Game of Thrones

[duke of new york]

Just started it a few days ago. I've watched the first six episodes of season 1. I haven't read the books.

This show is excellent. The plot is complex, and the world is so rich. Also, Sean Bean.

Some gripes:

It can get a little cheesy, but it is fantasy, after all. Nothing so bad that it keeps me from enjoying it.

Some of the actors are pretty bad. Mainly the younger ones, like the Lannister prince and the Stark girl he was supposed to marry. I don't really mind this too much either, since there are also some outstanding actors, and the good definitely outweighs the bad.

There is really an excessive amount of gore and sex. I don't really mind this stuff, but there's just so much that it's apparent they're just using it to attract people to the show. I'm afraid they'll eventually be so fixated on providing sex and gore that the writing will suffer. I feel like that's what happened to the second season of Rome.


I'm hooked on this show. My favorite character has got to be the midget Lannister brother (is it Tyrian? I can't ever remember the names). Who else watches it or reads the books? Is it worth reading the books after watching the series? Any praise or criticism to give? Just don't spoil anything for me; like I said, I'm only halfway through the season.

 

[crippli]

the books are great. I would advice you to read those and drop the tv show.

Edit: I should explain why. But it's along time ago. I mostly just remember that the books where interesting reads.

I liked the dragon girl. How they prosecuted, drove her out of the land, sending assassins and continuously makes attempts to remove her from the realm.

So nice fantasy books, recommended.

I'm curios if R.R Martin is going to succeed in finalizing the tale. I think he used about 10 years to produce the last book. And he is getting older, so it may end up as the wheel of time, by Jordan...and the end of that series was really crappy, compared to the great start.

 

[kantor1003]

Have only read the first book. It was a great read. I've only watched like 3-4 episodes of the series however. Seemed pretty decent, but I've not gotten around to see more.

Yes, Tyrion is one of my favorite characters as well. What he lacks in appearance he has made up for in wit, rhetoric, intelligence and knowledge. Partly due to a heck a lot of reading.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I started off by watching the series over the summer. I thought it was great and I got really interested but not so much that I needed to run out and get the books. A few months ago I saw the trailer for the second season and that got me really excited so that was when I went to get the books. I've just begun reading the fifth book and I'd say that the book series is even better than the show is (but the show is also very good). Tyrion seems to be a favorite of most people and I also enjoy him as a character. Arya, I think, is also a very good character.

All in all, I love both the books and the show and I can't wait until April 1st when the second season starts.

 

[Architect]

I haven't been able to get into it yet. Seems to fall into the class of novels that are more artifice, than art, if you know what I mean. Still trying.

 

[nanook]

i have heard that it's supposed to be good.

on scanning through two or three episodes, it seemed to be too much (for my liking) about conformism plus extroversion plus ego/shadow, to sum it up: intruiges. in other words: about stupid fucking retarded people. psychopathic motivations like revenge, greed and so on. just what the average tv junky can identify with.

again, i was just scanning through it, quickly. i'd like to be wrong.

are there any wise or at least decent characters in this show? do they fight for anything worth fighting for?

*interested*

 

[duke of new york]

i have heard that it's supposed to be good.

on scanning through two or three episodes, it seemed to be too much (for my liking) about conformism plus extroversion plus ego/shadow, to sum it up: intruiges. in other words: about stupid fucking retarded people. psychopathic motivations like revenge, greed and so on. just what the average tv junky can identify with.

again, i was just scanning through it, quickly. i'd like to be wrong.

are there any wise or at least decent characters in this show? do they fight for anything worth fighting for?

*interested*

A lot of the characters fit that description, but what makes the show great is the diversity of characters and their motivations. A major theme of the series is going against traditional notions of honor when the honorable thing to do is not the right thing to do. Do you support the rightful hereditary heir to the throne, or the person who would be the best king, or your own liege out of loyalty? Or do you support yourself, just because you want to be king? There are characters driven by money, power, and revenge; there are characters driven by a desire for stability, order, tradition, and honor; there are characters driven by devotion to the well-being of the people they love; and there are even a few true public servants driven by service to the "realm" and what's best for everyone in it. There are a lot of dynamic, multi-dimensional characters in this show, so their personalities and motivations cover a lot of ground. But then, once you are sure about a character's motivations, they change, or it turns out they were hiding their true motivations all along.

Don't avoid the show if you're afraid of simple characters with simple motivations. You'll find at least one character you identify with. There are good ones and bad ones, smart ones and stupid ones.

Also, revenge is not always a psychopathic motivation. Any human being has the capacity for vengeance given the right circumstances. A good story makes you care enough about the characters that their desire for revenge seems justifiable. You'll find yourself rooting for at least some of the revenge-seekers.

 

[nanook]

Thanks, i think i will give it a try. today i made it through 30 mins of the first episode. i liked the atmosphere in the forest. i had to stop when the dwarf and his GF began to talk about "other people". can't digest such complications at the moment. a vampire has hit his fangs into my spine and equilibrium organ.

 

[Oedipus]

I really like the show, and the books are good but not startling. They get progressively worse, I think.

 

[Hadoblado]

I am a huge fan of the books, though the second most recent was quite dry. I like stories with some semblance of causal closure, it's one of the things that makes stories loke GoT, Dune, and LotR great. It's also nice that R. R. Martin explores some taboo subjects such as incest from both a first and third person, I'm getting pretty sick of popular ethics having so much influence on what happens in fantasy realms.

The series is good, but I recommend at least trying to read the books first. The reason fo this is if you watch the series, the books will be lackluster as you've already had everything imagined for you. Watching the series after reading the books however, is a delight, as HBO have done a pretty damn good job at the majority of representation.

- I take issue with the portrayel of Little Finger, the character on screen is incredibly dislikable.

- Also, having Chris from Skins act the part of Robert's bastard son seems a little off, he's supposed to be a blacksmith and Chris is sorta scrawny.

- I don't like the actor for Jon Snow either, but I think that's more because he reminds me of someone else I dislike.

 

[warryer]

I just finished book 3. They have all been good. I agree that there is something very similar between Dune and Game of Thrones.

It's always been strange to me when people read/watch fantasy and say, "oh that's just too unbelievable." Fantasy has to be taken for what it is. The author has a purpose for writing such things, otherwise they wouldn't be in there.

Some of the characters have depth. It's interesting to see how they interact with one another and the situations they are placed in at the hands of other characters.

 

[duke of new york]

I just finished book 3. They have all been good. I agree that there is something very similar between Dune and Game of Thrones.

It's always been strange to me when people read/watch fantasy and say, "oh that's just too unbelievable." Fantasy has to be taken for what it is. The author has a purpose for writing such things, otherwise they wouldn't be in there.

Some of the characters have depth. It's interesting to see how they interact with one another and the situations they are placed in at the hands of other characters.

What I really like about Game of Thrones is that you can barely tell it's fantasy. Watching the series, I would constantly forget it was fantasy. The only magical stuff I can remember in all of season 1 is bringing the guy back to life, the creatures in the woods, and of course, the dragons. Not that I have anything against fantasy with a lot of whimsical stuff in it, but I like that Game of Thrones just seems more real.

The focus on political intrigue and various families and power groups working against one another resembles Dune, I guess, but I don't see much else there. Dune was all about ecology and religion, which don't seem important in Game of Thrones. Maybe the religion is more important in the books, but the TV show doesn't give it much importance. It also had clear good guys and bad guys. Game of Thrones' characters are not totally ambiguous--you have the good Starks and the bad Lannisters and Targaryens--but there is some moral ambiguity. It's hard to see much evil in the Starks, at least in the TV series, but most of the other "bad" characters have a side that can be sympathized with. Think Daenerys, Tyrian, or Littlefinger. Even Cersei seems human occasionally.

I did start reading the first book again. I had started it a few months ago, and only got through the first few chapters. I just picked it up where I left off. It does seem a little like it's not worth reading now, after the show has "imagined" everything for me. It really speaks well for the show that reading the book doesn't really give you anything that the show couldn't. It seems like they were able to fit pretty much everything in the series. I'm a bit wary, though, of all the things I've heard about the books getting worse as they go on and not resolving in a satisfying way. But, there's nothing else in particular I want to read right now, so I'll at least stick with it for a little while.

 

[Ptah]

I'm a hater, and I gotta hate.

Game of Thrones is nothing but a flimsy excuse for gratuitous sex and violence for gratuity's sake. What a complete waste of otherwise top-notch talent and production value.

Fail.

 

[warryer]

I read somewhere that there are still another 2 books that the author needs to write to finish the series. They do end in cliffhangers unfortunately.

@Ptah, maybe the show is that way but, I haven't seen it. Gotta give what the audience wants I suppose. The books are different. There's a reason for the sex and a reason for the violence that the show may not explain. Words aren't that bloody or sexy anyways.

 

[duke of new york]

Yeah, like I said, the sex and violence is gratuitous. You could take out every sex scene and most of the gore, and the show would lose nothing, in my opinion. The sex was put in the books for a reason; the relationship between sex and power as well as gender issues are significant themes, but that doesn't mean it's necessary to show several seconds of a naked chick getting pounded from behind in every episode, or two naked women making out and dry humping in the background while another character talks about something unrelated. It's obviously in there just to attract people who want to see some titties. However, the show is not just a vehicle for sex and gore. The core of the show is still the story and character relationships.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think taking out the gore and the porn (and the gore porn) would cause the show to lose some credibility. The grittiness with which R. R. Martin writes is a tool in his arsenal for story telling, it brings the character's motives to life in a way that implied sex and implied gore cannot.

 

[duke of new york]

I think taking out the gore and the porn (and the gore porn) would cause the show to lose some credibility. The grittiness with which R. R. Martin writes is a tool in his arsenal for story telling, it brings the character's motives to life in a way that implied sex and implied gore cannot.

Nah, everyone has seen sex and violence over and over again in movies and on TV. It's not that bold; it doesn't give it credibility. Implied sex and gore can be just as powerful as actually showing it, or more so. It usually doesn't really make a difference whether it is shown or not; it's how it is framed.

Of course, it's good to show stuff sometimes for effect, but most of it is not for dramatic effect; it's just cheap thrills for the more superficial audience. For example, I would say this grisly scene has a powerful effect and was worth showing:

Spoiler

Showing Ned's head on a stake when Joffrey forced Sansa to look at it after he had him killed. The head would probably not have actually been shown in an older TV show out of prudence, but it brings home the point that real death tends to be distasteful and not very glorious, even for heroes and main characters.

But tell me, what kind of credibility or literary value this scene provided?

Spoiler

The scene where Littlefinger is in his brothel coaching two whores, who make out, grind on each other, and moan as he tells them about his plans.
...I guess this is not really a spoiler. But seriously, look me in the eye and tell me this scene is not just pornography.

 

[duke of new york]

Also, I think the show's portrayal of Littlefinger is good enough. I don't find him unlikable. In fact, I thought he was one of the more likable characters in the first few episodes. Actually, it seems to me that the portrayal of Tyrion has the biggest discrepancy with the books (keep in mind, I have only read about a third of the first book). Not that I have a problem with Dinklage as Tyrion--he's outstanding--but reading the book gives me a rather different perception of Tyrion. First of all, Peter Dinklage is a handsome guy, regardless of his condition, and Tyrion comes across in the writing as being very ugly, even grotesque. Also, maybe it comes more into play later on in the book, but so far, the book Tyrion doesn't seem be as much of an asshole as the TV Tyrion. Of course, the sarcasm and attitude of Dinklage's Tyrion are what everyone loves about him, including me. I just don't see so much of that in the book.

 

[Czech Yes or No]

Interesting, I will be sure to start watching this. Most shows are just too bland.

 

[gruesomebrat]

Also, I think the show's portrayal of Littlefinger is good enough. I don't find him unlikable. In fact, I thought he was one of the more likable characters in the first few episodes. Actually, it seems to me that the portrayal of Tyrion has the biggest discrepancy with the books (keep in mind, I have only read about a third of the first book). Not that I have a problem with Dinklage as Tyrion--he's outstanding--but reading the book gives me a rather different perception of Tyrion. First of all, Peter Dinklage is a handsome guy, regardless of his condition, and Tyrion comes across in the writing as being very ugly, even grotesque. Also, maybe it comes more into play later on in the book, but so far, the book Tyrion doesn't seem be as much of an asshole as the TV Tyrion. Of course, the sarcasm and attitude of Dinklage's Tyrion are what everyone loves about him, including me. I just don't see so much of that in the book.

Hmm, I've only read the second book of the series, but I do recall Tyrion being a complete ass pretty much throughout it. Very conscious of the fact that he is 'deformed', and very arrogant about his learning; nevertheless, he was still one of my favourite characters in the book.

 

[travelnjones]

I'm a hater, and I gotta hate.

Game of Thrones is nothing but a flimsy excuse for gratuitous sex and violence for gratuity's sake. What a complete waste of otherwise top-notch talent and production value.

Fail.

gratuitous sex yes, but there isn't enough violence. I haven't seen any of this second series but I watched all of the first. They needed to show some of the Lannister's getting their butts kicked at the battle at the end of the book. You just sort of needed it as a viewer

 

[duke of new york]

I think taking out the gore and the porn (and the gore porn) would cause the show to lose some credibility. The grittiness with which R. R. Martin writes is a tool in his arsenal for story telling, it brings the character's motives to life in a way that implied sex and implied gore cannot.

Coming back to this thread now that I have read past the events in the series, I have to point out that the books are not nearly as explicit as they are made out to be. Most of the sex, if not the violence, is indirectly, not graphically described, in the writing. A lot of the "gritty" scenes from the show do not even exist in the books. I still don't think the gratuitous sex adds anything of value to the show.

Hmm, I've only read the second book of the series, but I do recall Tyrion being a complete ass pretty much throughout it. Very conscious of the fact that he is 'deformed', and very arrogant about his learning; nevertheless, he was still one of my favourite characters in the book.

I agree, now. Reading the second book, I kept thinking how perfectly Peter Dinklage captured Tyrion's attitude and perspective.

 

[Dapper Dan]

Disregard legitimate analysis; acquire awesomeness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25KABvPbq-U

 

[A22]

I find it interesting how all the medieval women who live in that cold region are skinny and hot.

"You're watching HBO. It's not TV. It's porn."

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Seeing as we've kind of deviated from the serious conversation...

 

[eagor]

i watched the first episode today, the dwarf is my favorite and will continue to be for the rest of the show.

 

[Wasp]

Watched the season finale yesterday and I need get this out in open:
HOLY SHIT!!!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!! WHITE WALKERS AND MASSIVE UNDEAD ARMY!!!! WESTEROS IS F*****D!!!!!


..aahhh much better.

 

[lungs]

i hate it when seasons end the anticipation kills.

daenerys remains my favorite and i'm excited for her to cross the narrow sea already.

i wish i could get into the more fantasy-ish aspects of the show more, i mean the whitewalker army is a cool plot twist and everything but so cartoonish idk

 

[Obrens]

Game of Thrones' characters are not totally ambiguous--you have the good Starks and the bad Lannisters and Targaryens--but there is some moral ambiguity. It's hard to see much evil in the Starks, at least in the TV series, but most of the other "bad" characters have a side that can be sympathized with. Think Daenerys, Tyrian, or Littlefinger. Even Cersei seems human occasionally.

Bad Targaryens? Are you serious? They're like the legitimate rulers of Westeros. One mad king is not enough to undo that. Also, Starks aren't plain good. Of the three you mentioned only Lannisters are simply bad. But there you have the very likeable Tyrion, and if I remember right from the books (read them a long time ago), I also liked Jamie later on.
You haven't mentioned The Night Watch though, and they are plain good.
And Greyjoys are also plain bad.

 

[Wasp]

Bad Targaryens? Are you serious? They're like the legitimate rulers of Westeros. One mad king is not enough to undo that. Also, Starks aren't plain good. Of the three you mentioned only Lannisters are simply bad. But there you have the very likeable Tyrion, and if I remember right from the books (read them a long time ago), I also liked Jamie later on.
You haven't mentioned The Night Watch though, and they are plain good.
And Greyjoys are also plain bad.

I thought the Greyjoys were evil too. Particularly Theon. But later on I pitied him. Also when I read Asha's POV she struck me as a female Tyrion, the only likable character in a horrible family.

 

[A22]

Use spoilers, guys.

They all start wars for power, none of them are "good". If I'd defend a king it would be Tyrion Lannister.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I've only seen the first season so far (waiting for some slow friends to catch up to watch the rest) and I'd say Eddard Stark* seemed like the only one I'd say could fit the description of a "good guy" (and maybe Daenerys, even though she got pretty bad-guy-like bloodthirsty when she started to fit in with the Dothraki). Even Tyrion, while an awesome character, didn't really seem to fit the description of a good guy (antihero at best). King Baratheon is awesome, too*.




*

Spoiler

Which is obviously why he had to die - he lived in a world full of bad guys.

King Baratheon was awesome. I think I miss him more than Ned Stark.

 

[travelnjones]

you should check out the books, all the character go through some changes for the worse and better. Dicks become good and the people you like lose their luster. Big changes are constant in the series.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I thought the Greyjoys were evil too. Particularly Theon. But later on I pitied him. Also when I read Asha's POV she struck me as a female Tyrion, the only likable character in a horrible family.

Spoiler

I don't think the Greyjoys are "bad." They kill and whatnot and just take things not because they're just evil people but because that's the whole culture of the Iron Islands. Also in the books Theon's a total prick in my opinion but I think the show so far has done a better job of highlighting his internal conflict which makes him easier to sympathize with.

 

[Hadoblado]

*QUICK REPLY SPOILER TAGS*

'Evil' characters: Gregor Clagan, King Draco Malfoy, some other people on Aria's list that I can't remember. They do evil things without clear motive. Both likely have psychological disorders (sadism and narcissistic personality disorder for Joffrey, sociopath for Gregor).

Good people: Jon, Robb, Daenarys (later on), Eddard (arguable). These characters show a responsibility to the people around them beyond what is required of their role.
Rob makes some decision naively (one in particular), but he actually means good upon the world. Daenarys starts off sorta 50/50, but she gravitates towards empathy later. Eddard is bound by duty, but sacrifices much to maintain personal honour, which IMO is selfish.

Of course, these categorisations are contingent upon there actually being such thing as good and evil, which I personally do not believe in, and R. Martin goes to little effort to make these things clear cut (which I very much enjoy).

 

[Obrens]

I still can't believe that nobody confirmed my opinion that the Nights Watch are good; the best.

They all start wars for power, none of them are "good".

Yup. And these guys are the only ones that don't.

 

[Hadoblado]

The nightwatch good? Naaaaa...

Not doing something would align more with neutrality. Furthermore, assigning an alignment to a group of people seems naive, as there are people of differing ideals within the watch. Half of them are only in the watch because the only other option is capital punishment; hardly what I'd call a righteous motive.

 

[Obrens]

Furthermore, assigning an alignment to a group of people seems naive,

I cannot imagine a war in which they wouldn't be the good side. Therefore, they are good as a group.
Yeah, of course a lot of them are bad people. But the percentage of people who care about the greater good more then about themselves is greater among the leaders and important people of the Night's Watch then any other faction.