'Game of Thrones' on HBO HD - NO SPOILERS or Book Discussion - Page 4

I agree. I'm also one of those who react much more strongly to animals, probably because I view them as truly innocent bystanders.

But those strong emotions are exactly what they are tapping into. It's no different than tapping into the audience's joy, fear, disgust, etc. It's meant to draw you in and get you involved with the emotions of the characters.

Exactly.


In a cheap, lazy way. It's one hundred percent guaranteed to produce a strong reaction, and it takes absolutely zero effort to write such a scene.

Need a character to be evil? Just have 'em kick a puppy ... and CUT!!


Yes. Oddly, I have little reaction to all the faked human on human violence. Except perhaps for the 10yr old being tossed off the tower.

PS: If truth be told, I'm not nearly as upset about "the scene" itself as I am with the hoards in here that keep trying to justify it as "necessary" to the story. It was a passing comment, others made it into something else, bordering on personal attack.

Ahh, but that isn't what happened. The scene clearly wasn't to establish anyone as some mustache twirling cartoon character. It was to show that Ned feels he is duty-bound to follow his king's command in this case, even though he knows the king is just trying to take the easy way out. He's clearly conflicted about it, and it (along with the beheading scene in Ep1) shows a lot about his character that (1) he hates doing it, (2) he does it anyway, (3) he does it himself, so as to be as humane as possible. (In the book, Ned sends the wolf's body back to be buried at Winterfell, further demonstrating his respect for the life of the creature.)

If it had just been Jaimie or the Hound who had lopped Lady's head off without giving it two thoughts, I might be more inclined to agree with you that it was a shortcut to establish the heartlessness of the character. You could definitely make an argument that happened when Jaimie threw Bran out the window, given what we've seen so far.

(The flip side of that is the old "show, don't tell" mantra. Seeing the Hound with the bloodied corpse of the butcher's boy was a very effective way to get across how callous that dude is. Gratuitous and cheap? I guess that is a matter of opinion. The show is exposition-heavy enough as it is, though. If they can provide some insight into a character with a quick visual opposed to having them ramble on about their feelings, Dawson's Creek-style, more power to them.)


You originally stated that it was gratuitous, and just now suggested it was a shortcut. Most of the responding posts have expressed that (1) it is far more complex than that, which, in my opinion, is the correct interpretation and (2) if you didn't like that scene, you probably won't like a lot of other stuff about the show. "Necessary" or not, it is part of the story, and sets a tone for both Ned's character and what ought be expected of Game of Thrones as we move forward.

I love the Tyrion Lannister scenes. Not only is the actor thoroughly entertaining, but through this character they give you the real back story of the world. It is a nice way to do some heavy exposition in an entertaining fashion.

Yes. I agree with that statement.

I've also stated that I completely understand the so-called "complexity" of the scene. (Along with the stag vs. dire-wolf symbology/foreshadowing from the first episode ... Subtle, complex? I think not.) This does not change my opinion or reaction to the scene, nor does it mean I would have had the same reaction upon coming across the scene in printed, prose form. Since I have *not* read the book, I can't say for sure.

I keep waiting for all the hyped greatness of the story to appear, but so far it's been a (completely predictable,) paint-by-numbers, mustache-twirling live action cartoon.

Since many of us are baffled by this reaction, perhaps you could provide some examples of productions you use as benchmarks of higher quality?

Yeah, that one's about as subtle as a machine gun. Whether or not it is evocative or compelling as an opening of the story is dependent on the viewer/reader. [shrug]


I stated over in the spoilers thread that I'm surprised there haven't been more complaints from people unfamiliar with the books about how slow / exposition heavy the show is, and how the tension that is present during this part of the books isn't really coming across since so much of it is in the characters' internal monologues. (Most, definitely not all, of the non-readers disagreed with me.) But I wouldn't have expected anyone to call it predictable, paint-by-numbers, or (Dothraki wedding notwithstanding) cartoony. Go figure. I'm for whatever reason very curious about non-readers' opinions on the show, so thanks for sharing. Try as I might, I can't separate my book-based knowledge of the depth of story from my viewing experience. I feel like I only like the show because my opinion/knowledge is informed by the books. But I do enjoy it. A lot.

Conversely, maybe the "hyped greatness" you mention set you up for inevitable disappointment? (Not trying to be snarky or trollish, happens to me all the time when I hear amazing stuff about a show/movie, and then I watch it and...meh.)

Off the top of my head, in no particular order (and sticking to the HBO catalog): Rome, Deadwood, Sopranos ...

3 of my favorites and though I've read the first 3 books, I'm not a huge fan (more of a panner actually), so I understand and somewhat agree with your comments. However, the above shows were created. GoT is adapted and pretty faithfully. You may not like the story or the pace. I didn't. I'm watching the show and enjoy the world building and characterizations, but this ain't a "ripping yarn". It's a dense epic and GoT will just scratch the surface.

I'm curious on what basis you consider it predictable. If you mean because there are murders, plots for the throne, young heroes apparently destined for glory, etc., well... duh. You can't expect literally 100% of ideas to be brand new, in any show. It's all about how they are put together.

This is paraphrasing from a review I saw, but consider the wolves defending the kids in episode two. In a standard yarn we would now expect this to become the adventures of the Starks and their superwolves roaming the countryside fighting the Lannisters. Well, nope, instead they immediately chased one wolf away and killed another. And not only that, a Stark did the killing, choosing duty to the king over his own family. I know you didn't like the scene but you're being disingenuous if you dismiss it as simplistic and conventional.

How about the Wall, after the majestic shots and early talk of people dedicating their lives to protecting the kingdom, being a shithole staffed by criminals instead of some corny heroic outpost beating back hordes of orcs? The queen screwing her brother? Casually throwing 10-year-olds out windows? I'm not saying things like this have never been done before but come on, they are hardly standard paint-by-numbers fare. Yes, there are some cliches (say, the kid waking up and not remembering) but the same can be said for any show.

If the show is so predictable, maybe we should request some predictions.

1) I haven't seen any character that hasn't come directly from Fantasy-Genre's-How-to-write-a-fantasy-epic guide. Well perhaps the Imp is somewhat "unpredictable."

2) For the last time: We (Or at least I) didn't learn anything "new" about any of the characters from the "kill-the wolf scene" that we hadn't already learned by the end of episode one. Therefore, IMO, the scene was a gratuitous, cheap attempt to manipulate the viewers emotions.

No what would have been "surprising" and original in that case would have been if Ned Stark had whipped out his sword and started laying waste to all, starting with the King. Seriously, given the setup, there was no other way Ned could have reacted ... and still have made it out of the "audience/hearing" alive. IOW completely predictable.

Likewise, It would have been surprising if Ned had released the wolf instead of dispatching it.

No, you'd complain about that as well; it would just be a repeat of chasing off Nymeria and reusing a plot device from a hundred children's films.

Unless you go back to the very first hero's journey tales you're not ever going to see/read anything original in this genre. As someone else said, it's in how it's put together that makes a new or compelling story.

You seem to have already decided you're not going to be happy with anything on the show.

Not really. It's just that I haven't seen anything in the first three episodes that I haven't seen or read before. For all the, "sturm und drang," I find my overall reaction is boredom.

OTOH, Since I've already given up three hours of life, plus the time fending off the angry hoards here , I'll probably finish out the season. But, at this point, I don't anticipate ever reading the source material, or watching a second season. I think 3+ hours is a fair sampling.

Out of curiosity, if you're going to watch the rest of the show, and you are clearly not a fan of it, are you going to continue to fill this thread with complaints every week? Not that you don't have a right to express your opinion, of course, but it's going to get old fast.

You already know the answer why even ask him? This is the internet after all! I myself am enjoying the presentation. Maybe perhaps people that read books often have a bit more patience at plot development than others?

It will ramp up as the season progresses. It's odd, but the first ep got much further than I expected while the last two eps seem to have fallen behind pace.

I, for one, appreciate a spectrum of opinions, so long as they aren't obvious trolls. It would get boring around here without the dissenters.

Totally wrong. We learned that Sansa's siding with Joffrey had a seriously downside for her direwolf. Hardly predictable, and yes, we learned something, and so did the character. She's learning that the world (and it's princes) are not at all like the fantasy versions she's spun out in her head.

We learned how far Ned will go for his personal honor, which, if not totally new, at least deepens and reinforces what we've seen before. And your "unpredictable" version of Ned whipping out his sword and dispatching everyone is the worst kind of cheap SyFy channel production cliche. I mean, really...

I don't mind varying opinions, either. It's the apparent lack of willingness to see other POV's that gets frustrating, and I'm not talking about just this thread (or one person).

"We have another wolf" is quite a surprising moment for me that also adds to Cersei's character. It wouldn't occur to me to kill Sansa's wolf for something Arya's wolf did. Especially after Sansa lied to cover Joffrey. Gives Cersei a vengeful side where it's not just about family and protecting secrets, it's also about hurting someone.

The only reason I keep "complaining" (as you say) is to respond to the people who are complaining about my "complaint" ...

I was done after the original comment. For my part, everything that has followed has merely been a defense from the hordes of killer-bees that were apparently angered by the original comment.

The solution, therefore, should be obvious. (Hint: STOP POKING THE BEAR. )

And this is an "original" plot element/character development that's never ever been used before in any TV show, movie or book? Really? ... not even in a Disney movie or "after school special?"

So far, all of the characters have been architypes ... and they have all behaved *exactly* how we would expect them to in any given situation. I could make you diagrams and charts, but you'd probably still deny the evidence. That being said, I am a bit impressed at the shear numbers of architypes that have been crammed into one story.

So, I'll repeat my advice from my last post, to wit: STOP POKING THE BEAR and chances are pretty good the the bear will leave you alone.

Fair enough, Mr. Bear.

I'm engaged with this show a lot more than I expected to. I have not read the book and in general don't care for fantasy, but I think the story is good and the show is very well done. This may be old hat to connoisseurs of the genre, but I'm enjoying it. I for one don't know where the story is going. Sure the characters are archetypes -- the tomboy, the dwarf who compensates for his small size with his intelligent, the bitter cynical old king, the loyal right hand -- but i think there's enough nuance there to make them interesting, as opposed to the beloved characters LotR which tend to be either goody goody or pure evil. Of course the LotR characters work for the grand battle of good vs evil; this story is a bit murkier.

Btw, is Tyrion being framed? Seems he's too smart to use such a traceable weapon.

It was revealed that Jaimie sent the assassin, but not how he obtained the dagger. Tyrion may have given it to him or he may have taken it. Not a wise move to give it to the assassin and fairly unnecessary as daggers shouldn't be that hard to obtain. I'm pretty sure Tyrion is totally ignorant at this point, but I imagine he'll have some explaining to do to the Starks or at least be suspected. Don't think his brother framed him though.

Actually it was explained in the last episode. I can't remember his name, but it was the on hiding lady Stark at the brothel. He said thar he was the one who had owned it and lost it gambling to Jaimie.

No I'm pretty sure he said he lost it to "the imp"

Only three episodes in and this is my favorite show on right now. I am starting the first book this week and at the end of each show I go, "ah man, more, more, more!"

You're correct. He lost it to Tyrion. The bet was on Jamie winning the competition he was in.