we do not. Aragorn died when he fell off the cliff for the characters in LotR. We, as the audience know they will live. That is fine, since their near death is supposed to evoke response from the people in the world, or change the views of the character themselves.
In Game of Thrones the series made it mark by subverting the expectations of the audience by killing off beloved characters mid way through their story. But that isn’t subversive any more. It’s a trope of the show and borders lazy if they do it much more. It will be cheap. We have to ask ourselves what makes Jon, Dany, Arya, and the others who might make it to the end of this show worthy of living? Why does GRRM decide they should survive all the violence? And the answer can’t just be “because the plot demands it” because that is the reason in every story. The plot demands it move forward.
In the case of Jon, he doesn’t want power and doesn’t want to be a leader. He accepts the burned of the job because other people look up to him. And he doesn’t want war. He is willing to fight, but is by nature, not a violent person. He would prefer not to fight at all if he can avoid it. Which sets him apart from many of the characters in GoT.
I definitely had friends (who had not read LotR) who thought Aragorn was dead.
On June 22 2016 06:01 Plansix wrote: And thank you for your very genuine, not at all passive aggressive answer. It is really refreshing on the internet to have discussions that are so honest and not snarky.
The threat of death is often not for the audience themselves, but for the characters. Jon and the characters in the show believe they are in danger, even if we do not. Aragorn died when he fell off the cliff for the characters in LotR. We, as the audience know they will live. That is fine, since their near death is supposed to evoke response from the people in the world, or change the views of the character themselves.
In Game of Thrones the series made it mark by subverting the expectations of the audience by killing off beloved characters mid way through their story. But that isn’t subversive any more. It’s a trope of the show and borders lazy if they do it much more. It will be cheap. We have to ask ourselves what makes Jon, Dany, Arya, and the others who might make it to the end of this show worthy of living? Why does GRRM decide they should survive all the violence? And the answer can’t just be “because the plot demands it” because that is the reason in every story. The plot demands it move forward.
In the case of Jon, he doesn’t want power and doesn’t want to be a leader. He accepts the burned of the job because other people look up to him. And he doesn’t want war. He is willing to fight, but is by nature, not a violent person. He would prefer not to fight at all if he can avoid it. Which sets him apart from many of the characters in GoT.
The thing is with that Aragon scene it changes nothing, all it did was serve as a reason for Aragon to have dreams of things he'd done in the past which he could have had simply by being wounded. It didn't drive any characters and it didn't drive us as viewers unless you foolishly believe he was dead.
Anyways like I said I think GoT does it pretty well. We are pretty sure Jon will survive the battle (and even how he will do it), but the battle still held a lot of tension and excitement and drove a lot of things beyond will he survive or won't he. Especially in regards to how his character might develop going forward based on the results of the battle. That's what the scenes need to keep having for me, and even in a general sense. Have action scenes where death can be a character motivation, but as a viewer motivation give us reasonable doubt on the out come. Not if the character will die, but will the character get captured? Will they be wounded and have that affect their arc? Will they screw something up and face consequences for it later?
Arya with the waif was ok-ish. I think ending the episode with her stabbed serves little purpose, but as the whole it works ok because we're left to wonder how Arya will defeat the Waif while wounded, the possibility that they may take her face and her path forward is being part of a ploy, or some other strange outcome. The only part that didn't work is having the viewer wait for the resolution.
i must say that when i saw jon suffocated disturbingly in the battle i felt like he might die. i also felt massive confusion coz i am shit at recognising the characters (im guessing the lord who allied with the boltons with in that battle and died)
i also didnt expect the battle to take place. i fully expeted jon to retreat after his brother was killed.
this is a good reason for me to not read threads about "what may come", i am classically shit at expecting outcomes and never remembered sansa sent a letter to peter.
i take things at face value really heavily , and even things like "bad acting" affect me VERY rarely. like, i am easily immsersed.
many many times recently i have thought not to open this thread because of this, but shit i have no one else to talk to about it .
i must say that when i saw jon suffocated disturbingly in the battle i felt like he might die. i also felt massive confusion coz i am shit at recognising the characters (im guessing the lord who allied with the boltons with in that battle and died)
Yeah I thought that was really effectively done. It's so chaotic and confusing that for a second you sort of skip the internal logic and are like "wait what, what's happening? Is he really being crushed". Then like a minute later you think back on it and of course he wasn't going to die, but it was still cool as hell and also has some sort of symbolic character development in it.
You allways go on about gilly and then dont even list her. Not that I would vote for her. I would vote for Missandei or Roslin Tully (both not on list).
On June 22 2016 06:15 Godwrath wrote: Jon charging right into the army is pure anger. You shouldn't be trying to find something rational about it, because the reason is not "not caring about dying anymore". He literally loses control of himself to fucking kill the cunt out of pure anger, he is out of his mind, he is not that selfaware to make that decission about his own life. There is a glimpse where you see how he understands how fucking dumb he has been after being dismounted, and yes, there he accepts death, but it's because he has no other choice left.
Strongly agree on this, which is why I think it's not a bad scene. This is a man who kept his calm against the greatest army the North has ever seen, and lead the defense of Castle Black rationally. He faced White Walkers at Hardhome. However, Ramsay is just that good at getting under his enemies' skin - even that of Jon Snow.
EPT
