|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
HOLY SHIT THIS EPISODE!!!
This is why I love this show, George walks in to reminds us that no one is safe. no one.
|
They insisted on the fact that Robb & Cie were eating bread to benefit from the Guest's right, but i feel a lot of people won't catch it.
On a completely different conversation, the people arguing about the show not being rewarding enough for the "good" people and not being truthful to realistic human behavior, don't forget a lot of the politics in there are based on the War of the Roses and the Red Wedding just belongs in there with much, much worse, in our own history.
In my opinion, it reaches people because they can feel it could be real.
|
I never liked these "reaction" videos. I always assume tthey are staged.
|
On June 04 2013 04:23 Rowa wrote:They insisted on the fact that Robb & Cie were eating bread to benefit from the Guest's right, but i feel a lot of people won't catch it. On a completely different conversation, the people arguing about the show not being rewarding enough for the "good" people and not being truthful to realistic human behavior, don't forget a lot of the politics in there are based on the War of the Roses and the Red Wedding just belongs in there with much, much worse, in our own history. In my opinion, it reaches people because they can feel it could be real.
Yea I wish guests right was better explained in the show, I didn't know about it til it was brought up in this thread :-/. Makes the killing of that old jerk Caster by the night's watch mutiny much worse
|
|
|
On June 04 2013 04:06 Kiett wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
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. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned. A wise man once said, "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." A lot of the good people in GoT are getting screwed and killed, not because they are good (although there is most definitely a correlation), but because they keep making terrible mistakes. Robb could have most certainly won the war as a good and honorable man, if not for the fatal errors of betraying his promise to the Freys, disregarding his mother's advice about the Greyjoys, refusing to have mercy on Karstark, and not keeping a better eye on the Kingslayer. Likewise, not all the "bad" people are doing amazingly, only the smart ones. Theon is generally considered one of the not-good guys, but his fate is worse than most in westeros. He made horrible choices, and they have come to bite him in the ass. The only "good guy" death that really left a bitter taste in my mouth due to the unfairness of it was Renly. He never made any major errors (unless you're one of those Stannis maniacs), made good decisions in allying himself with the Tyrells and the North, and had the force to really win the war. But nope, Stannis just fucking has to have a demon vagina monster conveniently appear and assassinate him. Sigh. fucking magic.
If you're quoting Darth Helmet from Space Balls you officially win my eternal and undying love
|
On June 04 2013 04:17 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
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. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned. I think this is such an interesting perspective. But I'd like to politely disagree and try to explain why I completely feel that every character in the show (with the exception of the dude who's currently torturing theion- Idn WHAT is up with that guy) acts rationally based on their interests (usually power and not dying). Take the red wedding for example. Set aside the brutality of it and see it from Frey's perspective. Robb broke his word to him by marrying another, then after Robb beheads one of his major bannermen (Castark), comes back to him begging forgiveness and an army, so that he can attack Casterly rock. In Frey's eyes Robb is an impulsive child trying to take down a seasoned Vet, Tywin, with an extremely risky gambit. Why would Frey choose to side with Robb and have a small chance at victory, when he can side with tywin and be assured power, riches, and safety. Honestly Robb might have had a heart and been a "good" guy. But he was an absolute terrible player in the game. "A lanaster always pays his debts". Robb stark breaks his word for a pretty lady (and beheads his bannermen). Daenarys and Varus are "good" guys too, but that is irrelevant to them being alive. They are alive because they play the game well, and that's the way it should be. And really if you think about it the show has plenty of "good" characters left, most just aren't major players- because winning the game and being "good" are at odds with each other in most situations: Bran, Tyrion, Jon Snow, and Sam are all good characters who have dedicated plot lines. I think if you expect morality to win the Iron Throne, you might want to take a look at who has grabbed and held power throughout human history. There were way more Tywins than Eddards.
Being good for the sake of it is also really overrated when there's no reason for someone to do things that are perceived as "evil".For instance, Dany basically had everything given to her for free (and she is really entitled too! that's why I don't like her at all), barely any sweat, no hard work, everyone just automatically bends over, etc. it would be really weird if she wasn't as "good" as she is, on the other hand, Varys/Tyrion still being somewhat decent after all the shit they have been through is way more impressive than whatever good Dany did, it's the least she could do.
|
Man, Blackfish got out of there at a good time, I hope he makes it out alive, the north is really lacking people to lead right now 
And what will happen to Edmure? I have a feeling that chick he married isn't even a Fray :S
|
United States7639 Posts
On June 04 2013 04:30 Pazuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:06 Kiett wrote:On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
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. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned. A wise man once said, "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." A lot of the good people in GoT are getting screwed and killed, not because they are good (although there is most definitely a correlation), but because they keep making terrible mistakes. Robb could have most certainly won the war as a good and honorable man, if not for the fatal errors of betraying his promise to the Freys, disregarding his mother's advice about the Greyjoys, refusing to have mercy on Karstark, and not keeping a better eye on the Kingslayer. Likewise, not all the "bad" people are doing amazingly, only the smart ones. Theon is generally considered one of the not-good guys, but his fate is worse than most in westeros. He made horrible choices, and they have come to bite him in the ass. The only "good guy" death that really left a bitter taste in my mouth due to the unfairness of it was Renly. He never made any major errors (unless you're one of those Stannis maniacs), made good decisions in allying himself with the Tyrells and the North, and had the force to really win the war. But nope, Stannis just fucking has to have a demon vagina monster conveniently appear and assassinate him. Sigh. fucking magic. If you're quoting Darth Helmet from Space Balls you officially win my eternal and undying love
But of course 
|
On June 04 2013 03:41 teapot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
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. I completely agree with you. Overall I have found ASOIAF to be cold, nihlistic and has a nasty fetish for Realpolitk. In this supposedly "realistic" story, the unpleasant things in life seem to have much greater representation than any of the joys of life. It never takes a step back and says " ah, this is what life's for." And this is very important given the vast, PoV world-building, all-encompassing epic tale. Obviously this is not the only gauge for a fantasy series, but I ask myself, would I like to visit the depicted fantasy world? If I ever woke up in Westeros, I would be all "where is the fucking Wardrobe? get me the fuck out of here." GRRM's Westeros is a nasty Hell, populated by assholes.
Imo it's the best fantazy fiction ever created.
Before modern times (like 1800s) our world was in one of its darkest period on a moral point. Rape, slavery, killing, treachery etc... Shiny and rightful knights only existed in tales and religious texts. They would have beheaded a farmer if he had been standing in their way. The crusades from christians and muslims saw mass raping and massacres. Most kings died at a young age because they were killed one way or another (truth always come from the winners).
He really transmitted what was regurlarly happening while adding magic and mistery. With this show people shouldn't expect the good guys to win. I feel like a majority of people are too fed with awesome and good heroes when in reality the cunning ones did, do and will always achieve their goals better than others (especially in politics). This show is simply not your tipical show. You won't escape from reality in that show, you face, you don't ignore the facts that are in front of you.
Reality is harsh, especially the reality of the middle age. We discuss this show while some people are starving and destroying their body to have something to survive. I shit in drinkable water everyday while some people catch diseases from poluted water.
|
On June 04 2013 04:37 Kiett wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:30 Pazuzu wrote:On June 04 2013 04:06 Kiett wrote:On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
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. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned. A wise man once said, "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." A lot of the good people in GoT are getting screwed and killed, not because they are good (although there is most definitely a correlation), but because they keep making terrible mistakes. Robb could have most certainly won the war as a good and honorable man, if not for the fatal errors of betraying his promise to the Freys, disregarding his mother's advice about the Greyjoys, refusing to have mercy on Karstark, and not keeping a better eye on the Kingslayer. Likewise, not all the "bad" people are doing amazingly, only the smart ones. Theon is generally considered one of the not-good guys, but his fate is worse than most in westeros. He made horrible choices, and they have come to bite him in the ass. The only "good guy" death that really left a bitter taste in my mouth due to the unfairness of it was Renly. He never made any major errors (unless you're one of those Stannis maniacs), made good decisions in allying himself with the Tyrells and the North, and had the force to really win the war. But nope, Stannis just fucking has to have a demon vagina monster conveniently appear and assassinate him. Sigh. fucking magic. If you're quoting Darth Helmet from Space Balls you officially win my eternal and undying love But of course
<3 discussion over, you have won
|
On June 04 2013 04:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:03 xNebulous wrote:On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics. Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised. Yeah. I know all about that crap, except regardless of peoples need to view the medieval period as, well, medieval, they were the exception and not the rule. And in even in the midst of brutal violence and murder, people still kept very closely to a set of rigid social mores. They dressed, spoke and articulated only certain things in public. There was a "courtly life". Theres simply nothing of that in GoT. We have a religious, backwards feudal society with exactly zero of its implications in the peoples internal life, save some of the northerners.
The years previous to Robert's Rebellion and even the years after it (apart from the Greyjoy Rebellion, which, however, did not have so far-reaching consequences for the common people) have been peaceful with a very long summer. Now, we have winter coming (TM) and a monstrous civil war going on. It's these times that the very worst of the people shows up and takes over.
|
I absolutely love how people are getting their panties in a twist AGAIN. And we all know it is bound to happen again in the future  .
Yes, people in the GoT don't have a magic shield of I am a good and lovable guy so I can't die. Also, Robb made sooo many mistakes. Breaking his oath, treating his mother differently, letting Jaime get away, not protecting his own lands, letting Theon go, getting his age old castle burned to the floor, not managing his troops well, leaving his cousin who is an idiot in charge of part of his army, killing one of his only capable men, going back to the man he offended without any real thing to bargain, expecting the Greys to put it all on the line for his far-fetched plans. He did not know when to quit and he died for it. You expect him to live through that just because he is a nice guy? How many people died for his mistakes?
|
BOOM! This episode omfg................... Bye bye characters!
|
On June 04 2013 04:11 Quexana wrote:
These people are playing the Game of Thrones. They are seeking power. Most people who seek to acquire power are either morally corrupt from the start (The Mountian, The Boy), become corrupt in their ascent to power (Twyin Lannister, Stannis Baratheon) or acquire power with good intentions only to become corrupt in the process of holding onto it (Robert Baratheon) . There are many "pure" characters left. Bran, Jojen and Meera Reed, Samwell Tarly, Gendry, Davos Seaworth, yet those characters are mostly far removed from power.
If you're looking for characters who value morals and justice more than their lives look to Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, Jon Snow, and to a lesser extent Euron Greyjoy. Sandor Clegane is a very interesting character in this regard as he has a warped since of right and wrong, but he sticks to his warped values tightly.
Euron Greyjoy? The guy is barely mentioned so far. Youre mistaking him for someone else?
|
On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics.
edit: It also makes no sense how one end its clearly very decentralized [wardens and their vassals], yet has a centralized bureaucracy for the state, in the form of the hand of the King and, clearly, associated state financial instruments. The world really is a hod podge of attitudes and mechanisms from across the centuries, leaving it really...odd. Especially in regards to the darkness of the main characters.
Pretty much this.
It is like Martin has transplanted our modern attitudes and expectations of the rich and powerful (1980s cut-throat greed culture), an elite removed from all social obligation, and slapped it into a medieval setting without much thought to how the whole thing operated.
|
Definitely a strong twist in this episode, it was more something i'd expect in the last episode.. Which got me thinking, what will the finale be?
I was kinda expecting either a standoff at Castly Rock, or the battle with the free city from Dany.. but both seems to have been 'resolved' already in this episode.
Are there any major plot things that can live up to a final episode? Afaik there are no major battles pending anymore, except maybe for the Wildlings encountering the people of Westeros?
Kings Landing mostly seems to be a grandson-grandfather battle, Bran Stark and his group seem to be on their way, Theon as far as we know is still being tortured.
The preview showed a large army for Dany, but who is there left to fight? The 'many allies' the free city had, that wanted Dany dead?
Also the short parts shown otherwise, they all seem to indicate a more 'wrapping and setting up' episode rather than some epic finale battle/story twist.. somehow i feel the upcoming episode 10 won't possibly be having the seem impact as the current episode 9.
Then again, GoT surprised me with this episode's ending, so it might do it again
|
On June 04 2013 04:21 wo1fwood wrote:
HOLY SHIT THIS EPISODE!!!
This is why I love this show, George walks in to reminds us that no one is safe. no one.
Daenerys is safe. So is Jon Snow. (the saga is called A Song of Ice and Fire, event without other stuff going around, there wouldn't be so much detours from the war to the north and east, if they weren't the main characters) Everyone else is expendable.
Deliberately no book information used to infer this hypothesis, only the title (which is in the show opening credits ).
|
On June 04 2013 04:09 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 04 2013 04:03 xNebulous wrote:On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics. Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised. Yeah. I know all about that crap, except regardless of peoples need to view the medieval period as, well, medieval, they were the exception and not the rule. And in even in the midst of brutal violence and murder, people still kept very closely to a set of rigid social mores. They dressed, spoke and articulated only certain things in public. There was a "courtly life". Theres simply nothing of that in GoT. We have a religious, backwards feudal society with exactly zero of its implications in the peoples internal life, save some of the northerners. And what happened with the Starks was a huge exception to the rule. The show's wiki explains it: http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Guest_rightThe Frey's basically commited one of the worst crimes possible in Westeros. People don't usually get randomly murdered by their hosts. It says more about how the Lord of the Freys is such a massive asshole that's willing to violate even the most basic rules of society for personal gain. I wasnt referring to that event imparticular as non exceptional in the GoT universe. But the general mores required to sustain a fuedal society are clearly exceptional. Theres no honour, in a society where blood leniage is the *entire* predicate of social organization. There seems to be little psychological deference towards superiors--- in a bloody class system! There seems to be no real social conservatism [freys had like 90 wives, be it by divorce, death or polygamy, none are plausible explanations] in a society thats meant to be interladden heavily in faith and feudalism. All of the characters seem like atheistic liberals thrown into a medieval society, rather than people OF a medieval society. Only the starks come close to feeling authentic, and even then there far too sexually egalitarian for it.On June 04 2013 04:44 teapot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics.
edit: It also makes no sense how one end its clearly very decentralized [wardens and their vassals], yet has a centralized bureaucracy for the state, in the form of the hand of the King and, clearly, associated state financial instruments. The world really is a hod podge of attitudes and mechanisms from across the centuries, leaving it really...odd. Especially in regards to the darkness of the main characters. Pretty much this. It is like Martin has transplanted our modern attitudes and expectations of the rich and powerful (1980s cut-throat greed culture), an elite removed from all social obligation, and slapped it into a medieval setting without much thought to how the whole thing operated. YES! Thank you.
|
On June 04 2013 04:37 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:41 teapot wrote:On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
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. I completely agree with you. Overall I have found ASOIAF to be cold, nihlistic and has a nasty fetish for Realpolitk. In this supposedly "realistic" story, the unpleasant things in life seem to have much greater representation than any of the joys of life. It never takes a step back and says " ah, this is what life's for." And this is very important given the vast, PoV world-building, all-encompassing epic tale. Obviously this is not the only gauge for a fantasy series, but I ask myself, would I like to visit the depicted fantasy world? If I ever woke up in Westeros, I would be all "where is the fucking Wardrobe? get me the fuck out of here." GRRM's Westeros is a nasty Hell, populated by assholes. Imo it's the best fantazy fiction ever created. Before modern times (like 1800s) our world was in one of its darkest period on a moral point. Rape, slavery, killing, treachery etc... Shiny and rightful knights only existed in tales and religious texts. They would have beheaded a farmer if he had been standing in their way. The crusades from christians and muslims saw mass raping and massacres. Most kings died at a young age because they were killed one way or another (truth always come from the winners). He really transmitted what was regurlarly happening while adding magic and mistery. With this show people shouldn't expect the good guys to win. I feel like a majority of people are too fed with awesome and good heroes when in reality the cunning ones did, do and will always achieve their goals better than others (especially in politics). This show is simply not your tipical show. You won't escape from reality in that show, you face, you don't ignore the facts that are in front of you. Reality is harsh, especially the reality of the middle age. We discuss this show while some people are starving and destroying their body to have something to survive. I shit in drinkable water everyday while some people catch diseases from poluted water.
There is LOADS of fiction that handles the trials of life without being as overtly nihilistic as Martin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
