or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Game of Thrones' on HBO HD - NO SPOILERS or Book Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Game of Thrones' on HBO HD - NO SPOILERS or Book Discussion - Page 35

post #1021 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

Yes, it's been mentioned that she's hostage and possible trade bait for Jaime. However, they lost Arya and won't admit it. I guess because it shows weakness...and they seem to be gambiting both girls, through Littlefinger, for the pretty Lannister. I'm not sure why. I'd either admit that Arya was missing and offer Sansa straight up or not admit it and offer Sansa, alleging that Arya would be held for future considerations. Granted, Jaime, in the Westeros verse, is probably considered the more valuable piece and neither side would probably give in...a MADofH (mutally assured destruction of hostage) standoff. That, BTW, is why idoit Joffrey is being held on a leash by Cersei and Tyrion. If he offs or harms Sansa, then Jaime's toast.

You ahve to remember in the show Women are worth "less" than men as well. Sansa by herself is not enough of a barganing chip. Thats why they needed both girls to make the deal more "attractive" even though it would still not be considered even. Since they are at war they would not trade a great warrior for 2 women regardless of who they are the trade just doesnt make sense.

If you admitted to losing Arya you would lose all of your barganing power period and if anything would give the enemy more courage to come after you. Remember the Queen is in love with her brother as well, so she has more investment to see Jamie survive than others.
post #1022 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

You ahve to remember in the show Women are worth "less" than men as well. Sansa by herself is not enough of a barganing chip. Thats why they needed both girls to make the deal more "attractive" even though it would still not be considered even. Since they are at war they would not trade a great warrior for 2 women regardless of who they are the trade just doesnt make sense.

If you admitted to losing Arya you would lose all of your barganing power period and if anything would give the enemy more courage to come after you. Remember the Queen is in love with her brother as well, so she has more investment to see Jamie survive than others.

Don't forgot if Rob makes they trade, his banner men will either kill him or end his kingship. The Kingslayer for 2 girls? Not a good trade at all even if they are his sisters. Jamie is the jewel of the family (so we are lead to believe), had Eddard been alive, sure. Sansa and Araya? Nah.
post #1023 of 4641
I don't see a Jaime/girls trade happening, but if the Starks find out that Sansa or Arya have been killed or hurt, then I would not to be Jaime.
post #1024 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

I would like Sansa to rise above being a doormat Her demeanor is positively maddening, as compared to Daenerys, who would have one of her minions take off his head or do it herself There is no bigger contrast in how females carry themselves in this man dominated world. I have to think even Catherine would be ashamed of how her daughter so willingly accepts being abused & dishonoring the Stark tradition.

Daenerys was just as much of a doormat while her brother was in charge.
post #1025 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatteoMS View Post

Daenerys was just as much of a doormat while her brother was in charge.

Daenerys is a bit older and she was able to come into her own once she was out from her brother's thumb where she clearly had been abused. Sansa, on the other hand, was well treated (apparently) at Winterfell and perhaps spoiled and who is now under the thumb of a brutal and sadistic boy after seeing her father beheaded. Sansa is trying to continue staying alive under terrible conditions whereas Daenerys is trying to cope with being a leader under very difficult circumstances. Very different though both tough challenges.
post #1026 of 4641
^^
True for both women.

On Sansa, I admit her options are now very limited so I guess I'm refuting myself

While she could run, finding someone in that group of snakes to trust to get her out safely and stay hidden would be very difficult maybe now impossible. I can think of only 1 person who could be trusted if he wanted to help her - Tyrion (or his bodyguard). And he'd have to do so at his own peril going against his sister and the king.

Not good odds...I admit. Probably Sansa's only good chance to get free was right after Ned was executed.

So I'll ease up on the lass
post #1027 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

^^
While she could run, finding someone in that group of snakes to trust to get her out safely and stay hidden would be very difficult maybe now impossible. I can think of only 1 person who could be trusted if he wanted to help her - Tyrion (or his bodyguard). And he'd have to do so at his own peril going against his sister and the king.

Not good odds...I admit. Probably Sansa's only good chance to get free was right after Ned was executed.

So I'll ease up on the lass

While Tyrion is a "good guy" as much as they exist in this universe he still is a Lannister and his brother Jamie is held captive by Rob. Earlier episodes made it clear that Tyrion and Jamie have a good relationship. I don't think that Tyrion has any reason to want harm to come to Sansa but he certainly knows that his best hope off getting Jamie back is to have Sansa as a hostage in return.
post #1028 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

Don't forgot if Rob makes they trade, his banner men will either kill him or end his kingship. The Kingslayer for 2 girls? Not a good trade at all even if they are his sisters. Jamie is the jewel of the family (so we are lead to believe), had Eddard been alive, sure. Sansa and Araya? Nah.

True which is the reason why Tyrion is using Little Finger to try and convince Cat to talk Rob into agreeing to the trade. The trade is a long shot at best but by appealing to her motherly instincts Tyrion hopes he will gain an ally and at least open negotiations.
post #1029 of 4641
There are several Thrones fans where I work and while we were discussing the last episode it occurred to me that we were talking about Arya, Tyrion, Sansa, Joffrey, Daenerys, etc almost as if they were real, actual people - not characters in a medieval fantasy. This to me is why GoT resonates - it is filled with well thought out, written, and acted characters as well as a great story.
post #1030 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezster View Post

I see him more as a sociopath, and one who's aroused by the pain of others more than anything else.

In fact, I'm rather surprised that He hasn't had Tyrion killed yet (or tried to, at least), regardless of any political position he may hold. Joffrey has a rather cavalier attitude in his decision-making process, and in my eyes, has shown a lot of 'restraint' in this regard.

Whatever the term, Joffrey is a nutcase .. I will cheer his demise and hope to see a "rat in a bucket strapped to his chest" as the rest of the Starks gather around him and poke dull sticks in his eyes ..

Although the writers proved by killing off Ned that they are not opposed to a major character death, I would hope Tyrion will stay with us for some time as he has become the lynchpin of the story, IMO ..
post #1031 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

Whatever the term, Joffrey is a nutcase .. I will cheer his demise and hope to see a "rat in a bucket strapped to his chest" as the rest of the Starks gather around him and poke dull sticks in his eyes ..

Although the writers proved by killing off Ned that they are not opposed to a major character death, I would hope Tyrion will stay with us for some time as he has become the lynchpin of the story, IMO ..

I am not sure how it plays out in the books, but would anyone disagree with me that all of the new characters introduced/promoted into limelight in S2 so far are as disposable and forgettable as sacrificial grunts on a battleground? They move the story/front forward to a point, and may then die off, while the major generals (characters from S1) continue to be central to the story progression.

At least so far, I don't see any S2 character that would carry the show if a Tyrion or Jamie or Cersei or Littlefinger or Varys or Daenerys would get lopped off.
post #1032 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by raaj View Post


I am not sure how it plays out in the books, but would anyone disagree with me that all of the new characters introduced/promoted into limelight in S2 so far are as disposable and forgettable as sacrificial grunts on a battleground? They move the story/front forward to a point, and may then die off, while the major generals (characters from S1) continue to be central to the story progression.

At least so far, I don't see any S2 character that would carry the show if a Tyrion or Jamie or Cersei or Littlefinger or Varys or Daenerys would get lopped off.

It's way too early to say if they are disposable. The same could have said about the season 1 characters when they were 1st introduced. The only reason we have anything invested in the main characters is because they have been around for more than one season. If littlefinger died early on no one would have much cared, now not so much. Same thing could have been said about Ned Stark.
post #1033 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

It's way too early to say if they are disposable. The same could have said about the season 1 characters when they were 1st introduced. The only reason we have anything invested in the main characters is because they have been around for more than one season. If littlefinger died early on no one would have much cared, now not so much. Same thing could have been said about Ned Stark.

I hated to see Ned go and I still miss his character this season .. he added soul to the show ..
post #1034 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by raaj View Post

I am not sure how it plays out in the books, but would anyone disagree with me that all of the new characters introduced/promoted into limelight in S2 so far are as disposable and forgettable as sacrificial grunts on a battleground? They move the story/front forward to a point, and may then die off, while the major generals (characters from S1) continue to be central to the story progression.

At least so far, I don't see any S2 character that would carry the show if a Tyrion or Jamie or Cersei or Littlefinger or Varys or Daenerys would get lopped off.

You might have said that about all the characters in S1. The entire series has been episodic which is the nature of the source material.

Edit: I guess Ph8te beat me to it.
post #1035 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

You might have said that about all the characters in S1. The entire series has been episodic which is the nature of the source material.

Huh??? Are you posting in the correct thread? A TV narrative that spans multiple seasons, based on an ongoing series of books and you think that Game of Thrones is somehow episodic in nature? Quite the opposite, actually.
post #1036 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsambuca View Post

Huh??? Are you posting in the correct thread? A TV narrative that spans multiple seasons, based on an ongoing series of books and you think that Game of Thrones is somehow episodic in nature? Quite the opposite, actually.

The post had me scratching my head as well ..
post #1037 of 4641
Well, I can't tell whether you two are being sarcastic or didn't understand my meaning.

I simply meant that there are many characters and that GoT shows are made up of many short narratives about little seen characters in which the connections to others are not always readily apparent. Additionally, unlike many other novels, the point of view constantly changes rather than having a single first person pov or a narrator's pov.

If you are simply giving me a hard time about this, nevermind.
post #1038 of 4641
Define "episodic." Dictionary supports both the idea of "loosely connected" and the idea of "serialized."
post #1039 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Define "episodic." Dictionary supports both the idea of "loosely connected" and the idea of "serialized."

See above. I was going more for the loosely connected definition.
post #1040 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post


I hated to see Ned go and I still miss his character this season .. he added soul to the show ..

The point was that you would not have missed him if he was killed in the 1st 3 episodes. The reason you miss him is that his character grew over the season.
post #1041 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

The point was that you would not have missed him if he was killed in the 1st 3 episodes. The reason you miss him is that his character grew over the season.

... until the end. Then his character shrunk about a 5 feet. Luckily, he quit while he was ahead.
post #1042 of 4641
Daryl is right.
post #1043 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

... until the end. Then his character shrunk about a 5 feet. Luckily, he quit while he was ahead.

post #1044 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

Daryl is right.

A person can't escape their nature.
post #1045 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

The point was that you would not have missed him if he was killed in the 1st 3 episodes. The reason you miss him is that his character grew over the season.

Bad example. Ned Stark was played by Sean Bean so we would have missed him if he'd died after 3 minutes.

On the flipside, Ned Stark was played by Sean Bean so we knew he was going to die eventually. At least that softened the blow.
post #1046 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

Well, I can't tell whether you two are being sarcastic or didn't understand my meaning.

I simply meant that there are many characters and that GoT shows are made up of many short narratives about little seen characters in which the connections to others are not always readily apparent. Additionally, unlike many other novels, the point of view constantly changes rather than having a single first person pov or a narrator's pov.

If you are simply giving me a hard time about this, nevermind.

I've always taken "episodic" to mean that there is really no (or very little) continual story through the show and each episode can stand on its own as if the one before it or after it didn't happen. Dictionary.com seems to support that.

I would consider GoT very heavily in the "serialized" category. If someone had never seen the show (or even just missed a few weeks) and you randomly had them watch episode 3 of season 2 they would have no idea what was going on, and they'd likely be bored to tears as it wouldn't mean anything to them. On the flipside, if you randomly showed someone one episode from the middle of an episodic show like CSI or Seinfeld they'd have no problem knowing what was going on and enjoying it.

If you tried to watch GoT out of order your mind would be in a cluster****. I think that pretty much means, by definition, that it's not episodic.
post #1047 of 4641
^ Yep, in terms of television vernacular, "episodic" tv is akin to "procedural," in that each episode will usually contain a stand-alone storyline (CSI and such). A serialized program on the other hand, which Game of Thrones very much is, has an overarching storyline throughout the season (Dexter, Breaking Bad, etc.).
post #1048 of 4641
But the structure of the story is episodic, just like the books. Its really just a question of semantics, though, not worth arguing about.
post #1049 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

But the structure of the story is episodic, just like the books. Its really just a question of semantics, though, not worth arguing about.

I agree. But . . .






post #1050 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

The point was that you would not have missed him if he was killed in the 1st 3 episodes. The reason you miss him is that his character grew over the season.

I disagree .. we don't all connect to a character based on longevity alone .. don't profess to know what's in my head and I promise to not read your mind telepathically either ..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Game of Thrones' on HBO HD - NO SPOILERS or Book Discussion