On June 04 2013 06:11 Cirqueenflex wrote: But killing a baby with multiple stabs (and you can't tell me this wasn't intended) is just disgusting and more than I would have needed to see to get the story plot across. Also the less I like people on the show the more screentime they get. So this will have been the last episode of GoT I will have watched. Not because of the characters that died (I disliked them anyway), not for the slaughter, but rather for the lack of people I can relate to and for the excessive and sadistic presentation of the killing/torture stuff.
You think the point of the whole Red Wedding scene was just to "get a story point across"? They could have just had all of the Starks just suddenly get their throats cut (like the magician in Essos did at the end of S2) if all they were trying to convey with this scene was "...aaaand then the Starks all got killed for betraying Frey."
The point of the scene was to be horrific, to highlight the emotional rollercoaster of the Starks going from a relatively hopeful place to having lost everything within a few minutes. Part of that was deliberately highlighting that they were killing the heir to the throne (and all of the hopes for the future of the Starks) by stabbing Talissa's stomach. It's supposed to be horrific. It's a deliberately stark contrast to the heroic, beautiful, meaningful deaths we're used to important heroes getting.
I actually do take issue with a lot of the unnecessary gore in this show, but all of the gore in that scene served a pretty damn clear purpose, and it worked incredibly well. One of the most amazing TV viewing experiences I've ever had. It's beyond me why that brilliant scene would make someone swear off the show.
and to get a final remark on that, do you know the show Merlin? I did care for the main characters, they felt way more developed and reasonable, and it had a very sad ending after 5 seasons. They did not have to rape children or show someone getting killed and blood all over every 10 minutes, and the main character does not get hacked into tiny little pieces and then eaten by naked people to get an ending that felt like the viewer lost something valuable. There is a difference between shocking someone with a loss and shocking someone with disgusting stuff, and for me that line was crossed with killing a woman by killing the child inside of her.
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)
The point isn't that the "good guys" have to win, but that the hipster attitude of, "Oh, Martin's writing is so realistic to how people actually are and so refreshing!" is arrogant and naive. His storytelling isn't much more realistic than the "good guys" winning out; he is just flipping it around the other way, and the "bad guys" are the ones that are stomping everyone. Plenty of people (myself included) will continue to absolutely love this series and TV show, but the criticisms are perfectly justified. It's personal taste, not correct vs. incorrect. Martin has taken his storytelling a radically different direction from what is fairly common, but that doesn't make it any better; it simply makes it different in tone but still similar in biases.
In fact, there's good grounds for literary criticism of what Martin is doing. If Martin does (or already has, since the next two books have been written) continue to be trigger-happy, then killing off so many of your main characters makes for a very poor experience towards the end of the series; people aren't going to be very invested in a bunch of new characters when all of the original characters have just been killed off.
No. If you look at history, the vast majority of people who seized or held power were exceptionally unsavory people, routinely engaging in assassination, bald-faced lying, deception, and manipulation of others for personal gain.
Nothing like what is represented in Game of Thrones. Not even close to the level seen and insinuated in Westeros.
On June 04 2013 06:58 Gatsbi wrote: Man.. I just thought about this, but Littlefinger is going to be super pissed to find out Catelyn was murdered.
Wonder if that will go anywhere..
Well Littlefinger wants power (recall the "chaos is a ladder" speech). Failing that he wants money as with money comes power (and resources).
Right now it would be unwise to go against the Lannisters for killing Catelyn. The Reach is in no condition to lead the North's assault on King's Landing. He doesn't have many powerful friends up there either. So fighting against the Lannisters for power is out of the question.
Money is interesting. The Lannisters are rich but the crown is in debt. So we might see Littlefinger going with the mysterious Iron Bank if he sees an opportunity to take revenge on the crown. Or, the Tyrells who are well-equipped, saved the Lannisters' asses, and have plenty of money on their own. Littlefinger might go along with their efforts for the same reasons as Robb - taking his vengeance on the Lannisters.
TL;DR - the Lannisters are making a lot of enemies and Littlefinger could become one of them.
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.
"Nasty hell populated by assholes". That describes the world during almost all of human history and even much of the world right now. The thing is you guys are judging the world and it's people by modern first world humanistic standards, but the world of GoT is not like that at all. Human life has very little value, as it did in ancient times in the real world. Just look at what is happening right now in Syria, in some parts of Africa, hell it's even in my own country or in Mexico there is some gnarly shit happening every single day and almost noone not directly related cares at all.
But most people just like to close their eyes and think the world is all flowers and butterflies. GoT portrayal of the human race is realistic; we all are mostly a bunch of selfish assholes with very little regard for anyone except those closest to us. Of course there are exceptions in real life but so there are in the world of GoT. Davos, Dany and Jon are major characters with a very modern sense of justice and humanity and all of them are so far alive and doing relatively well.
This is the world-view (that you may share with George Martin) that I strongly disagree with. We must all acknowledge that there has been violence, anguish, hopelessness, corruption and more throughout human history. However, can you assert that the human condition is accurately represented by what we see in Westeros? Are nearly all humans amoral creatures - ambivalent or reprehensible in regards to morality, as seen in Game of Thrones? That's quite an indictment of humanity. It reminds me of Star Trek: The Encounter at Far Point, when the omnipotent being named "Q" puts humanity on trial. Needless to say, the trial ends with the understanding that humanity as a whole is not savage or amoral - but rather, we are inherently "good" beings. And though flawed, we look to better ourselves and are driven by the hope of a better a future.
I would say that Sam's speech to Frodo at the end of The Two Towers is far more representative of our humanity than the excessive darkness and moral ambivalence that Martin broods in. Tolkien's work was also heavily influenced by his horrible experiences in World War 1. Linking below:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I got kinda spoiled before the season that there would be a 'red wedding' in the future.. that made the whole sansa/tyrion wedding super tense for me, thinking shit will go down any second - i read that martin himself wrote that episode which brace my suspicion even more.
Yeah and now i saw the real 'red wedding' - man so sad, arya travelling for 2 seasons, is right where she wanted to be and bam everybody dies. i'm rooting for joffrey now, atleast i know what i get with him..
Ah and i simply can not wait 10 month until the next season starts, ordered the books today ( even realy cheap, 25euro for all 5 books.. ).
On June 04 2013 07:03 Beevee wrote: I really wish Rob Stark could have gone out saying something like "The North Remembers", or "Shit", or Laughing saying "You are all going to die!"
Something other then saying "Mom" and then Bolton shoves a knife through him..... anyone with me?
Not at all, it was perfect. He lost everything when his wife died, the betray was too big.
On June 04 2013 07:03 Beevee wrote: I really wish Rob Stark could have gone out saying something like "The North Remembers", or "Shit", or Laughing saying "You are all going to die!"
Something other then saying "Mom" and then Bolton shoves a knife through him..... anyone with me?
I was impressed by the savagery, quite negatively affected by it, in the same way the wicker man affected me. In the end I guess it's something one will get over, and something that lends some more power to the implied threats GRRM writes in his books. But you know, it's a little annoying that the Starks get such crap thrown at them and don't manage to survive it, where the Lannisters had some situations where they should have been fucked but came out alright. The one that comes to mind is the bit where Joffrey is saved by Tywin at the perfect time. And Jaime's intervention with the bear came off a lot better than it could have come if GRRM had been writing in the same frame of mind he was when he wrote that wedding scene.
I wonder what's going to happen to Rob's collection of supporters, and whether or not Frey is going to side with the Lannisters...
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.
"Nasty hell populated by assholes". That describes the world during almost all of human history and even much of the world right now. The thing is you guys are judging the world and it's people by modern first world humanistic standards, but the world of GoT is not like that at all. Human life has very little value, as it did in ancient times in the real world. Just look at what is happening right now in Syria, in some parts of Africa, hell it's even in my own country or in Mexico there is some gnarly shit happening every single day and almost noone not directly related cares at all.
But most people just like to close their eyes and think the world is all flowers and butterflies. GoT portrayal of the human race is realistic; we all are mostly a bunch of selfish assholes with very little regard for anyone except those closest to us. Of course there are exceptions in real life but so there are in the world of GoT. Davos, Dany and Jon are major characters with a very modern sense of justice and humanity and all of them are so far alive and doing relatively well.
This is the world-view (that you may share with George Martin) that I strongly disagree with. We must all acknowledge that there has been violence, anguish, hopelessness, corruption and more throughout human history. However, can you assert that the human condition is accurately represented by what we see in Westeros? Are nearly all humans amoral creatures - ambivalent or reprehensible in regards to morality, as seen in Game of Thrones? That's quite an indictment of humanity. It reminds me of Star Trek: The Encounter at Far Point, when the omnipotent being named "Q" puts humanity on trial. Needless to say, the trial ends with the understanding that humanity as a whole is not savage or amoral - but rather, we are inherently "good" beings. And though flawed, we look to better ourselves and are driven by the hope of a better a future.
I would say that Sam's speech to Frodo at the end of The Two Towers is far more representative of our humanity than the excessive darkness and moral ambivalence that Martin broods in. Tolkien's work was also heavily influenced by his horrible experiences in World War 1. Linking below:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
EPT
