|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 04 2013 05:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 05:09 xNebulous wrote:On June 04 2013 05:04 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 04 2013 04:50 Xahhk wrote:On June 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 04 2013 04:09 CrimsonLotus wrote: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. How would you know people back in the day didn't have such relateable human interactions and meanderings as the kind we see in the show? It should be expected that a show which hinges alot on political maneuvering would showcase characters who are more concerned with the 'game' than rigid conservatism or religion. Uhh...history is pretty detailed in regards to the private and courtly life of nobility. We know rather well how they spoke and what they thought [hell we have extensive journals]. And they sure as shit didnt announce on a wedding day how they'd love to fuck their Kings wife, and would break fifty oaths to do so. That would never fly in a fuedal society... Walder Frey is not an example of your everyday Westerosi lord. He is a disgusting and vile man that most other lords hold in very low regard. He has an extremely hard time marrying off his daughters and granddaughters because of this. There is literally no way he can exist while anything resembling a feudal society exists, nor was my point limited to him, stop wasting my time with silly retorts. Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 05:08 Yoav wrote:
1) Evaluation
Incredibly awesome episode
4) Realism/Fairness
Stop saying the world is realistic and unfair. The world is strikingly unrealistic and unrealistically fair. It's not unusually nihilistic for real literature. Robb was a classic tragic protagonist, gaping tragic flaw and all. His whole story would be completely recognizable as a Greek or Elizabethan tragic hero, down to the innocents who he brings down around him. People don't die randomly in GoT. Everyone who dies does so because their story is over (often how they die is the final part of their sub-plot) or they didn't have a story to begin with. Dany, Jon, Arya, and Bran are all mid-plot and can't die any time soon. Robb makes self-destructive mistake after self-destructive mistake… and he pays for it in full measure. It's actually very Greek, really; he betrayed an oath to the gods, and was betrayed in an oath to the gods in the same place he made his own oath in the first place.
Umm...there not dead because there plots not over, but there plots not over because there not dead. Your fourth point isnt a point at all. Robbs storyline conceivably could have continued, had it continued. Brans could end--- were he to die, and it end. Your not making an argument for anything here.
LOL!!! I apologize Your Grace! We are not worthy of your deep ocean of an intellect.
In all seriousness, the fact that you are still trying to compare a FANTASY DRAMA TELEVISION SHOW with REAL LIFE is just strange. (Yes I am aware that some people praise the show for being "realistic" and they are wrong)
|
On June 04 2013 05:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Beautiful episode. I'm actually mad about all the people who are thinking of giving up on the show because Robb, Cat and Talisa died. Yeah it's sad but it's better than just offing Joffrey, Cersei and Tywin and calling it a day. There's still a lot of ground to cover and this episode is certainly making things a lot more interesting. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mlwq21u.png)
Haha, that is hilarious.
|
On June 04 2013 04:49 killa_robot 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. 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. Renly tried to take the throne without being the legitimate heir. His reasoning was just that he'd be better at it than Stannis. If he was a legit good guy he would have recognized this, and offered to help Stannis, while setting himself up to be hand of the king or something similar. He got screwed over pretty hard, and probably didn't deserve for it to happen, but I would go as far to say he was a "good guy".
so many people bothered by the "good guys" being murdered, the only thing G. Martin is guilty of is that he made a world that offers intelligent readers an antidote to what they are used to/tired off : the good guys having plot armor and succeeding every time, schooling people to choose the "right" morality that wins.
Even the magic in the show acts as randomness that helps (or kills) some of the power hungry plotters; in real life luck plays a great part whether you like it or not, even if you make the best plan you could still lose to an idiot with weapons of mass destruction or an earthquake or dragons etc
Why the hell would Robb or Eddard Stark win? Yes we can relate more to them because our their morals/line of thinking are closer to our own age, but if you put them into their own world they should be really lucky to survive with their no- compromise-iron-morals attitude and their inability to understand their opponents.
George RR Martin is indeed having fun with people that think in the old school morality cliches and I'm having fun with him as well. In real life shit actually happens and you might think he has overdone it in his books, but seriously, how good would another moralizing yawn fest be?
OH GR8 ROBB TOOK REVENGE AND BECAME KING HOW FASCINATING AND UNEXPECTED JUST LIKE REAL LIFE WHERE THE GOOD GUYS WIN AND EVERYTHING HAS A PURPOSE
Oh and when everyone's referring to the show being realistic I think it's obvious that they mean the characters' motivations and passions, contrasting the show to other known fantasy books/movies like Lord of the rings where the morality and motivations are overly simplistic (eg the absence of sexuality)
|
On June 04 2013 04:57 Gosi wrote:
How come Joffrey is so ignorant when it comes to the game and the politics? You would think Cersei, someone who knows whats up would teach him for his greater good. Like now, he gets played hard by the Tyrell's without knowing shit and he keeps slipping out of Cersei's hands more and more both because the Tyrell's are good but also cuz Joffrey is so naive and dumb.
I don't know if you've noticed by now but Cersei is astonishingly incompetent. She thinks she's smart but she's not. Even Tywin told her as much right to her face. The only reason she's in a high position is because she was born with the Lannister name and later married to the king through her father's machinations. You remember in season 2 when Tyrion was running circles around her? Tyrion is a clever man but even he's not on the level of Tywin or Littlefinger or Varys, but he still made Cersei look dumb without trying.
|
"The Red Wedding is based on a couple real events from Scottish history. One was a case called The Black Dinner. The king of Scotland was fighting the Black Douglas clan. He reached out to make peace. He offered the young Earl of Douglas safe passage. He came to Edinburgh Castle and had a great feast. Then at the end of the feast, [the king's men] started pounding on a single drum. They brought out a covered plate and put it in front of the Earl and revealed it was the head of a black boar — the symbol of death. And as soon as he saw it, he knew what it meant. They dragged them out and put them to death in the courtyard. The larger instance was the Glencoe Massacre. Clan MacDonald stayed with the Campbell clan overnight and the laws of hospitality supposedly applied. But the Campbells arose and started butchering every MacDonald they could get their hands on. No matter how much I make up, there’s stuff in history that’s just as bad, or worse."
|
Can't help to mention, but Melissandra's magic has worked! 1 of the three targets has died, now it's the turn for next 2!
|
Where are teh bans? So much spoilers in this thread.
Also please people, if you know what will happen, don't say: you should keep watching because..
|
Jaime and sister shagging in the capital of their biggest rival without anyone noticing - you'd think the Starks would at least keep an eye on them instead of letting them roam free around their home. Of course only person who sees them goes into a coma and doesn't remember what happened when he wakes up.
- Tyrian conveniently ordering the creation of the wildfire stuff and Tywin conveniently riding in to save King's Landing.
- Jaime surviving all his ordeals - a chopped-off hand is literally as bad as it gets for the Lannisters.
You'd think Robb, knowing what happened to his father, would be surrounded by a heavily armed hundred-man guard at all times. You can say he missed a few things but he wasn't a retard.
|
On June 04 2013 05:37 animagne wrote:
Can't help to mention, but Melissandra's magic has worked! 1 of the three targets has died, now it's the turn for next 2!
Or maybe Robb is just the dick leech so it's the most effective one, those other two didn't look like they got a lot of blood
|
On June 04 2013 05:37 animagne wrote:
Can't help to mention, but Melissandra's magic has worked! 1 of the three targets has died, now it's the turn for next 2!
Either that or she saw them dying in the flames and concocted a little ritual to make it look like she had the power to bring about their deaths.
Think about it, in order to assassinate Renly she had to sleep with Stannis and sap enough of his "life energy" or whatever to make that shadow demon that conjuring another one would probably kill him. But now she can just throw some leeches on a dead king's bastard and then throw them in a fire and make people die?
|
On June 04 2013 05:44 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 05:37 animagne wrote:
Can't help to mention, but Melissandra's magic has worked! 1 of the three targets has died, now it's the turn for next 2! Either that or she saw them dying in the flames and concocted a little ritual to make it look like she had the power to bring about their deaths. Think about it, in order to assassinate Renly she had to sleep with Stannis and sap enough of his "life energy" or whatever to make that shadow demon that conjuring another one would probably kill him. But now she can just throw some leeches on a dead king's bastard and then throw them in a fire and make people die?
Just a harder roll of that d20 yo 
|
On June 04 2013 05:39 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 05:37 animagne wrote:
Can't help to mention, but Melissandra's magic has worked! 1 of the three targets has died, now it's the turn for next 2! Or maybe Robb is just the dick leech so it's the most effective one, those other two didn't look like they got a lot of blood
Quick! Someone convince Stannis that the only way to win is with Robb's help! :'(
If only the Red god was on his side. Stupid being a northerner, otherwise he coulda been resurrected.
|
On June 04 2013 05:22 FREEloss_ca wrote:
People don't want to watch anymore, but don't realize the story is just getting started. Have people forgotten already? WINTER IS COMING.
Yeah, pretty sure everyone felt the same way after Ned got killed.
They'll be back on Sunday.
|
On June 04 2013 05:25 ShiaoPi wrote:
To the show-watchers, don't give up! While it is for sure a really bad punch into the guts, keep watching!
As Tyrion said in the preview of ep10:
"The North remembers...."
I really hope so. Sense Rob is the person i was able to most relate to in his decision making and general thinking, i am still kind of letting this episode settle in my mind. With that i dont want a generic ending like Dany gets an army of 400,000 and wrecks everything in her path.(But it is looking like she will eventually be the main player in GoT in season 5 or maybe 6)
Personally i just feel like listing what i want to happen atm:
1. Sansa kills Geoffry
2. Carl Drogo comes back to life and has an epic fight with that new guy Dany met (Winner is featured in a sex film)
3. Arya goes to Bravos and becomes a Grand Master assassin, goes back and kills every single lannister (Minus Tyrion), and then skins every person taking part in the mass murder of Rob and his men. * And bolton needs to have his heart pulled out in front of himself.
4. Jon Snow helps Arya and becomes the leader of the North with bran
5. Bran leads the north with Jon Snow and ally's with Dany when she lands
6.Tywin needs to have his whole family gutted in front of him and be slowly killed
*Just a really cool plus if Bran controls a White walker or something 
|
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.
What the hell are you talking about? This is a literal fantasy world with dragons, zombies and magic. It's not supposed to adhere to your expectations of anything, least of all anything realistic or historical.
|
|
|
Maybe I'm wrong here but how could Bran not realize that the person he was protecting was Snow?
I think its fine that they killed off all those "good" characters in one episode, but the death of the mom was a little tasteless, in that it was 2 throat slitting scenes right after another, either a simple camera cut or being shot with arrows would have been less harsh. This is like after anne boleyn dies in "the tutors" - in that I'm not sure if the series can have the same momentum as it once had.
EDIT: woops, yeah I forgot I left for a few minutes.
those tweets are amazing "My mom is watching game of thrones has been yelling no at the tv for 5 minutes"
|
On June 04 2013 05:58 Velouria wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong here but how could Bran not realize that the person he was protecting was Snow?
I think its fine that they killed off all those "good" characters in one episode, but the death of the mom was a little tasteless, in that it was 2 throat slitting scenes right after another, either a simple camera cut or being shot with arrows would have been less harsh. This is like after anne boleyn dies in "the tutors" - in that I'm not sure if the series can have the same momentum as it once had.
He did realize it, he even mentioned it and they talked about it for like 5min in the tower.
|
robb and cat's storyline was the most boring of them all, glad they are dead. Bran's story is getting interesting and jon snows story just sorta blew up now that hes not with the wildings anymore and on his own, and now they can focus a lot more on stannis instead of robb, who is a much much more interesting character. So many fools are upset because they don't get to see the good guy kill the bad guys anymore lol..
|
On June 04 2013 05:51 Mannerheim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:44 teapot 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.
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. What the hell are you talking about? This is a literal fantasy world with dragons, zombies and magic. It's not supposed to adhere to your expectations of anything, least of all anything realistic or historical.
Actually, it's just plain wrong in a way that has nothing to do with fantasy worlds.
Sexual liberalism? Homosexuality was rampant in medieval society and practiced extremely often, especially among the clergy and the young pages/squires.
Open betrayals? Do I even need to address how ridiculous it is to claim that open betrayals were not common in the medieval period?
You obviously haven't studied European history very well if you think GoT is at all sensationalist. The only thing I would say is that GoT and GRRM's writing in general doesn't focus at all on the arts/culture/other things people might do outside of drink, kill, scheme, and sex. But in terms of doing dark, violent, terribly unethical things GoT is no more than par for the medieval course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
