On June 04 2013 00:10 daskilla wrote: I dont understand all this sadness and rooting for house stark. Ultimately they are just another family fighting for power. Deaths like these makes great, unprdictable story.
They never fought for power. In matter of fact, Ned never wanted to be the hand of the king. And Robb had no choice but go to war to save his father and sisters in King's Landing. I like the Starks because they are probably the most honorable and honest house in Westeros. Unfortunately honesty in a world like Westeros doesn't really work out for you.
Ironically, it is not honor that costed Starks their house and lives, it is the few situations in which Robb in particular failed to display sense of justice and honor - such as mishandling the affair with Cat releasing Jaime, and breaking his promise to the Freys.
I think it's slightly superficial to view Westeros as the place where you necessarily get punished for having "positive" character traits. It's the world where you get punished for the mistakes you make no matter what sort of a person you are - just look at Jaime and Theon (in some ways their fate is arguably as bad as or worse than Ned's and Robb's).
If you were in Catelyn's position you would have done the same thing because Littlefinger promised her the kids and also gave her Ned's body. If Robb married the Frey girl, at this point it wouldn't even matter because the Boltons were already plotting against the Starks before Robb needed Frey men to take Casterly Rock.. If the Starks weren't so honorable they would have played the game as dirty as Tywin did.
I think that's a massive oversimplification of things.
If Robb had played it that way, then he would arguably never have had the unwavering support that he did initially. The bulk of his support came from vassals loyal to Ned and allies supportive of Robb's cause in the war and/or the sense of animosity towards the Lannisters.
People follow leaders for different reasons, If Robb was even-handed and just in punishing betrayals by Cat and Karstark respectively and if he had kept his word to the Freys, then the outcome of the war would be decided on the battlefield, where Robb would have an advantage (given his previous record).
Boltons and Freys are the kind that would side with whoever is most likely to win, or at the very least the safe option. If Robb had kept his ranks tight, they would have fallen in. If Ned was in Robb's place, he would probably not have made those mistakes. He would not break his own principles and give his mother/wife a free pass for betrayal or break an oath for a random chick.
His bannermen wouldn't care if he played dirty or not. In times of war, everything is expected and like you well said, these men swore to Ned and then to Robb. I agree with you in Ned punishing betrayal and whatnot but he wasn't there and we all know Starks are emotional and Robb couldn't be Ned because he's also young. I don't know how old is he but I know that in the book, majority of the characters are way younger than they look in the series. I just started reading and I believe both Jon and Robb were 14. Not much has passed since they were all in Winterfell I believe.
As for the Boltons and Freys, we don't know when they started plotting against the Starks but I'm definitely sure they started it way before Robb chopped Karstark's head. I'm quite sure when Bolton's men caught Jaime they already knew shit was going down...
Can we just take a moment to acknowledge probably the most powerful actor in the series IMO, Michelle Fairley (Catelyn Stark). I'm sure her central role as the mother crow had a lot to do with all the emotional stuff but she really stood out for me.
On June 04 2013 02:05 Saethwyr wrote: Surprised people are saying "peace-out I'm done with this show now" it did the opposite for me, I'm more enthralled and intrigued than ever before.
If I was as distressed as some of the people in those reaction videos I would stop watching as well. I genuinely felt sorry for sme of those (especially the last girl posted here that was crying) and wanted to hug them. I also dislike all the book-readers that seem to be so happy about others crying. But for some reason people seem to like suffering, I could just never understand this phenomenon myself. Also never understood why people watch horror films that gross them out. Oh well.
Me, personally, I'm worried about the cryers, because getting so emotionally attached to a few fictional characters you watch on your TV for an hour every week or so seems downright unhealthy. I'm sure a huge portion of these "reactions" are fake (or overdramatized on purpose), but it still seems really weird to me.
GRRM totally disagrees I think if you are attached to a fictional character, that show that the series (or the book) did a good job. If someone die and you don't care, then it is really bad
On June 04 2013 02:05 Saethwyr wrote: Surprised people are saying "peace-out I'm done with this show now" it did the opposite for me, I'm more enthralled and intrigued than ever before.
If I was as distressed as some of the people in those reaction videos I would stop watching as well. I genuinely felt sorry for sme of those (especially the last girl posted here that was crying) and wanted to hug them. I also dislike all the book-readers that seem to be so happy about others crying. But for some reason people seem to like suffering, I could just never understand this phenomenon myself. Also never understood why people watch horror films that gross them out. Oh well.
Me, personally, I'm worried about the cryers, because getting so emotionally attached to a few fictional characters you watch on your TV for an hour every week or so seems downright unhealthy. I'm sure a huge portion of these "reactions" are fake (or overdramatized on purpose), but it still seems really weird to me.
Have you never cried watching a movie or TV series yourself? It's more common than you think.
Hell, I've even cried reading a book. Just words printed on paper and it made me shed a tear, how unhealthy am I?
I calmed down. A bit. To be honest, I didn't really like Robb, but Cat really grew on me this season. Actually, I didn't like Cat. So there is no more reason at all for me to be upset... dammit. This season was going so well, too. Theon getting the royal treatment he earned, Tyrion starting to climb back into power, Varys being awesome, Littlefinger doing his thing, Jaime cut down to size (*snicker*), Brienne being awesome. I was warned that Ned-level shock value things will happen, but after season 2 ended on a relatively "not so many people died at the end actually" note...
It was kind of obvious Robb would be killed this season, but this was harsh. I watched it again, and it still seems harsh. They did a lot of clever tricks to build it up to be devastating (Robb starts listening to Cat, they are ready to stand united, the "I'll name him Eddard" thing, and so on). I'm just gonna cheer for Joffrey (which I actually do like - everyone needs a good villain), Stannis, Bolton and Cersei. The way things are going, those ones will never die.
On June 04 2013 02:05 Saethwyr wrote: Surprised people are saying "peace-out I'm done with this show now" it did the opposite for me, I'm more enthralled and intrigued than ever before.
If I was as distressed as some of the people in those reaction videos I would stop watching as well. I genuinely felt sorry for sme of those (especially the last girl posted here that was crying) and wanted to hug them. I also dislike all the book-readers that seem to be so happy about others crying. But for some reason people seem to like suffering, I could just never understand this phenomenon myself. Also never understood why people watch horror films that gross them out. Oh well.
Me, personally, I'm worried about the cryers, because getting so emotionally attached to a few fictional characters you watch on your TV for an hour every week or so seems downright unhealthy. I'm sure a huge portion of these "reactions" are fake (or overdramatized on purpose), but it still seems really weird to me.
I enjoy the show, even though it's not nearly as good as some people make it out to be (same with the books, especially the newer ones). This was a nice scene - it was hard to expect (from a viewer's standpoint) everything to go down the way it did, even if some things were hinted and some others were fairly obvious (i.e. potential betrayal, just not so soon and not of this magnitude). I see no reason to cry about it or spam hbo's twitter with threats and such, for that matter.
Well I'd assume the natural criers are ones who are sensitive and also like this show a whole lot more than a generic show. The way the series build the characters up (showing their true selves instead of just them in their work or something) and the way this scene went down, I'd only assume some people cried. Because most viewers agree, the scene was very unnerving.
On June 04 2013 02:05 Saethwyr wrote: Surprised people are saying "peace-out I'm done with this show now" it did the opposite for me, I'm more enthralled and intrigued than ever before.
If I was as distressed as some of the people in those reaction videos I would stop watching as well. I genuinely felt sorry for sme of those (especially the last girl posted here that was crying) and wanted to hug them. I also dislike all the book-readers that seem to be so happy about others crying. But for some reason people seem to like suffering, I could just never understand this phenomenon myself. Also never understood why people watch horror films that gross them out. Oh well.
Me, personally, I'm worried about the cryers, because getting so emotionally attached to a few fictional characters you watch on your TV for an hour every week or so seems downright unhealthy. I'm sure a huge portion of these "reactions" are fake (or overdramatized on purpose), but it still seems really weird to me.
GRRM totally disagrees I think if you are attached to a fictional character, that show that the series (or the book) did a good job. If someone die and you don't care, then it is really bad
And yet the same people who cry about Stark's death in the show (I can't imagine people crying over books, to be honest, because it takes time to read through and digest the whole situation, meaning it's less sudden and doesn't produce that strong of an emotional response) don't seem to be interested in or bothered (on the same level) by all the evil that's actually going on around the world. That's not entirely true, of course, because I'm generalizing and that's just dumb, but in a lot of cases it's true nonetheless. I do grow attached to the charactes in books / shows, it's sad to see them go, but it's still just fiction and no matter how immersed I am there's no going around that fact. It's not like I can forget it's not real and so behave and react like it was. Not to mention GoT is just roughly 20 hours of footage (shared between ALL the characters) spread across a period of 2 years. Even if acting, writing and production quality were a few notches better than they already are (and they are not bad at all). It's not enough to build a truly compelling character, even books often fall short in that regard.
I'm not judging, to be honest, I understand there are sensitive (oversensitive?) people out there. It just seems very strange to me.
On June 04 2013 02:36 Red9 wrote: who records themselves watching tv? are these reactions real???
The book readers record the TV watchers. And some record themselves to see if this gets any easier on you at the second time/on TV. Personally: the stabbing of Talisa was kinda gut wrenching even though I had read the book.
On June 04 2013 01:35 Aegon I wrote: Robb was an idiot. Marrying the whore from Volantis and pissing Frey, a dubious ally at best, sending that scum Theon to his maniac father against his mother's advise and finally executing Kartsak for those stupid Lannister squires and loosing half his army and then RETURNING TO ASK FOR FREY'S HELP.
He brought it on himself.
he was like his father so obviously he was to honourable for this world. if robb would have been more like tywin lannister he were still under the lving cause tywin smells treason 100 miles towards the wind. but to be honest robbs character was exactly the reason why 99 % of the Got viewers loved him and i tould be sad if all character were consprant people like tywin or worse cersei/joffrey or even worser WALDER FREY ... never thought i could hate someone more than joffrey but walder replaced him .
I think a great deal of people are underestimating the prowess / understanding of many viewers who are criticizing the show. The gut reaction is to think "oh, they're just being mad and emotional because their favorite characters were killed", when it may be something a bit deeper. I've given some thought to the implications of the "Red Wedding" scene and come to realize that Game of Thrones is missing a pretty big, important theme for me. That being: moral righteousness and "the greater good".
Let me explain. . . almost all of the characters in Game of Thrones appear to be morally ambivalent in some way. And those characters who seem attracted to the paradigms of "good" (love, honor, peace, pleasure, kindness) are few and far between. Even with these few "good" individuals being placed in the story, they are not consistent and often make decisions that completely invalidate their supposed world view. That, or they are killed.
But why? On the surface this may seem like an insight into our own civilization - the idea that morality is really grey and that most people are ambivalent and self-serving. That's what I thought initially. And I admit it was an interesting theme. But after watching "The Red Wedding" I have changed my mind. Sure, I can agree that there are elements of humanity that are violent, selfish, power-seeking and morally reprehensible. And I'm fine with these themes being represented in stories. But the issue I have with Game of Thrones is that these elements dominate excessively . I find myself constantly asking: where are the righteous characters that would rather die than become corrupt or a-moral? Where are the people that, as reflected in our own lives, believe in peace, kindness, honor and love? It turns out that there really aren't any in Martin's work. These characters are either grossly under-represented or used for sensationalist fodder by being killed off.
The truth is, many of us in the audience do consider ourselves to be righteous, moral individuals. We want to relate to the characters in the story, not just observe a bunch of savages hacking each other's heads off. How can most of us relate to the morally ambivalent characters or the reprehensible one? If Martin's goal here is to create sensationalist environment with excessive violence, gore and drama then it makes sense that there so few "good guys". But I also feel it's cheap story-telling if this is the case. And if Martin's trying to send a message - that Game of Thrones is a reflection of the human condition and that the story is based somewhat in reality - then I'd argue he's not accurate whatsoever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to this realization about Game of Thrones. It's not as outrageous as people seem to think to be turned off by having some of the few characters we could actually relate to (even slightly) massacred. Whether it was for sensationalism or as an attempt to indict most of humanity as being morally ambivalent and reprehensible (when most of humanity is not), both are valid reasons to turn away from the story.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdb6jmQeoG1r9h4heo1_400.jpg)
