I am super excited, however this is the first time a very loved book series of mine has become a television show and I'm experiencing *That's now how that person looked in my head* syndrom. I'm sure i'll get over that however. Thoughts?
I am still pissed at Martin. The last time I read about my favorite characters was in Book 3, . When writing the 4th book, they decided that it was too long, so the busted the fourth book into books 4 and 5. Each books has half the characters and the books are occuring at the same time.
Now keep in mine that A Storm of Swords came out in 2000, so it has been 11 years since I read about my favorite characters.
It better be, with 11 years its kind of hard to mess up anything. If A Dance with Dragons isn't extraordinary, I am not even bothering with the next two.
It's actually his willingness to slaughter main characters that makes me love the books. How often do you get these super human like characters that just always seem to make it through. The Red wedding was one of my favorite parts. Awesome.
It better be, with 11 years its kind of hard to mess up anything. If A Dance with Dragons isn't extraordinary, I am not even bothering with the next two.
Too right - although I have sorta given up waiting for Dance - too many other good books to read.
clips i have seen so far Dani looks ok but we shall see...............
mattyrm wrote:George R R Martin writes a fine book. The guys still a fething douche though.
Yes and Yes.... Apparently he is extremelly into cocaine and women... If you can believe the rumors. So what we need is for him to run out of cocaine and hookers, and need more money. Then he'll have no choice other than to write the last book/books for a cash cow.
Mannahnin wrote:HBO's Rome is way better than Spartacus, Morden. Check it out.
Looking forward to GoT. Sean Bean always rules.
Seen it, enjoyed it alot
I still prefer Sparticus - I also find it has, thus far, taken less liberties with history and its protagonists.
GoT should be excellent
Well in Rome's defense (I hated Rome btw), Sparticus' history isn't well known before the Third Servile War. They have a blank space they're pretty much free to fill as they please.
....im confused....i read all the books bar the last one ages ago, borrowed them off a family friend who knows i go through books like Charlie Sheen goes through hookers. Now she told me a while back that the last book was out and was brilliant and she would lend it to me next time i saw her ..... so basically, wtf??!! is it not out then? (o btw she moved to NZ a couple of years ago so i havent seen her and cant ask *sigh* )
Ma55ter_fett wrote:It looks good, I don't have HBO soooo... free video streaming sites ftw!
ditto really hoping they havent done to this series what happened to the Seeker of Truth series when it became a TV show (they destroyed it in case anyone didnt know )
Ma55ter_fett wrote:It looks good, I don't have HBO soooo... free video streaming sites ftw!
ditto really hoping they havent done to this series what happened to the Seeker of Truth series when it became a TV show (they destroyed it in case anyone didnt know )
Man don't even get me started on that show. The Sword of Truth series is still my favorite out of Jorden, Martin, and Goodkind. I liked the cast for the show and was really excited about it. The first episode was great, but the absolutely destroyed the show, with episodes like "The Whisperer". I remember seeing an occasional episode that was good and then like 5 crappy ones in a row. I don't mind filler episodes, but their filler was crap. The season finale was horrible as well, but I still watched the first episode of the second season. I knew their was no hope for that show and never watched another episode.
Now I will say this, if any of you read and liked The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, I implore you to read The Law of Nines. You will not be disappointed.
That is implying that watching hot women in small tight leather is destroying.
i meant the story!! uve gotta love the leather
Lord Scythican wrote:
Revenent Reiko wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:It looks good, I don't have HBO soooo... free video streaming sites ftw!
ditto really hoping they havent done to this series what happened to the Seeker of Truth series when it became a TV show (they destroyed it in case anyone didnt know )
Man don't even get me started on that show. The Sword of Truth series is still my favorite out of Jorden, Martin, and Goodkind. I liked the cast for the show and was really excited about it. The first episode was great, but the absolutely destroyed the show, with episodes like "The Whisperer". I remember seeing an occasional episode that was good and then like 5 crappy ones in a row. I don't mind filler episodes, but their filler was crap. The season finale was horrible as well, but I still watched the first episode of the second season. I knew their was no hope for that show and never watched another episode.
Now I will say this, if any of you read and liked The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, I implore you to read The Law of Nines. You will not be disappointed.
for me iyt failed at the first hurdle by not even getting the first couple of chapters (and therefore first episode) right... my dad even recorded them all for me while i was at uni so we could watch them together, we watched the first one and after it finished there was total silence in my house for at least 5 mihnutes, before my dad picked up the control and said "delete" in a cyberman voice....made me crack up i will definitely have to take you up on your advice and find Law of Nines too, thanks!
Revenent Reiko wrote:
for me iyt failed at the first hurdle by not even getting the first couple of chapters (and therefore first episode) right... my dad even recorded them all for me while i was at uni so we could watch them together, we watched the first one and after it finished there was total silence in my house for at least 5 mihnutes, before my dad picked up the control and said "delete" in a cyberman voice....made me crack up i will definitely have to take you up on your advice and find Law of Nines too, thanks!
Yeah the first episode wasn't what I wanted, but I could tolerate it to an extent. After that it was all downhill. It got better once or twice, but for the most part it got worse.
If you need any other convincing to read The Law of Nines, open this spoiler. This person's name should convince you:
Spoiler:
The main character's name is Alex Rahl. That's strange for a modern day thriller huh?
Revenent Reiko wrote:
for me iyt failed at the first hurdle by not even getting the first couple of chapters (and therefore first episode) right... my dad even recorded them all for me while i was at uni so we could watch them together, we watched the first one and after it finished there was total silence in my house for at least 5 mihnutes, before my dad picked up the control and said "delete" in a cyberman voice....made me crack up i will definitely have to take you up on your advice and find Law of Nines too, thanks!
Yeah the first episode wasn't what I wanted, but I could tolerate it to an extent. After that it was all downhill. It got better once or twice, but for the most part it got worse.
If you need any other convincing to read The Law of Nines, open this spoiler. This person's name should convince you:
Spoiler:
The main character's name is Alex Rahl. That's strange for a modern day thriller huh?
awesomesauce! definitely gonna look into it now!
Cheers Scythian (and apologies for any typos, its my birthday so i got a little drunk earlier lol)
Revenent Reiko wrote: for me iyt failed at the first hurdle by not even getting the first couple of chapters (and therefore first episode) right... my dad even recorded them all for me while i was at uni so we could watch them together, we watched the first one and after it finished there was total silence in my house for at least 5 mihnutes, before my dad picked up the control and said "delete" in a cyberman voice....made me crack up i will definitely have to take you up on your advice and find Law of Nines too, thanks!
Yeah the first episode wasn't what I wanted, but I could tolerate it to an extent. After that it was all downhill. It got better once or twice, but for the most part it got worse.
If you need any other convincing to read The Law of Nines, open this spoiler. This person's name should convince you:
Spoiler:
The main character's name is Alex Rahl. That's strange for a modern day thriller huh?
awesomesauce! definitely gonna look into it now! Cheers Scythian (and apologies for any typos, its my birthday so i got a little drunk earlier lol)
No problem. There are plenty of drunk posts in my post history. I am glad you liked that spoiler.
Spoiler:
If you read the last book, then you should have a good idea about what this "world" is and who that person descended from...
Revenent Reiko wrote:
for me iyt failed at the first hurdle by not even getting the first couple of chapters (and therefore first episode) right... my dad even recorded them all for me while i was at uni so we could watch them together, we watched the first one and after it finished there was total silence in my house for at least 5 mihnutes, before my dad picked up the control and said "delete" in a cyberman voice....made me crack up i will definitely have to take you up on your advice and find Law of Nines too, thanks!
Yeah the first episode wasn't what I wanted, but I could tolerate it to an extent. After that it was all downhill. It got better once or twice, but for the most part it got worse.
If you need any other convincing to read The Law of Nines, open this spoiler. This person's name should convince you:
Spoiler:
The main character's name is Alex Rahl. That's strange for a modern day thriller huh?
awesomesauce! definitely gonna look into it now!
Cheers Scythian (and apologies for any typos, its my birthday so i got a little drunk earlier lol)
No problem. There are plenty of drunk posts in my post history. I am glad you liked that spoiler.
Spoiler:
If you read the last book, then you should have a good idea about what this "world" is and who that person descended from...
glad im not the only one making the drunk posts unfortunately uni (and therefore a lack of funds) means ive never been able to get a hold of the last few books, but im definitely gonna do it now, i finish this year so i finally might have some money (if and when i get a job haha)
Spoiler:
although im guessing that this world is the same one from Sword of Truth in the far future?and Alex has to be Richard's descendant...
Revenent Reiko wrote:
for me iyt failed at the first hurdle by not even getting the first couple of chapters (and therefore first episode) right... my dad even recorded them all for me while i was at uni so we could watch them together, we watched the first one and after it finished there was total silence in my house for at least 5 mihnutes, before my dad picked up the control and said "delete" in a cyberman voice....made me crack up i will definitely have to take you up on your advice and find Law of Nines too, thanks!
Yeah the first episode wasn't what I wanted, but I could tolerate it to an extent. After that it was all downhill. It got better once or twice, but for the most part it got worse.
If you need any other convincing to read The Law of Nines, open this spoiler. This person's name should convince you:
Spoiler:
The main character's name is Alex Rahl. That's strange for a modern day thriller huh?
awesomesauce! definitely gonna look into it now!
Cheers Scythian (and apologies for any typos, its my birthday so i got a little drunk earlier lol)
No problem. There are plenty of drunk posts in my post history. I am glad you liked that spoiler.
Spoiler:
If you read the last book, then you should have a good idea about what this "world" is and who that person descended from...
glad im not the only one making the drunk posts unfortunately uni (and therefore a lack of funds) means ive never been able to get a hold of the last few books, but im definitely gonna do it now, i finish this year so i finally might have some money (if and when i get a job haha)
Spoiler:
although im guessing that this world is the same one from Sword of Truth in the far future?and Alex has to be Richard's descendant...
I didn't realize that you haven't read the last few. Yeah I think you need to read those before The Law of Nines. They should be on paperback.
I've been on the R.R. Martin bandwagon since I found out my Little bro is close friends with his nephew. I figured that If I didn't start reading the books then, I'd be betraying all of Geek-dom
Revenent Reiko wrote:
for me iyt failed at the first hurdle by not even getting the first couple of chapters (and therefore first episode) right... my dad even recorded them all for me while i was at uni so we could watch them together, we watched the first one and after it finished there was total silence in my house for at least 5 mihnutes, before my dad picked up the control and said "delete" in a cyberman voice....made me crack up i will definitely have to take you up on your advice and find Law of Nines too, thanks!
Yeah the first episode wasn't what I wanted, but I could tolerate it to an extent. After that it was all downhill. It got better once or twice, but for the most part it got worse.
If you need any other convincing to read The Law of Nines, open this spoiler. This person's name should convince you:
Spoiler:
The main character's name is Alex Rahl. That's strange for a modern day thriller huh?
awesomesauce! definitely gonna look into it now!
Cheers Scythian (and apologies for any typos, its my birthday so i got a little drunk earlier lol)
No problem. There are plenty of drunk posts in my post history. I am glad you liked that spoiler.
Spoiler:
If you read the last book, then you should have a good idea about what this "world" is and who that person descended from...
glad im not the only one making the drunk posts unfortunately uni (and therefore a lack of funds) means ive never been able to get a hold of the last few books, but im definitely gonna do it now, i finish this year so i finally might have some money (if and when i get a job haha)
Spoiler:
although im guessing that this world is the same one from Sword of Truth in the far future?and Alex has to be Richard's descendant...
I didn't realize that you haven't read the last few. Yeah I think you need to read those before The Law of Nines. They should be on paperback.
no worries, gonna try and get hold of them, i got my dad into the books too so might see if i can persuade him to fork out the money for them instead of me failing that, ebooks. If only there was somewhere that did them for free....hmmm google time
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Potato_God wrote:Cannot wait for Game Of Thrones.
I've been on the R.R. Martin bandwagon since I found out my Little bro is close friends with his nephew. I figured that If I didn't start reading the books then, I'd be betraying all of Geek-dom
thats pretty cool!
and yes you would be a ....HERETIC!!
Well, what is everybody's thoughts after the first episode? I enjoyed it quite a bit myself. This is my first ever HBO Series and my wife laughed when I was shocked by the nudity. She says that the original Sex and the City was the same way.... If only I'd have known...
I didn't find the nudity overly done or distasteful, it certainly helps the male crowd as if it needed any more help on a fantasy series but still. I'm still coping with people not looking like they did in my head but I didn't find anybody overly not fitting of their character. I wish Cersei was a bit ummm "Hotter?". Crapy word but in my head she was a complete bombshell thats why she could manipulate so well. The woman in the show is pretty, and does her cold bitchy like attitude very well, but didnt feel like she quite cuts it on looks.
Fun fact about episode one: almost every of age female actress (sans the one playing Catelyn Stark, and a few house women) is nude, topless, or engaged in a sexual act before the end; including one portraying an underage girl.
Ya I was laughing when I told my wife that the all nude Daenerys there was supposed to be 16ish at most. Fun times! Her brother didn't seem to mind however....
Pyronick wrote:
I didn't find the nudity overly done or distasteful, it certainly helps the male crowd as if it needed any more help on a fantasy series but still.
The only scene that I could see reasonable criticism of was Daenerys' bath scene, though even that has legitimate, if subtle, theatrical merit.
Pyronick wrote:
I'm still coping with people not looking like they did in my head but I didn't find anybody overly not fitting of their character. I wish Cersei was a bit ummm "Hotter?". Crapy word but in my head she was a complete bombshell thats why she could manipulate so well. The woman in the show is pretty, and does her cold bitchy like attitude very well, but didnt feel like she quite cuts it on looks.
I think that, relative to the other women in the series (ignoring Daenerys), Cersei stands out as being more classically attractive while still maintaining the "realistic fantasy" feel of the books.
More gnerally, I thought the casting, and acting, was fantastic. The guy they got to play Viserys especially so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyronick wrote:Ya I was laughing when I told my wife that the all nude Daenerys there was supposed to be 16ish at most. Fun times! Her brother didn't seem to mind however....
I thought she was 13, but either way I'll bet that causes some stirs (though not big ones, as her age isn't really discussed in the show).
You have a good point that in comparisson to the other women of the time and the show, Cersei is very attractive. Well said. I'd agree that the bath scene was... here's some boobs. I'm always down for that however.
I thought the acting was very good as well and have high hopes for the series. I was actually shocked at the amount they went through on the first episode, but then when I was laying in bed thinking of just how much happens in these books, they havn't even scratched the surface. Is there any word of the how long they intend this to be? How many episodes / seasons etc?
Revenent Reiko wrote:Damn! no HBO :(
anyone know where i can see it (from the UK)
It's on Sky Atlantic HD tonight, showing each episode the next night after the US get it, never read the books but Aurelia and I are planning on giving it a watch.
Pyronick wrote:I thought the acting was very good as well and have high hopes for the series. I was actually shocked at the amount they went through on the first episode, but then when I was laying in bed thinking of just how much happens in these books, they havn't even scratched the surface. Is there any word of the how long they intend this to be? How many episodes / seasons etc?
First season of Rome is 12 episodes. I would expect them to try to cover the first book in one season. I could be wrong, but that's 12 hours.
Pyronick wrote:Well, what is everybody's thoughts after the first episode? I enjoyed it quite a bit myself. This is my first ever HBO Series and my wife laughed when I was shocked by the nudity. She says that the original Sex and the City was the same way.... If only I'd have known...
So many HBO shows resort to gratuitous nudity. For example, watch The Pacific. There are so many instances of nudity that are really pointless.
I have no problem with nudity or sex on HBO, but it should only be done when it actually makes sense in the context of the story. HBO seems to think that because they can get away with nudity, they should show a topless woman once an hour.
I don't intend to watch the show as it's being broadcast, I plan on getting the series when it comes out on DVD (which hopefully won't take too long).
Nudity is the natural human state. Attractive naked bodies are nice to look at. It doesn't have to be making a narrative point.
I agree that it can be dumb or silly to show nudity when it actually doesn't make sense for a given story (like someone wearing skimpy clothing in a cold climate, say), but if it makes sense in context, the only reason not to do it is if you're pandering to prudes. Which HBO, not being on network TV, has the luxury of not having to do.
I agree 100% with you, Mannahnin, regarding nudity that makes sense. But I think it's clear that HBO goes out of its way. They don't have to pander to prudes but they do pander to people who like nudity whether it's necessary to tell a story or not.
Mannahnin wrote:Nudity is the natural human state. Attractive naked bodies are nice to look at. It doesn't have to be making a narrative point.
When the point being made is adverse to the narrative, or distracts from the narrative, it's gratuitous.
Mannahnin wrote:I agree that it can be dumb or silly to show nudity when it actually doesn't make sense for a given story (like someone wearing skimpy clothing in a cold climate, say), but if it makes sense in context, the only reason not to do it is if you're pandering to prudes. Which HBO, not being on network TV, has the luxury of not having to do.
There's a difference between "pandering to prudes" and "makes sense in context."
If a couple of guys go to a strip club, then yeah, it makes sense to show nudity (even if the scene can be shot without nudity). But if you're showing a woman playing a ukulele, why the hell do you have to show her in the buff?
The examples of HBO using gratuitous nudity are legion.
As I said in my last post, if it actually is adverse to or detracts from the narrative, I agree that it's inappropriate.
If it serves even a minor narrative purpose, why not?
Danaerys in her bath chamber was part of the story. She was getting dressed/prepped for the meeting, and the scene shows her brother's callousness toward her and casual willingness to use her body and her sexuality for advantage. Her climbing into the too-hot bath is her attempting to mask/deny her emotional pain using physical pain. Like a lot of adolescent girls do. Did they NEED to show her boobs? No, not really. Did it add to the emotional impact of her brother's mistreatment? I think so.
The woman playing the ukelele nude makes sense in context too. It illustrates the power and hedonism of the men.
In situations where it neither adds nor detracts from the narrative value of a scene, it comes down to personal taste. Some people find nudity distracting or unappealing. Others enjoy it. My wife sure enjoyed half-naked Jason Momoa.
Here is an interesting link my brother found for me. It gives a recap of the episode encase you are not familiar with the book series, to which I can't imagine I would have any understand of what was going on without having done that.
I found myself having to explain lots of things to my wife, but that's also cause she is impatient in these types of things and wants to know whats going on right away...
Pyronick wrote:I found myself having to explain lots of things to my wife, but that's also cause she is impatient in these types of things and wants to know whats going on right away...
Just point at the screen and say "See that guy? Dead. That one? Dead. That one? Dead. The guy you really like? Dead. The guy you hate? Dead. The other guy you hate? Turns out to be a pretty decent guy."
Mannahnin wrote:
Danaerys in her bath chamber was part of the story. She was getting dressed/prepped for the meeting, and the scene shows her brother's callousness toward her and casual willingness to use her body and her sexuality for advantage. Her climbing into the too-hot bath is her attempting to mask/deny her emotional pain using physical pain. Like a lot of adolescent girls do. Did they NEED to show her boobs? No, not really. Did it add to the emotional impact of her brother's mistreatment? I think so.
That was my appraisal as well. I was merely suggesting, in my earlier post, that I could understand why people might object. That said, in my opinion, not showing her nude in that scene would have made it very clumsy.
Mannahnin wrote: The woman playing the ukelele nude makes sense in context too. It illustrates the power and hedonism of the men.
Mannahnin wrote:
My wife sure enjoyed half-naked Jason Momoa.
The comparison shots of him in Stargate: Atlantis and him in Conan, and now Game of Thrones, are fairly absurd. That man spent many an hour in the gym with personal trainers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyronick wrote:
Here is an interesting link my brother found for me. It gives a recap of the episode encase you are not familiar with the book series, to which I can't imagine I would have any understand of what was going on without having done that.
They definitely could have elaborated on Jaime more, all you really find out in ep. 1 is that he wears armor, and sleeps with his sister.
biccat wrote:If a couple of guys go to a strip club, then yeah, it makes sense to show nudity (even if the scene can be shot without nudity). But if you're showing a woman playing a ukulele, why the hell do you have to show her in the buff?
I feel compelled to come back to this, because it's been nagging at me.
This example is really funny. Because it's clear that whoever came up with it, on whatever website you got it from, has never seen the show. If you've seen the show, or have any idea who the characters are, it's blatantly obvious that "a woman playing the ukulele" is not the point here.
The point is that these are wealthy and powerful men involved in criminal enterprise, and they are enjoying being entertained by a naked woman. There's also dramatic value in contrasting Nucky's use of women for entertainment and companionship vs his public image and support of the women's suffrage and temperence movements. His public face is one of rectitude and supporting strong women, many of whom have firm religious convictions and opposition to alcohol. His private nature is that he is the head criminal bringing alcohol into the city, and that he is commonly entertained by floozies.
This example is actually a better and even more narratively-appropriate use of nudity than the stripclub scenes in The Sopranos which you condone as logical and okay.
biccat wrote:The examples of HBO using gratuitous nudity are legion.
That may well be so. But no one's provided any in this thread yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Pyronick wrote:Here is an interesting link my brother found for me. It gives a recap of the episode encase you are not familiar with the book series, to which I can't imagine I would have any understand of what was going on without having done that.
They definitely could have elaborated on Jaime more, all you really find out in ep. 1 is that he wears armor, and sleeps with his sister.
Well, they give you a little more than that. They show you that he actually likes and gets along with his brother Tyrion, in contrast to Cersei, who disdains him. They tell you that he fights in tournaments, and apparently enjoys it/challenging other powerful men in that context. They show you that he can be good at hiding his intent from a person whom he intends to do harm, but has a certain awareness of his own immorality, even if not enough to stop him from doing wicked things.
Mannahnin wrote:This example is really funny. Because it's clear that whoever came up with it, on whatever website you got it from, has never seen the show. If you've seen the show, or have any idea who the characters are, it's blatantly obvious that "a woman playing the ukulele" is not the point here.
Obviously you never saw the episode in question. The men were at a brothel, where nudity has it's place. But the woman wasn't there for sexual gratification, she was there to play an instrument for the men. There is absolutely no reason for her to be naked, other than "hey, you know what this scene needs? More boobs."
Gladiator Blood and Sand (from Encore) had a similar problem, they used nudity a number of times where it was unnecessary. Apparently they had an open casting call for porn stars and strippers so that they could fill the stands with topless babes during some of the gladiator contests.
Watch some shows on HBO and when you see someone nude, ask yourself "could the story be told just as well without nudity here?" Generally the answer will be yes. Sometimes, the answer is "no," and those times are certainly worthwhile. You don't have the distraction of a strategically placed plant to obscure what is really going on.
dogma wrote:Fun fact about episode one: almost every of age female actress (sans the one playing Catelyn Stark, and a few house women) is nude, topless, or engaged in a sexual act before the end; including one portraying an underage girl.
Well, the HBO audience seems to like that if many of their other series are an indication. Recently watched Pillars of the Earth too and it was just annoying whenever the love scenes showed up. Personally I think it is stupid of the shows producers because it is nothing but a distraction from the storyline, usually kind of sappy with blaring 'passionate' soundtrack crap behind it, and even as a heterosexual guy who finds naked chicks attractive and loves the books, it makes me less comfortable about trying to get other people to pay attention to it. The book isn't written like a romance novel with pages and pages of descriptive lovemaking, so the show shouldn't be focussing on that either.
My mother, who likes court politics stuff, my GF, who likes good storys, are both kind of "meh" about unnecessary titilation and female objectification seeming to be a requirement in some genres. Knowing that, it will be hard for me to get them into the story because the minute they see that going on, they will lump it under the "just another stupid guy fetish" assumption that many women have. It's like the network is stuck in the 80s R rated movie mentality where it's mandatory to see tits at least once for really no reason other than that every other movie is doing it.
I am not a prude, I don't care, nor do I need to see fantasy chicks naked in soft porn scenes, but I don't like that it can ruin the audience for a great concept for a show. I wish I could watch it, but don't do HBO. Have to wait for the DVD and just deal with the fact that most women will not pay attention long enough to see that it is about more than just the one thing they are bound to notice and focus on. I don't want to have to explain that in the confines of the world portrayed "underage" was not a tabboo either and get into all that crap.
It's "The Song of Ice and Fire" by George R. R. Martin.
There's lots of men-objectifying-women within the world of the novels. There's lots of women-objectifying-men-who-objectify-women in the novels, too. And both sides are playing off, and preying on, the proclivities of the other throughout the series. In SoIF, sex is both a weapon and a reward, depending on the individual character (sometimes, it's both at the same time). There's a metric assload (that's 3.25x a standard US assload) of nude scenes and sex scenes in the novel, both male and female-centric.
Also, I would say that maybe you should stick with "women you know" rather than say "most women" as none of us here can speak for a majority of a gender when it comes to their tastes in television. Over here, most of the women I know who would watch a show even vaguely like this, nudity or none, are very, very excited for A Game of Thrones.
Mannahnin wrote:This example is really funny. Because it's clear that whoever came up with it, on whatever website you got it from, has never seen the show. If you've seen the show, or have any idea who the characters are, it's blatantly obvious that "a woman playing the ukulele" is not the point here.
Obviously you never saw the episode in question. The men were at a brothel, where nudity has it's place. But the woman wasn't there for sexual gratification, she was there to play an instrument for the men. There is absolutely no reason for her to be naked, other than "hey, you know what this scene needs? More boobs."
You are so wrong it's actually funny. Yes, they were at a brothel. In this case one where even the musical entertainment is titillating, and that's part of its draw. She was there to be naked AND play for the men. So they could feel powerful and gratified, even when they weren't actively having sex. Just like the mobsters in The Sopranos could be amused by having female flesh on display around them while doing business at the strip club. Even if they weren't there for boobs, having boobs on display around them makes them feel powerful and gratified.
biccat wrote:Gladiator Blood and Sand (from Encore) had a similar problem, they used nudity a number of times where it was unnecessary. Apparently they had an open casting call for porn stars and strippers so that they could fill the stands with topless babes during some of the gladiator contests.
You mean Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and here I almost agree with you. I found the level of nudity and CGI blood in that show silly, clumsy and dumb, and didn't bother watching it other than a couple of episodes.
biccat wrote:Watch some shows on HBO and when you see someone nude, ask yourself "could the story be told just as well without nudity here?" Generally the answer will be yes. Sometimes, the answer is "no," and those times are certainly worthwhile. You don't have the distraction of a strategically placed plant to obscure what is really going on.
Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot. This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive. My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.
I thought the first episode was kinda dull and boring. The first part before the opening credits was cool, I was hoping for more of that kinda stuff I guess. Instead, it's just another HBOobfest like every other show they do. Hopefully it'll get better...
Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.
I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.
Mannahnin wrote:Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot.
Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.
Mannhnin wrote:This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive.
It's also the personal taste of most of society. That's why we have decency laws, censorship on television programs, and the like. People find nudity distracting.
If I was driving down the road and I saw a hot blonde standing naked by the side of the road, yes, I would be distracted. You probably would too. Because it's nice to look at naked women (and for some, naked men, but see Elaine).
When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.
This is also why there aren't a lot of explosions in Romantic Comedies.
Mannhnin wrote:My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.
Except when it's gratuitous, it does distract. If you're watching a scene and you see a naked woman, it's going to distract. Unless it's advancing the scene, it shouldn't be there.
It's like profanity in comedy, it makes a point and adds shock value (well, used to add shock value), but it usually doesn't make a joke funnier than it would have been originally (George Carlin excepted).
Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.
I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.
I apologize. I believe your position on the "naked woman with ukulele" scene is not only incorrect, but so completely backwards as to evoke a humor reaction due to its absurdity. I did not intend the comment to be insulting, but there was really no need for it.
I think our arguments and the scene itself make the point perfectly clearly without either me telling you that your position is humorous or you responding to wrong with wrong by swearing at me.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot.
Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.
This is changing the subject. We were talking about artistic merit and aesthetics before. Note that I am talking above about what we're better off seeing. Now you're talking about pragmatic concerns and ratings.
I don't think the syndication or MA ratings issues are a problem for HBO. If they thought they could make more money or a better product without the nudity, I expect they'd have less of it. They make a lot of money and they earn a lot of critical awards for their work.
In terms of limiting the actors and actresses available, sure. But personally, I often find that talented unknowns are better-suited to many roles than "name" actors or actresses, especially roles which come from a book. With a character from a book, having a famous actor portray them often causes a conflict with the image in your head. This happens to a lesser extent with an unknown actor, but they have greater freedom to embody the part without as many prior associations for the audience.
biccat wrote:
Mannhnin wrote:This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive.
It's also the personal taste of most of society. That's why we have decency laws, censorship on television programs, and the like. People find nudity distracting.
Most? Really? You don't find that most of our decency laws and television censorship at this point are widely seen as dated and somewhat archaic? My experience differs.
biccat wrote:If I was driving down the road and I saw a hot blonde standing naked by the side of the road, yes, I would be distracted. You probably would too. Because it's nice to look at naked women (and for some, naked men, but see Elaine).
Context matters. A naked person on the side of the road in a Northern clime would indeed be distracting and unusual.
biccat wrote:When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.
What? I agree with that last statement, but I can't grant your first or second premise at all. Neither that it always distracts (that depends on the viewer), nor that it's the intent of the director/author/artist to distract. Those are your personal internal feelings which do not (IMO) map to or match the outside world. I'm sure there are other people who agree with you, but I can assure you that nudity, in many artistic contexts (such as a show on HBO, or a classical Greek painting on a vase, or a Renaissance statue) is not inherently distracting, nor intended to be so by the artist.
biccat wrote:
Mannhnin wrote:My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.
Except when it's gratuitous, it does distract. If you're watching a scene and you see a naked woman, it's going to distract. Unless it's advancing the scene, it shouldn't be there.
It's like profanity in comedy, it makes a point and adds shock value (well, used to add shock value), but it usually doesn't make a joke funnier than it would have been originally (George Carlin excepted).
If George Carlin is excepted, than you are conceding the point. It's not an inherent quality of nudity or profanity that they are offensive or distracting. It comes down to how they are used, and the overall quality of the artistic work.
I think there's some naked guys in scenes in the books now and then. Maybe they'll show a penis. No? I wonder why not. Probably because it would be too distracting, even if it is perfectly within the context of the scene. I'm pretty sure the HBO audience is mature enough to handle seeing a midget's junk if they can see a hot girl's full frontal too, right?
Nudity is only distracting if your mind makes it so. Breasts are breasts and have been since we have been around. Not every culture is as juvenile about seeing them or thinks it is even worth note. Clothed or not, men will notice breasts, but whether one recoils in horror at the idea of seeing a nipple or not giving it much of a thought is up to the individual, not some hard wired human condition. I find it more ridiculous all the contortions that are gone through to pretend someone in a bath isn't nude just to avoid facing the fact that women have breasts. Nude doesn't mean porn and it doesn't mean that a piece of work is taking some kind of shortcut.
There may be some male nudity but not likely, as again that is a cultural thing. We are scared of penis's or something. For that you need to go to Spartacus: Blood and Sand which had copious nudity all around.
Revenent Reiko wrote:Damn! no HBO :(
anyone know where i can see it (from the UK)
It's on Sky Atlantic HD tonight, showing each episode the next night after the US get it, never read the books but Aurelia and I are planning on giving it a watch.
Thank You, unfortunately i was out and missed it, DAMN!! however, the internet is a powerful tool these days (5 points for the reference), and as such, im going to google it
Though I will say that both nude scenes seemed a bit forced as if someone had told the director "alright we have a great plot, great actors, a good script... now we just need some breats and we'll be all set."
in all fairness, a large proportion of the books have nudity in them, IMO its nice to see a director actually sticking to the plot when making a TV series of a book. Need to watch the episode first though
Guitardian wrote:I think there's some naked guys in scenes in the books now and then. Maybe they'll show a penis. No? I wonder why not. Probably because it would be too distracting, even if it is perfectly within the context of the scene. I'm pretty sure the HBO audience is mature enough to handle seeing a midget's junk if they can see a hot girl's full frontal too, right?
While not as prevalent as female nudity, HBO does show
full frontal males in their shows.
Guitardian wrote:I think there's some naked guys in scenes in the books now and then. Maybe they'll show a penis. No? I wonder why not. Probably because it would be too distracting, even if it is perfectly within the context of the scene. I'm pretty sure the HBO audience is mature enough to handle seeing a midget's junk if they can see a hot girl's full frontal too, right?
While not as prevalent as female nudity, HBO does show
full frontal males in their shows.
Having seen various episodes of "Real Sex", i can confirm that.
I enjoyed the episode a lot: it looked just like I'd imagined it, from the books, and at least at this point is following the story pretty well!
dogma wrote:
More gnerally, I thought the casting, and acting, was fantastic. The guy they got to play Viserys especially so.
+1 to this--Viserys and Tyrion, I thought, work very well in particular.
I liked the use of regional dialects for the different Houses; I thought it helped bring a sense of size and distance to the Seven Kingdoms. I am a Brit, not sure how noticeable the different accents were to people who aren't?
Pyronick wrote:You have a good point that in comparisson to the other women of the time and the show, Cersei is very attractive. Well said. I'd agree that the bath scene was... here's some boobs. I'm always down for that however.
I thought the acting was very good as well and have high hopes for the series. I was actually shocked at the amount they went through on the first episode, but then when I was laying in bed thinking of just how much happens in these books, they havn't even scratched the surface. Is there any word of the how long they intend this to be? How many episodes / seasons etc?
I believe they're 10 episodes in the first season, which is supposed to be the whole of 'A Game Of Thrones'. They have a lot to cover.
Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.
I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.
If you want responses based on neutral tone, then you shouldn't say "there was absolutely no reason for X" when a reason has been preferred. You might not consider said reason to be legitimate, but going so far as to ignore its existence makes you look like you're just trying to reinforce your own position through rhetoric.
biccat wrote:
Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.
Of the three, only 1 is relevant to artistic license, and even that one is only barely so. It isn't like there is a dearth of aspiring actors looking to break into the business.
biccat wrote:
It's also the personal taste of most of society.
That's an ad populum fallacy.
biccat wrote:
When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.
That's just incorrect. You're drawing a specific conclusion based on insufficient data. A director might put nudity on screen in order to distract, or he might do it in order to illustrate a point, convey an environmental characteristic, or any number of other things; remember, not everything is meant for your eyes, some people simply don't care about nudity. Moreover, a good plot might actually include instances in which the audience is distracted. For example, someone directing a mystery might use a seemingly jarring event in order to conceal a subtle event that might be more significant to the plot in order to avoid a deus ex machina later in the story.
biccat wrote:
This is also why there aren't a lot of explosions in Romantic Comedies.
This is also why films and shows that flaunt genre conventions tend to be highly regarded by professional critics and medium aficionados.
On the nudity debate: Whilst HBO may have a reputation for this, it makes sense in GRRM's books. One of the things which I like so much about his books is the swearing, the sex, and the death... it make the series come alive. These scenes are most often used to develop the characters, rather than just an excuse for erotica. I would have been quite offended actually if there wasn't some exposed boobies in the first episode. The scene with Daenerys especially I thought was one of the better scenes - it showed a) Targaryen incest, b) Viserys' cruelty, c) Targaryen Valyrian heritage (resistance to heat).
On the show itself:
Good *Casting. Nearly all of the characters I felt acted well and portrayed their parts well. The only ones I was disappointed in slightly was Cersei, but mainly because I've pictured her as Cylon #6 since I started reading. And Catelyn seems too old to me. But Jaime looks really good, I was quite worried about him as (if we get to season 2/3) that's a pretty complicated role.
* Dothraki - with Ronan/(Jason Momoa) as Drogo, awesome.
* This good list is a short one, because it was all REALLY good, and I'm a nitpicker who's read the entire series multiple times, but it was REALLY good.
Bad * Winter is Coming. From the outset of the books, I felt that 'Winter is Coming' (and the related Valar Morghulis) were very powerful. Not just 'winter is 2 months away', but really 'bad times are coming. if times are bad already, they're gonna get worse'. I didn't feel this came across strongly.
* The end scene could have been more suspenseful before the 'The things I do for love'. I also didn't really get the feel of 'two beautiful golden bodies intertwined' that Bran described from the doggie-style twincest.
* I thought it was Others, not Wights, which killed the Night's Watch at the start. They seemed too dark to me.
* The Direwolf scene was weak. None of Jon's sacrifice (giving up a wolf of his own), or his defiance (when he did find Ghost), and very little of the symbolism made it in.
* Names of characters I thought took a long time to get into, and even then I'm not sure that all that many were mentioned directly. I'm not sure I heard Cersei, it was always 'the Queen'. Likewise, Theon. I would have liked if it was made a little more obvious who was who.
* I hope they play Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon straight.
ToBeWilly wrote:I believe they're 10 episodes in the first season, which is supposed to be the whole of 'A Game Of Thrones'. They have a lot to cover.
I assume we can expect Season 2 sometime around 2035?
I can't help but notice due to my frequent browsing of threads in the OT forum, but, are you ever happy about anything Biccat? or do you exist simply to counter-argue people's opinions?
Back on topic, I can't wait to watch this, it's great to see novels that I loved as a teenager finally being given life on the screen, and Sean Bean as Lord Stark! Excellent!
ToBeWilly wrote:I believe they're 10 episodes in the first season, which is supposed to be the whole of 'A Game Of Thrones'. They have a lot to cover.
I assume we can expect Season 2 sometime around 2035?
I can't help but notice due to my frequent browsing of threads in the OT forum, but, are you ever happy about anything Biccat? or do you exist simply to counter-argue people's opinions?
Umm...it was a joke. About George R.R. Martin's release schedule.
And yes, I'm a very happy person, thank you for your concern.
Pyronick wrote:
I didn't find the nudity overly done or distasteful, it certainly helps the male crowd as if it needed any more help on a fantasy series but still.
The only scene that I could see reasonable criticism of was Daenerys' bath scene, though even that has legitimate, if subtle, theatrical merit.
Pyronick wrote:
I'm still coping with people not looking like they did in my head but I didn't find anybody overly not fitting of their character. I wish Cersei was a bit ummm "Hotter?". Crapy word but in my head she was a complete bombshell thats why she could manipulate so well. The woman in the show is pretty, and does her cold bitchy like attitude very well, but didnt feel like she quite cuts it on looks.
I think that, relative to the other women in the series (ignoring Daenerys), Cersei stands out as being more classically attractive while still maintaining the "realistic fantasy" feel of the books.
More gnerally, I thought the casting, and acting, was fantastic. The guy they got to play Viserys especially so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyronick wrote:Ya I was laughing when I told my wife that the all nude Daenerys there was supposed to be 16ish at most. Fun times! Her brother didn't seem to mind however....
I thought she was 13, but either way I'll bet that causes some stirs (though not big ones, as her age isn't really discussed in the show).
It has been years since I have read the books, but IIRC, the bath scene is somewhat of a foreshadowing of the fact that Daenerys has "dragon blood" (not to be confused with tiger blood ). And so, in the context of the whole show to that point it does seem a little out of place; particularly when viewed from a modern sperspective. You have to consider it as the aforementioned foreshadowing, as well as an attempt to actually show an objectification of this particular woman. Women in male-dominated feudal dynasities were objectified. This is further emphasized by the cavalier attitude portrayed by her brother in his comments to her pre and post wedding. In a macabre sort of way, objectification actually lends a sense of heightened realism to the show.
As for Cersei...you people are nuts (and maybe this is just my age speaking here). Wasn't Lena Heady the actress who played the queen in 300?
Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.
I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.
Mannahnin wrote:Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot.
Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.
Mannhnin wrote:This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive.
It's also the personal taste of most of society. That's why we have decency laws, censorship on television programs, and the like. People find nudity distracting.
If I was driving down the road and I saw a hot blonde standing naked by the side of the road, yes, I would be distracted. You probably would too. Because it's nice to look at naked women (and for some, naked men, but see Elaine).
When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.
This is also why there aren't a lot of explosions in Romantic Comedies.
Mannhnin wrote:My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.
Except when it's gratuitous, it does distract. If you're watching a scene and you see a naked woman, it's going to distract. Unless it's advancing the scene, it shouldn't be there.
It's like profanity in comedy, it makes a point and adds shock value (well, used to add shock value), but it usually doesn't make a joke funnier than it would have been originally (George Carlin excepted).
I cant read all of these gripes about sex and nudity without feeling a little bit sorry for Bics wife.
"People using each others bodies for pleasure!? DISGUSTING!"
There's a scene from Rome where one lady sends another lady a servant with a huge penis. The penis is shown. It is even decorated with some kind of thing made of golden rings and chains. Now we can all come up with reasons why such a thing would be shown: it exemplifies the Roman attitude toward the sexuality of social subordinates, etc. But there is a difference between "there is a reason for nudity" and "nudity is required to drive the meaning of a scene." In the first case, any ex post facto rationalization is enough to justify the nudity. In the second, there's no other way to communicate something important without the nudity. In the case of the well-endowed servant, the attitudes of Roman nobility regarding social inferiors could have been communicated effectively without the penis shot. But HBO doesn't use a "only if there is no other way" standard. HBO's audience has come to expect that the shows it produces will have a fair few nude scenes, regardless of genre, story, plot, etc. HBO could do a show about Sunni women going out in public in Saudi and there'd still be nudity somehow.
Though I will say that both nude scenes seemed a bit forced as if someone had told the director "alright we have a great plot, great actors, a good script... now we just need some breats and we'll be all set."
Agreed. The show was pretty good (and its got Sean Bean, SEAN BEAN!) but some of the nude scenes were a bit....odd in there.
Episode two was VERY good! I honestly can't imagine Tyrion being played out any better. Good ending on the episode too, just a taste of what's to come.
Dreadwinter wrote:I love the casting a lot, even though I pictures some of the characters a little differently myself.
I pictured Eddard to look more like the character who played Benjen and I pictured Robert Baratheon to be much taller.
But, I like how they are. Especially Tyrion and Jaime, those are spot on.
Enjoyed the first episode - I did like the clockwork map......
I am in thr same boat - some of the people are very like those I pictured in the books - Jamie, Ned, Tyrion, Dany's brother,
Others are different - Dany, Cersi, Jon
Not bad different - just different - for instance, Dany is described as tall and "too skinny" by her brother
The wolves are a little lacking in screen presence but they do have a lot of things to cram in.
Some of the nude scens were appropriate I feel - Hell I love Gods of the Arena - others less so.
And of course glad they kept the "The things I do for love" - Classic moment
Mr Morden wrote:
Not bad different - just different - for instance, Dany is described as tall and "too skinny" by her brother
In defense of Dany's casting, they had to do something in order to maker he look more mature in order to go the route of full nudity, which may or may not justify it for you.
Additionally, I always read every thing Viserys said in description of Dany to be reflective of his hypercritical and controlling nature, not accuracy.
Tyrion, king henry, the stark kids (especially arya) were all spot on to my mental pictures. Ned stark not so much. and the Lannister twins.. WAY off.
I had pictured Jaime Lannister as more 'hunky' and cercei more 'vixeny' and all that romance novel cover looking faces and long flowing hair and stuff. Not that they are unattractive actors, but they both look pretty plain I thought, not particularly striking standing out as these beautiful golden idealisms like I read them as.
Sure later on, Jaime gets all rough and shaves off the locks and grows some stubble to disguise himself as 'normal', but he started out as that guy other guys can't stand in the night clubs. He's buff, he's witty, he's a smartass, arrogant, handsome etc etc. You are supposed to hate him early on. He's "that guy". But the guy they have playing him looks like just an average joe, not particularly striking.
Same with cersei, she should be the woman with the really pretty face with evil serpent eyes and a bod that all the other girls are jealous of, and the bitch queen vanity that all the other ladies hate. Instead, she's just kind of like another vaguelly attractive actress person.
That's just my impression though. Mental pictures are never the same for people.
Pyronick wrote:Episode two was VERY good! I honestly can't imagine Tyrion being played out any better. Good ending on the episode too, just a taste of what's to come.
Agreed! my wife and i are hooked. and i hope all of our prudish watchers are a little happier.
Agree with quite a few posters here. My thoughts on the subject:
Casting:
Overall, excellent choices.
The Lannister twins could have been a bit more OTT hot/hunky. But, I think that's a modern perspective on things. Someone who spends a month on the road without modern conveniences like showers and proper make-up won't look amazing by modern standard, even though they would by period-appropriate standards.
Daenerys should look much younger, but I can understand why they had to change that aspect. Age issues are a little squeamish in the books, and seeing it on film would cross the appropriate and legal lines.
Sean Bean is great as Eddard Stark. But, they should have dyed his hair darker. The kids do a great job of having the Stark vs Tully look (apart from Rob who should have a more Tully look). And,
Spoiler:
it makes me sad to know that Sean Bean won't be around for Season 2
.
Storyline:
Things are moving rather quickly. I wonder how well people who haven't read the book will be able to keep up with the story. I assume it will end up like LotR, where people who have only seen the films gather the major plot points just fine, but miss out on some of the details.
I also feel that there could be a bit more dialog focused on exposition. We just from scene to scene rather quickly, and a simple line or two from a character explaining what is going on would help.
I'm also shocked that they only plan on doing 10 episodes to cover all of the book. There are a TON of characters vital to the storyline, and they won't be able to be skipped over very well. I'd think making this 20 episodes would have been more appropriate.
Nudity:
So far, there's been quite a bit of it. But, the book has sexuality as a central theme, so it's not totally out of place.
I am somewhat bothered by their choice of doing only T&A. I'm just fine with TV or movies that go out of their way to exclude nudity at all. But, once you go for nudity, I feel like you shouldn't shy away from some things. Having a sex scene that goes out of its way to only show people from the waist up in more jarring than having them under the sheets entirely, IMO.
HBO also seems to be focusing more on the "hot young actress" nudity than anything else. In the book, Catelyn was nude when Maester Luwin delivered the note from her sister. (She covers up eventually, but she makes a joke about modesty being stupid since he delivered her 5 children.) The show cut that. My cynical side says that it's because the actress is too old (by Hollywood standards).
Daenerys should look much younger, but I can understand why they had to change that aspect.
I don't see why. Marriagability is based on political grounds or sexual maturity. Or both. In the books this one was clearly both. If she was sufficiently younger that she wasn't physically mature, Drogo wouldn't have wanted her. He's not a pedophile. She easily looks as young as she should.
Daenerys should look much younger, but I can understand why they had to change that aspect.
I don't see why. Marriagability is based on political grounds or sexual maturity. Or both. In the books this one was clearly both. If she was sufficiently younger that she wasn't physically mature, Drogo wouldn't have wanted her. He's not a pedophile. She easily looks as young as she should.
This is one of GoT's credibility flaws, though. While historically marriages at so young an age were fairly common for political purposes, women weren't generally physically mature until considerably older. If the writers of the TV series are breaking from GoT's text in this area to make her a little older, IMO that's an improvement.
I guess I will finally chime in now that I have seen the show. I think it was good and the acting/casting was good as well; however, I haven't read any of the books and don't have any preconceived images in my head of the characters. I plan to continue watching it. One thing that I think would have helped was either me taking notes as I watched or if they would have added a bio/guide in the beginning to help me keep all the characters straight. Granted we (my wife and I) watched the first half with multiple breaks and the second part days later, but I had to ask her if the two at the end were brother and sister. My other problem is that, in trying to clarify what was happening, I stumbled across some future spoilers.
There was a website I saw a while back that had a bio of each of the main characters. Also, HBO quite often does little 5 minute bios, etc., for these types of shows, and you might be able to find something there.
But I also have read the books (several years ago...)
Well I must say I am very impressed with this show. It seems to be following the books really well. If it keeps this up it will be one of my favorite shows. However if it goes the Legend of the Seeker route, I will stop watching it.
Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.
I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.
I apologize. I believe your position on the "naked woman with ukulele" scene is not only incorrect, but so completely backwards as to evoke a humor reaction due to its absurdity. I did not intend the comment to be insulting, but there was really no need for it.
I think our arguments and the scene itself make the point perfectly clearly without either me telling you that your position is humorous or you responding to wrong with wrong by swearing at me.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot.
Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.
This is changing the subject. We were talking about artistic merit and aesthetics before. Note that I am talking above about what we're better off seeing. Now you're talking about pragmatic concerns and ratings.
I don't think the syndication or MA ratings issues are a problem for HBO. If they thought they could make more money or a better product without the nudity, I expect they'd have less of it. They make a lot of money and they earn a lot of critical awards for their work.
In terms of limiting the actors and actresses available, sure. But personally, I often find that talented unknowns are better-suited to many roles than "name" actors or actresses, especially roles which come from a book. With a character from a book, having a famous actor portray them often causes a conflict with the image in your head. This happens to a lesser extent with an unknown actor, but they have greater freedom to embody the part without as many prior associations for the audience.
biccat wrote:
Mannhnin wrote:This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive.
It's also the personal taste of most of society. That's why we have decency laws, censorship on television programs, and the like. People find nudity distracting.
Most? Really? You don't find that most of our decency laws and television censorship at this point are widely seen as dated and somewhat archaic? My experience differs.
biccat wrote:If I was driving down the road and I saw a hot blonde standing naked by the side of the road, yes, I would be distracted. You probably would too. Because it's nice to look at naked women (and for some, naked men, but see Elaine).
Context matters. A naked person on the side of the road in a Northern clime would indeed be distracting and unusual.
biccat wrote:When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.
What? I agree with that last statement, but I can't grant your first or second premise at all. Neither that it always distracts (that depends on the viewer), nor that it's the intent of the director/author/artist to distract. Those are your personal internal feelings which do not (IMO) map to or match the outside world. I'm sure there are other people who agree with you, but I can assure you that nudity, in many artistic contexts (such as a show on HBO, or a classical Greek painting on a vase, or a Renaissance statue) is not inherently distracting, nor intended to be so by the artist.
biccat wrote:
Mannhnin wrote:My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.
Except when it's gratuitous, it does distract. If you're watching a scene and you see a naked woman, it's going to distract. Unless it's advancing the scene, it shouldn't be there.
It's like profanity in comedy, it makes a point and adds shock value (well, used to add shock value), but it usually doesn't make a joke funnier than it would have been originally (George Carlin excepted).
If George Carlin is excepted, than you are conceding the point. It's not an inherent quality of nudity or profanity that they are offensive or distracting. It comes down to how they are used, and the overall quality of the artistic work.
I like boobs.
I also like this TV show, haven't read the books, but am really enjoying the complexity and depth of the plot and how realistic and interesting the characters are.
I get the feeling that avoiding spoilers is gonna be a major problem though.
Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?
Because we are now missing pretty large chunks of the books in the series
eh, its all driving towards the same thing, so it doesn't matter.
Though every character they omit / kill might have huge effects down the line. I think martin said that a few of the characters killed off so far have much bigger roles in the final 2 books, but I don't remember which characters (one of the dothraki I think).
But they can probably just use another character to fill in the role, and it will be fine. For example, they killed Rodrik instead of Benfred by Theon, because explaining everything about Benfred would have taken a long ass time. They shortened Jamie's escape plot singnificantly, but in the end it didn't matter, the result is the same.
I'm not sure where Arya/Tywin is going, but its probably going a similar place as in the books. I'm grateful for the little changes like this, it adds an air of randomness that I wouldn't have seen if they stuck strictly to the books.
Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?
Because we are now missing pretty large chunks of the books in the series
eh, its all driving towards the same thing, so it doesn't matter.
That's just stupid, and I can only assume you meant something else. Otherwise, I can just fill you in on what happened in the last book. I mean, why would you want to bother yourself with all this stuff that doesn't matter?
Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?
Because we are now missing pretty large chunks of the books in the series
eh, its all driving towards the same thing, so it doesn't matter.
That's just stupid, and I can only assume you meant something else. Otherwise, I can just fill you in on what happened in the last book. I mean, why would you want to bother yourself with all this stuff that doesn't matter?
Because the TV show is a totally different medium and should stand (or fall) on its own merits, even if it has to diverge from the book slightly in places. I don't watch TV shows for the same reasons I read books, and you can do things in TV shows that you can't do in books, in the same way that there are things you can do in books that you can't in TV shows. How true a TV show or film is in following all the tiny details of a book, especially a series of books as ambitious as Martin's, doesn't really have any bearing on how good a TV show it actually is. Obviously, there is a limit, the main plot points should be the same and moving in the same direction, but so far it seems like the TV show has been doing an awesome job working within the limits and utilizing the advantages of their medium to tell a great story.
And I say all this as a hardcore fan of the books - I've been reading A Song of Ice and Fire before the HBO series was a twinkle in George R. R. Martin's eye. From what I've read, Martin is fine with the direction of the series. He's involved with the project (I believe he's writing at least one episode per season) and he's worked pretty extensively in television before, so he knows how things work. He's actually said that he prefers some of the character portrayals in the show over his own, particularly Osha.
Spoiler:
So, Theon's killed Rodrik instead of Benfred? Not a huge problem, since Rodrik (while trying to fight the Ironmen) ends up dead at the hands of the Boltons anyway. It seems like a logical choice, like most of the minor plot changes have been so far.
The early death of Mago will be an easy fix when they get to that point in the show too. All they have to do is replace him with another of Khal Drogo's surviving bloodriders, so it'll basically just be the same character with a different name. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
It also helps with actors available down the line for characters that may not pop up again until 2-3 seasons later.
I would rather have a character be replaced by a new character that does the same function, then have a character be the same put replaced by a new actor.
Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?
I'm not sure where Arya/Tywin is going, but its probably going a similar place as in the books. I'm grateful for the little changes like this, it adds an air of randomness that I wouldn't have seen if they stuck strictly to the books.
I'm honestly really enjoying the change-up with Arya/Tywin's storyline in this season! It's saving time that would otherwise be wasted explaining a handfull of really minor characters, and it's making Arya's story more enjoyable considering that it's honestly pretty dull until her last couple of chapters in the books.
Same with Dany - her story is very backstabbing & overall non-action oriented until the House of the Undying. The little changes have made her story enjoyable to watch instead of her just sitting on a damn litter, getting shown the door by every nobleman in Qarth and Xaro professing his love for her at every turn.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:I've really been enjoying the show so far but 2 major gripes
1. where are Jojen and Meera Reed, from the books they seemed pretty important to drive Bran's story
2. what the hell are they doing with Dany? I mean it''s just so far from the books. :L
I'm wondering if they won't bring the Reeds into play come season 3 myself. Keep in mind they added a total of 19 new roles this season! There's only so many actors you can add when you're trying to fit things to a small screan budget!
Dany's story in the book is pretty uneventful in terms of overall 'action' going on. I mean it really boils down to;
- The Red Waste killing off a bunch of her remaining Dothraki
- Camping out in the shattered city ruins they find before the Qartheen party arrives
- Getting refused repeatedly by every noble/wealthy group in Qarth while riding around on a litter with Xaro who professes his love for her ad nauseum!
Spoiler:
- Going to the House of the Undying and getting the various prophecies, then watching Drogon go ape nuts!
Spoiler:
- The little assassination atempt as she & Joura are trying to find a ship to get them all out of Qarth, before meeting up with Whitebeard & Strong Belwas
I think alot of the changes have been done simply to make Dany's story viable to watch! Sure it's a big deviation from the book, but seriously, would you really want to sit back and watch nothing but constant & often repetitive dialog for 4-5 episodes?!
I just wish they hadn't killed her Silver though.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:I've really been enjoying the show so far but 2 major gripes
1. where are Jojen and Meera Reed, from the books they seemed pretty important to drive Bran's story
2. what the hell are they doing with Dany? I mean it''s just so far from the books. :L
I'm wondering if they won't bring the Reeds into play come season 3 myself. Keep in mind they added a total of 19 new roles this season! There's only so many actors you can add when you're trying to fit things to a small screan budget!
Dany's story in the book is pretty uneventful in terms of overall 'action' going on. I mean it really boils down to;
- The Red Waste killing off a bunch of her remaining Dothraki
- Camping out in the shattered city ruins they find before the Qartheen party arrives
- Getting refused repeatedly by every noble/wealthy group in Qarth while riding around on a litter with Xaro who professes his love for her ad nauseum!
Spoiler:
- Going to the House of the Undying and getting the various prophecies, then watching Drogon go ape nuts!
Spoiler:
- The little assassination atempt as she & Joura are trying to find a ship to get them all out of Qarth, before meeting up with Whitebeard & Strong Belwas
I think alot of the changes have been done simply to make Dany's story viable to watch! Sure it's a big deviation from the book, but seriously, would you really want to sit back and watch nothing but constant & often repetitive dialog for 4-5 episodes?!
I just wish they hadn't killed her Silver though.
in fairness though all the rich men of qarth didn't get murdered in cold blood and Xaro didn't try to set himself up as king and they've killed off like half of her Khalasaar who are still alive in book 5 and Strong Belwas and The old one who I love need ot show up soon. Her story really peaks in book 3
Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:
Spoiler:
I am hoping Arya stays around Westros - I find her story in the books a bit dull.
Not sure about Danys story adjustments but then I was massively disapointed by her in the new novels - but then I was I was veyr underwhelmed by the new books :(
I was hoping the show might get her dragons growing quicker and /or getting to the the liberation of the Unsullied sooner.
Mr Morden wrote:Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:
Spoiler:
I am hoping Arya stays around Westros - I find her story in the books a bit dull.
Not sure about Danys story adjustments but then I was massively disapointed by her in the new novels - but then I was I was veyr underwhelmed by the new books :(
I was hoping the show might get her dragons growing quicker and /or getting to the the liberation of the Unsullied sooner.
I agree with all the points in the spoiler.
I suppose Bran could meet the Reeds on his way to the wall
Mr Morden wrote:Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:
Spoiler:
I am hoping Arya stays around Westros - I find her story in the books a bit dull.
Not sure about Danys story adjustments but then I was massively disapointed by her in the new novels - but then I was I was veyr underwhelmed by the new books :(
I was hoping the show might get her dragons growing quicker and /or getting to the the liberation of the Unsullied sooner.
I agree with all the points in the spoiler.
I suppose Bran could meet the Reeds on his way to the wall
All things considered though, they really don't need the reeds, if they haven't been introduced yet they just might not make the cut. It can just as easily be the wildling girl whos name escapes me right now, who starts teaching bran about his 3rd eye.
Mr Morden wrote:Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:
Spoiler:
I am hoping Arya stays around Westros - I find her story in the books a bit dull.
Not sure about Danys story adjustments but then I was massively disapointed by her in the new novels - but then I was I was veyr underwhelmed by the new books :(
I was hoping the show might get her dragons growing quicker and /or getting to the the liberation of the Unsullied sooner.
I agree with all the points in the spoiler.
I suppose Bran could meet the Reeds on his way to the wall
All things considered though, they really don't need the reeds, if they haven't been introduced yet they just might not make the cut. It can just as easily be the wildling girl whos name escapes me right now, who starts teaching bran about his 3rd eye.
Don't read if you don't wanna know book stuff. Figured I'd put it out there
Spoiler:
The problem is Osha is suppose to take Rickon to the Manderly's (though we don't know if they actually went there since it wasn't addressed to my knowledge in the 5th book. Though Manderly did turn out to be a bit of a badass. They might not be old men but he's definitely got the north in him
Don't read if you don't wanna know book stuff. Figured I'd put it out there
Spoiler:
The problem is Osha is suppose to take Rickon to the Manderly's (though we don't know if they actually went there since it wasn't addressed to my knowledge in the 5th book. Though Manderly did turn out to be a bit of a badass. They might not be old men but he's definitely got the north in him
oh ya I had forgotten that part, it is such a tedious story arch though
The Reeds and Osha have all been blended into the same character.
So, as long as nothing vital happens to Rickon (seeing as he won't be a POV character, I doubt anything will), he can accompany Bran, and no major changes are needed.
They made to many major changes to the original story for me to give a damn about the TV series anymore. From what I can gather they completely mauled the beginning of the Ygritte-Jon Snow storyline. Also, why are Robb and Jeyne getting so much screen time?
Amaya wrote:Also, why are Robb and Jeyne getting so much screen time?
Its not Jeyne, they cut Jeyne's character and replaced her with a woman from Volantis.
DPBellathrom wrote: still cant decide if the guy from the temple of the undieing is creepy or badass
He definitely took a level in badass relative to the books.
DPBellathrom wrote:well, its safe to say that after watching ep7 season 2, theon greyjoy is now my most hated character
Alfie Allen plays the character very well. He definitely isn't at all like I read Theon though, but in a good way.
oh dont get me wrong, if "the one you love to hate" is what the actor was going for then he got it spot on, though he has kinda crazy eyes at time :3....but he caant help that. though its like how oscha keeps looking up....its annoying :/
I always imagined theon to be less cocky and more "strong" emotionally, like you said the actor does a good job but like I said, he seems too cocky
In the books Theon suffers a bit from being described rather than shown. Other characters always mention him as being arrogant and frivolous, but he's rarely shown as such prior to Kings in which he largely comes off as incompetent. Truthfully, I think the way he's played in the show makes the character more sympathetic as he seems to be compromised emotionally rather than simply stupid.
Spoiler:
But yeah, he gets his comeuppance later, only to be replaced by an axe-crazy sadist as the series' "villain".
Amaya wrote:They seriously wrote out Jeyne Westerling completely and introduced a new character?
Yeah, Lady Talisa. My guess would be that they wanted to cut down the story, and the whole sequence at the Tooth really only served to introduce Jeyne. Its also one less battle scene to film, which keeps costs down.
That said, Talisa is very clearly filling Jeyne's role, so the story itself shouldn't be materially affected.
dogma wrote:To be honest I rather like that they're changing things as it means I can't predict every little things that's going to happen.
+1
Plus, this isn't a big budget movie type of production, so there's more constraints on just how many characters they can bring into the show, how many battles they can film and how many special effects they can get away with.
It's one thing if say New Line Cineama were financing the project, because then they could aford to be a bit more frivolous since they know they have projects 'X/Y/Z' which will make-up for some slight loses... HBO can't afford that however, shows have to make them money or the shows get axed.
Besides, half the crap that goes on in the book would just look plain awful & boring as feth on-screen! (ie: Ayra & Dany's entire plotline up until their final focus chapter or two)
Sure there's a few changes I'm not as thrilled with, (killing Silver, botching Jon/Ygrett's story & the early bit with Little Finger threatening one of his girls), but overall, the changes are making the story itself more enjoyable to watch on screen where you don't have the ability to provide 1-2 pages of immediate background info and/or the ability to bring in a super minor character to set things in motion.
Overall, GoT's is doing a much better job than the sheer butchery that befell the Harry Potter books (the final movie was criminal in what it did!)
Experiment 626 wrote:
Plus, this isn't a big budget movie type of production, so there's more constraints on just how many characters they can bring into the show, how many battles they can film and how many special effects they can get away with.
Yeah. In fact I recall one of the producers saying that they delayed the introduction of some characters because they couldn't afford to have the actors sitting around all season for what was really a small piece of face time.
dogma wrote:To be honest I rather like that they're changing things as it means I can't predict every little things that's going to happen.
Yeah, that's true. Though episode 6's ending left me a bit dumbstruck as I honestly couldn't recall what happened in the books.
Stannis, however, has been a disappointment. Especially given how utterly... rigid he was in the books, what happened with him and Melisandre shouldn't have been explicit. It just seems to diminish the character's main trait.
Experiment 626 wrote:It's one thing if say New Line Cineama were financing the project, because then they could aford to be a bit more frivolous since they know they have projects 'X/Y/Z' which will make-up for some slight loses...
NLC actually bet a lot on Lord of the Rings. Had the project flopped, they would've been bankrupt.
Plus I now understand some of the comments from the people responsible for the GoT television series - about a lot riding on season 2. Not only because of the technical stuff (i.e. animations on the wolves and dragons could "make or break" the series for some viewers) but also because of them changing all this stuff would possibly alienate part of the fanbase.
Yeah, that's true. Though episode 6's ending left me a bit dumbstruck as I honestly couldn't recall what happened in the books.
Stannis, however, has been a disappointment. Especially given how utterly... rigid he was in the books, what happened with him and Melisandre shouldn't have been explicit. It just seems to diminish the character's main trait.
.
Neither should of the scenes between renly and Loras been so explicit it was avguely hinted at as well but HBo calls the shots and we don't
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:Neither should of the scenes between renly and Loras been so explicit it was avguely hinted at as well but HBo calls the shots and we don't
If people quit watching the show, it's much more their loss than ours. We're giving them some of our free-time; they're spending money.
And the Loras/Renly scene didn't diminish their characters, it expanded on them. But then again, they could've just avoided that scene altogether, and just Margaret like they ended up doing. Her little speech made L/R's fifteen minutes of fame from the 1st series a completely unnecessary addition to the series.
Well have to say the episode (7?) on last night was a blinder, really enjoyed it! Everything has come to a head, and I would say probably a good chunk of the show's budget went on that episode!
Really sad..
Spoiler:
to see the Dwarf get taken out, without giving anything away (I haven't read the books yet!) why did Geoffrey's house guard hit him?
Quite amusing, can anyone spot a character from that show in the video below?
Haven't seen the second series yet, not sure if it's worth my time.
I got frustrated with the first series. It had promise, but was about 10 times as long as it should have been. You could have condensed it down into a couple of hours, and there were too many charectors. Also no actual indication of where the story is going, which as a viewer is kind of important.
Pacific wrote:Well have to say the episode (7?) on last night was a blinder, really enjoyed it! Everything has come to a head, and I would say probably a good chunk of the show's budget went on that episode!
Really sad..
Spoiler:
to see the Dwarf get taken out, without giving anything away (I haven't read the books yet!) why did Geoffrey's house guard hit him?
Quite amusing, can anyone spot a character from that show in the video below?
Joffery's house guard was supposed to take off tyrion's nose, then Pod was supposed to kill him IIRC.
And Ser Loras was supposed to show up at King's Landing but there's still an episode for that to happen......
Really? I thought season 1 explained mostly where it was going off the bat. Let's see:
-The others (creature from episode 1) are back and a new war against them is brewing
-Dany (the pretty princess) is going to take back the seven kingdoms, likely with dragons
-Crazy internal fighting/civil war for the seven kingdoms until one of the above puts an end to it.
Seems more straight forward than most shows on TV honestly. It's just set for multiple season story arcs instead of the single season/maybe expand it to two seaons if we get picked up story arcs.
As for the characters thing be thankful the show is cutting it down/combining/eliminating characters left and right that aren't important. The books are ridiculous by the 3rd novel.
@Thread
Spoiler:
In general, I can see why they didn't go for the nose on Tyrion. The cost in CGI (since you can't use make-up to remove a nose) would hurt the budget for the rest of the show. I've already got an idea of how they are going to handle a certain other issue that'll likely be coming up in the next episode
I thought the switch to Tywin showing up at Kings Landing was a good one. After the way they presented Renly I wouldn't expect it to play out like it did in the books but the addition of Loras was essential to show where the Highgarden loyalites lie.
You can tell a lot of the show's budget went to the "Blackwater" episode. It was good and I particularly liked the way they handled Bronn and the Hound.
And don't read unless you want to know the reason for the Kingsguard and Tyrion thing:
Spoiler:
Basically Cersai told certain members of the Kingsguard that her brother shouldn't come back. She thinks she's cunning and intelligent. I really like that they are already taking her character to crazy town. Much faster than in the books which makes sense as without the background narration it wouldn't make sense in the show
Really? I thought season 1 explained mostly where it was going off the bat. Let's see:
-The others (creature from episode 1) are back and a new war against them is brewing
-Dany (the pretty princess) is going to take back the seven kingdoms, likely with dragons
-Crazy internal fighting/civil war for the seven kingdoms until one of the above puts an end to it.
Right, it took all of what, 10 hours, to explain that? That's far too long dude. Could cram that into a half hour program, or comfortably in an hour and a half.
I dread to think what the books are like.
Wow, so if you know the relative destination the journey doesn't mean anything? I guess it saves time on reading books. You must be a part of that monster/incident of the week crowd that a lot of television shoots for.
Wow, so if you know the relative destination the journey doesn't mean anything? I guess it saves time on reading books. You must be a part of that monster/incident of the week crowd that a lot of television shoots for.
Hmm, no.
When watching an episode of something, you need a reason to watch - a premise, a progression, and a sense of change. GOT, as far as I can tell, omitted the latter of these two entirely. Developments only serve to beg further questions, like Lost but with tits and violence.
Not to mention that all the charectors, without exception, are despicable.
Wow, so if you know the relative destination the journey doesn't mean anything? I guess it saves time on reading books. You must be a part of that monster/incident of the week crowd that a lot of television shoots for.
Hmm, no.
When watching an episode of something, you need a reason to watch - a premise, a progression, and a sense of change. GOT, as far as I can tell, omitted the latter of these two entirely. Developments only serve to beg further questions, like Lost but with tits and violence.
Not to mention that all the charectors, without exception, are despicable.
you mean killing the king and sending the realms into war wasn't a big enough sense of change? and I think you meant to say all the characters are human. not two dimensional cookie cutter people. If you read through all the books you can see how all the characters grow and develop, or get their heads chopped off
Joey wrote:When watching an episode of something, you need a reason to watch - a premise, a progression, and a sense of change. GOT, as far as I can tell, omitted the latter of these two entirely. Developments only serve to beg further questions
That's pretty much Martin's writing style. The narration gets set up to lead the audience to expect a certain story - Robb leading his troops to rescue his father; Renly and Stannis reaching an agreement against a common foe; Danny leading the Dothraki to Westeros; Arya killing Tywin - but then, rather than having the characters stay in their rightful place and act out the story, gives them human behavior and motivations. Cersei sees a threat in Ned and has him removed. Stannis is stubborn and Renly is arrogant and they have a falling out. Danny realizes the people abused by the Dothraki really don't like them. Arya succumbs to petty grievances.
The problem I have with Martin is that he does this all the time and it's hard to see where the story is actually going. You're always thrown for a loop because Martin loves to change the entire story at a moment's notice.
Once you've read the first 5 books or so you realize that the entire war in Westeros is not the main story. The main story is the battle between the forces of "ice" (the Others) and the forces of "fire" (Dragons).
Joey wrote:like Lost but with tits and violence.
I'm not sure I see the problem. Well, I didn't like Lost, but otherwise, sounds decent.
You don't even need the book. The show has quite a bit of character progression in season 1. Catelyn's beginning of descent into borderline crazy (where her family is concerned). Robb becoming a man. Bran becoming crippled and growing to accept it. Arya's progression from the first episode to the last with her growing confidence and understanding of the world she lives in. Jon also growing up and accepting a man's responsibility and confronting his place in life. Dany going from scared teenager being sold to her current spot.
And that's the first season.
I'd say the characters evolved and I wouldn't say all of them are despicable. They are human in a hard world which the modern day doesn't understand at all with our feelings of safety. I find some of them repugnant and others I quite enjoy.
As for the show itself I'd say it moves along pretty well. Much better than most shows I've watched and with a cleaner progression. In fact that's one of the things I like about HBO serires. There generally aren't filler episodes since they don't run for the standard 22 shows out here which means we get that solid progression you rarely see on cable.
Joey wrote:When watching an episode of something, you need a reason to watch - a premise, a progression, and a sense of change. GOT, as far as I can tell, omitted the latter of these two entirely. Developments only serve to beg further questions
That's pretty much Martin's writing style. The narration gets set up to lead the audience to expect a certain story - Robb leading his troops to rescue his father; Renly and Stannis reaching an agreement against a common foe; Danny leading the Dothraki to Westeros; Arya killing Tywin - but then, rather than having the characters stay in their rightful place and act out the story, gives them human behavior and motivations. Cersei sees a threat in Ned and has him removed. Stannis is stubborn and Renly is arrogant and they have a falling out. Danny realizes the people abused by the Dothraki really don't like them. Arya succumbs to petty grievances.
The problem I have with Martin is that he does this all the time and it's hard to see where the story is actually going. You're always thrown for a loop because Martin loves to change the entire story at a moment's notice.
That's pretty much how I felt. Rather than a plot, or one or two sub-plots, that bend and twist and interweave, there are half a dozen plots, the fundamentals of which seem to change all the time.
To take the blond girl's sub-plot as an example, first we're told that her brother wants to reclaim the throne, and has married her off to a barbarian in order to do so. So far so good.
No wait, the barbarian has killed him off! Now the girl is going to retake the throne at the side of her barbarian husband, okay.
Wait, now he's dead, and she's alone. Also something to do with dragons. The premise of the entire sub-plot changes every damn episode. And all of the sub-plots do this!
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure I see the problem. Well, I didn't like Lost, but otherwise, sounds decent.
Don't get me wrong, I love sex, and violence. Hell the first time you see that blond girl's ass I nearly exploded. And watching her being ravished was, to say the least, interesting.
Joey wrote:Wait, now he's dead, and she's alone. Also something to do with dragons. The premise of the entire sub-plot changes every damn episode. And all of the sub-plots do this!
Yeah. That's why I'm waiting for the last book to come out, then I'm just going to plow through them all in a week or two.
You don't even need the book. The show has quite a bit of character progression in season 1. Catelyn's beginning of descent into borderline crazy (where her family is concerned). Robb becoming a man. Bran becoming crippled and growing to accept it. Arya's progression from the first episode to the last with her growing confidence and understanding of the world she lives in. Jon also growing up and accepting a man's responsibility and confronting his place in life. Dany going from scared teenager being sold to her current spot.
And that's the first season.
I'd say the characters evolved and I wouldn't say all of them are despicable. They are human in a hard world which the modern day doesn't understand at all with our feelings of safety. I find some of them repugnant and others I quite enjoy.
As for the show itself I'd say it moves along pretty well. Much better than most shows I've watched and with a cleaner progression. In fact that's one of the things I like about HBO serires. There generally aren't filler episodes since they don't run for the standard 22 shows out here which means we get that solid progression you rarely see on cable.
You mean first two seasons.
Cats arc is just bugging me this season, No one has told her yet that theon killed two boys in winterfell who she thinks is her sons. That was her motivation to release the king slayer. Cutting that scene just really bugs me, she wouldn't just release him to save her girls, but after losing 2 kids it pushes her to release him in hopes of saving them.
I was glad they put a lot more effort into the battle for kings landing, I was worried theyd cut costs and skimp on it. But I liked how they did it.
They did cut costs and skimp on it, and HBO started by asking them why it couldn't be done off screen. They just hired a director who is very good at stretching tiny budgets to make things look more impressive than they really are.
Well, according to the book it was a fleet of ships filled with wildfire that exploded instead of one ship.
But they did pretty good with what they had to work with I think. I know we like to Monday Morning Quarterback things, we are the internets after all, but I try to keep in mind that the 10 hours of film per season pretty much included the entire runtime of the non-extended version of the Lord of the Rings Triology. Sure they were grand, but what was the budger of those 10 hours compared to HBO's budget for GoT?
H.B.M.C. wrote:In some good news, next week's episode is going to be 10 minutes longer. Apparently they have a lot to get through.
well Joffery has to get dressed for that wedding
@ Joey, If HBo condensed it to 2 hours or so they would lose so much detail it pretty much would be unrecognisable,
and the plots don't change too much..
Dany's
Second in line for the Targaryens, Get sold to Khal Drogo so her brother has an army. Her brother then severely pisses off Khal drogo. Dany is now the Targaryen Heir. Khal drogo dies and Dothraki culture doesn't let women rule so the warriors leave under Khal Pogo. All of Drogo's possessions are put in his funeral pyre which causes the dragon eggs to hatch,
Ned's
Goes to King's Landing to become Hand. Investigates his predecessors' death and discovers what got him killed. Confronts Cersei with the knowledge after she offs Robert. gets shafted first by Cersei when he tries to implement Stannis to be King and secondly when Joffery shows how insane he is.
These really are the main ones in Season 1. Robb calls Neds Banners to get him freed and Jon is on the wall and investigating the Others.
Not much more to it, it's story progression. It's like in LoTR the "plot changes" when Frodo leaves the shire and when the fellowship breaks up,
I don't mind the twists and turns - and the TV show is I feel better than the books as the books have too many disperate chacrters who I don't care about - the new books are terrible for this - bring back people I have no interest in and spending time on them rather than the one i am interested in - like Dany - although I her arc in the new books is also pretty awful.
Alot of the streamlinnig in the tv show does work but several bits are problematic - the present arc with Jon is pretty dull and (as in the books) his wolf seems to vanish at the worst times...........
biccat wrote:[
Once you've read the first 5 books or so you realize that the entire war in Westeros is not the main story. The main story is the battle between the forces of "ice" (the Others) and the forces of "fire" (Dragons).
.
Thats not really the impression I got. Most of the story has went into the Game of Thrones or fallout characters from that story (Arya and Sansa). As far as I'am aware the Others haven't really been introduced properly and we know next to nothing about them. Plus, Melisandre, Dondarion and Stannis are the only real pushers of the forces of fire. Daenerys knows nothing about the others or her own part to play in A Song of Ice and Fire. Most of her plot is about her prooving herself as a ruler and conqueror in the East; as well as learning to tame her growing dragons. Which apparently, at some point in the final book or the far future of the 41st millenium is going to culminate in her getting to Westeros and throwing her lot into the Game of Thrones. I get what you mean and it is there; but I think he has left it as an undertone to be resolved in the final book.
ps I really do not like how GRR Martin is cramming Danny going back to Westeros into the final book. She knows jack about Westeros and apart from a handfull of people who've popped up at her court she has no real clue even about who her friends and foes are. If Martin is going to add a big high fantasy battle and possibly a religious element to what Danny is doing then its really going to be anti-climactic after all this build up if Danny simply walks in Dues Ex Machina style and wins. Even if it isn't, the fight is gonna be pretty brief if you have to resolve everything in the last book. IMO the point of that character was that she was learning to be a ruler to TAKE THE IRON THRONE and PLAY THE GAME OF THRONES; not conquer the East (which nobody cares about) then have those things as after-thoughts. Even if the last book is two part like Storm of Swords (which did a lot I'll admit) I just don't see the need for book six to be (hopefully) about her wrapping things up in the East.
biccat wrote:[
Once you've read the first 5 books or so you realize that the entire war in Westeros is not the main story. The main story is the battle between the forces of "ice" (the Others) and the forces of "fire" (Dragons).
.
Thats not really the impression I got. Most of the story has went into the Game of Thrones or fallout characters from that story (Arya and Sansa). As far as I'am aware the Others haven't really been introduced properly and we know next to nothing about them. Plus, Melisandre, Dondarion and Stannis are the only real pushers of the forces of fire. Daenerys knows nothing about the others or her own part to play in A Song of Ice and Fire. Most of her plot is about her prooving herself as a ruler and conqueror in the East; as well as learning to tame her growing dragons. Which apparently, at some point in the final book or the far future of the 41st millenium is going to culminate in her getting to Westeros and throwing her lot into the Game of Thrones. I get what you mean and it is there; but I think he has left it as an undertone to be resolved in the final book.
ps I really do not like how GRR Martin is cramming Danny going back to Westeros into the final book. She knows jack about Westeros and apart from a handfull of people who've popped up at her court she has no real clue even about who her friends and foes are. If Martin is going to add a big high fantasy battle and possibly a religious element to what Danny is doing then its really going to be anti-climactic after all this build up if Danny simply walks in Dues Ex Machina style and wins. Even if it isn't, the fight is gonna be pretty brief if you have to resolve everything in the last book. IMO the point of that character was that she was learning to be a ruler to TAKE THE IRON THRONE and PLAY THE GAME OF THRONES; not conquer the East (which nobody cares about) then have those things as after-thoughts. Even if the last book is two part like Storm of Swords (which did a lot I'll admit) I just don't see the need for book six to be (hopefully) about her wrapping things up in the East.
You know there are two books left to be written, right, not just one? The Winds of Winter is next and the final book is A Dream of Spring, so Martin has bit more time to resolve everything.
Winds of Winter is going to be Danny wrapping up things in the East. At the end of Dance with Dragons she is with the Dothraki and several cities armies are converging on Mereen. She also has the Warlocks out there to deal with. Thats a lot of stuff. Effectively Danny has to conquer all of the Eastern continent and thats before she considers getting a fleet. Even Victarion does not have enough ships to bring all of the Dothraki and Unsullied and Free Companies over. Maybe Bravos (Venice) and its arsenal but thats just another place to coerce into joining her. So effectively the very last book is going to be her getting to Westeros just as the series is going to be dominated by the conflict with the others and everyone is wrapping things up.
Why does everyone keep mentioning book six when Dance with Dragons is pretty clear that she is staying in the East for a long time? Its not like it ended with her fleet sailing off to Westeros. A lot of uneccesary plot points needed to be resolved involving the East and shes not going to leave half way into it. Its an obvious cliffhanger to put into your story.
Totalwar1402 wrote:Winds of Winter is going to be Danny wrapping up things in the East. At the end of Dance with Dragons she is with the Dothraki and several cities armies are converging on Mereen. She also has the Warlocks out there to deal with. Thats a lot of stuff. Effectively Danny has to conquer all of the Eastern continent and thats before she considers getting a fleet. Even Victarion does not have enough ships to bring all of the Dothraki and Unsullied and Free Companies over. Maybe Bravos (Venice) and its arsenal but thats just another place to coerce into joining her. So effectively the very last book is going to be her getting to Westeros just as the series is going to be dominated by the conflict with the others and everyone is wrapping things up.
Why does everyone keep mentioning book six when Dance with Dragons is pretty clear that she is staying in the East for a long time? Its not like it ended with her fleet sailing off to Westeros. A lot of uneccesary plot points needed to be resolved involving the East and shes not going to leave half way into it. Its an obvious cliffhanger to put into your story.
Agreed - although she is not yet really with the Dothraki - she is only with her Dragon I was hoping that the 5th book would have progressed her story alot more - and allied her with Tyrion....to conquer the East. Book five was a bit too much filler for me - especially since we had to wait so long for it. I would rather she had been closer to previous books and maybe followed the advice of her sometime sellsword lover and the Shaveplate in how to rule the city. Open the pits, and feed any captured Sons of the Harpy to her children.........let them perish in fire and blood
I was hoping they'd embellish the white walkers attacking the nights watch and make that the focus of the episode. I know it was trueish to the book, but come on, everyone loves a good zombie rampage through the townfolk
I guess they spent the last of the budge on the battle for kings landing. and all they had left for the nights watch was 3 guys and some zombies
So, I have a question. Who burned Winterfell? Was it the guys that came to save them?
Or the 20 guys who could clearly be trusted to watch your house while you where out lead by Theon?
I thought I was doing OK keeping up with all peripheral storylines, but this finale had me confused. Why exactly is Sansa still in King's Landing? The last episode strongly implied that she was going to run off with the Hound. There was bedlam. Bedlam is perfect for escaping. Ask Arya. But now we're back to backstabbing and courtly intrigue---natural enemies of the clean escape. Oops.
And like alarmingrick asked, who burned Winterfell? If it was the 20 Iron-Islanders, fine. They didn't really give any previous indication they wanted to burn Winterfell...but, sure, why not. But if that's the case, why did Bran and Rickon need to flee to the Wall? Weren't the baddies on their way out? And didn't the Starks have a friendly army waiting outside the gates? Now if it was that "friendly army" who burned Winterfell...why wasn't a bigger deal made of that unexpected betrayal?
For me, the highlight of the episode wasn't White Walkers or Dragons, it was Theon getting bonked on the head. Here's hoping season 3 expands on the bonking.
whigwam wrote:I thought I was doing OK keeping up with all peripheral storylines, but this finale had me confused. Why exactly is Sansa still in King's Landing? The last episode strongly implied that she was going to run off with the Hound. There was bedlam. Bedlam is perfect for escaping. Ask Arya. But now we're back to backstabbing and courtly intrigue---natural enemies of the clean escape. Oops.
And like alarmingrick asked, who burned Winterfell? If it was the 20 Iron-Islanders, fine. They didn't really give any previous indication they wanted to burn Winterfell...but, sure, why not. But if that's the case, why did Bran and Rickon need to flee to the Wall? Weren't the baddies on their way out? And didn't the Starks have a friendly army waiting outside the gates? Now if it was that "friendly army" who burned Winterfell...why wasn't a bigger deal made of that unexpected betrayal?
For me, the highlight of the episode wasn't White Walkers or Dragons, it was Theon getting bonked on the head. Here's hoping season 3 expands on the bonking.
Spoiler:
Winterfell was burned by the guys that came to pick up Theon. Big storyline to get into here which will probably be explained in Season 3, but going into it now will be book spoilers.
whigwam wrote:IFor me, the highlight of the episode wasn't White Walkers or Dragons, it was Theon getting bonked on the head. Here's hoping season 3 expands on the bonking.
Without any spoilers (which are sort of impossible anyway, since the show so greatly diverges from the books) - suffice it to say a great many people eventually get their richly deserved comeuppance.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:The white Walker that stares down Sam looked Epic.
But the finally proved they don't care about Dany's story what so ever
Dany's story involves far too many random cast editions/guest appearences if you go directly by the book. (Her various visions alone would have required at least 6+ additional actors and all that entails)
Granted they've done a few changes I wasn't a huge fan of, (killing off Irri, Rhokaro & her Silver), but seriously, that whole vision experence in the House of Dust would have been a total cluster for everyone who hasn't read the books.
I've never gotten the impression that the producers 'dont' care' about Dany's story, they're simply doing the best they can on a very, very tight budget & limited resources.
Anyways, for next season, already confirmed cast addtions include;
Spoiler:
The Reeds, Bryden the Blackfish, Edmer Tully, Manse Raider and iirc, Thoros as well as few others I can't recall right now.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:The white Walker that stares down Sam looked Epic.
But the finally proved they don't care about Dany's story what so ever
Dany's story involves far too many random cast editions/guest appearences if you go directly by the book. (Her various visions alone would have required at least 6+ additional actors and all that entails)
Granted they've done a few changes I wasn't a huge fan of, (killing off Irri, Rhokaro & her Silver), but seriously, that whole vision experence in the House of Dust would have been a total cluster for everyone who hasn't read the books.
Spoiler:
but there was also the hint at the red wedding in there and she was supposed to burn the eintire thing not the one warlock and the whole thing with Xaro getting locked in his vault when he travels to Meeren in aDWD :L
Anyways, for next season, already confirmed cast addtions include;
Spoiler:
The Reeds, Bryden the Blackfish, Edmer Tully, Manse Raider and iirc, Thoros as well as few others I can't recall right now.
Spoiler:
Awesome news! I can't wait to see the Blackfish, Thoros, and Mance on screen. Thoros especially is one of my favorite background/supporting characters.
Was it just me or did the Dragons look more cartoony and "cute" than before. They seemed to have much larger humanlike eyes and show genuine affection. Which is kind of appropraite I guess. When is she actually going to name the things?
Spoiler:
Plus what was up with the image of the Iron Throne. Was that an image of the future? Do you think she saw herself frozen on the throne? It looked as if her dragons had burnt the roof off the building but snow had fallen in and there were those strange iron symbols as well which hung from the ceiling like cobwebs. Perhaps a vision of what will happen if she fails?
The white walkers are pretty intimidating and the army of corpses was pretty OMG. Visually, I think they are better to look at, the way GRR Martin portrayed them to my mind seemed more like a faceless grey with milky armour/skin that blended into the environment.
Guess going to have to wait for a certain famous knight to be tagging along with Danny
alarmingrick wrote:So, I have a question. Who burned Winterfell? Was it the guys that came to save them?
Or the 20 guys who could clearly be trusted to watch your house while you where out lead by Theon?
Yeah, the TV show didn't really explain what happened at all.
Perhaps it will in the next season.
According to the books, the following happens: (spoilers through book 2, or episode 10 of season 2)
Spoiler:
1) Theon captures Winterfell. (Although, in the book he's a bit more clever, using a secondary force to draw the Stark defenders away)
2) Ser Rodrik (the older Stark guy with the giant sideburns who was killed early in the TV show) organizes a group of northerners to recapture Winterfell.
3) Forces from the Freys (the bridge guys) and the Boltons (as-of-yet unintroduced evil guys who put Joffery to shame) arrive under the pretense of helping Ser Rodrik.
4) Those forces betray the Stark loyalists and attack them in the night, defeating them.
5) Theon welcomes them into Winterfell, thinking them allies, but they kill everyone inside and burn Winterfell.
Well have to say that last show was bloody brilliant! The ending in particular where the camera panned up to Keith Richards sitting on that undead horse, and his head turned slowly around!
Now the long wait until the next series... that's if it gets made? Anyone know what the ratings were like for the second series?
I don't think I could standanother series being cancelled.
Pacific wrote:Now the long wait until the next series... that's if it gets made? Anyone know what the ratings were like for the second series?
The lowest viewed episode of this season (s2e9 with 3.38 million viewers) was higher than the most viewed episode of last season (s1e10 with 3.04 million viewers). So, it's still pretty healthy and picking up steam.
This is an HBO show, so viewers tend to be lower anyway. GoT is doing a bit better than Boardwalk Empire and crushing Enlightened, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Girls. It isn't very close to True Blood, but how can a fantasy drama possibly compete with a combination of Twilight and Porn?
Pacific wrote:Now the long wait until the next series... that's if it gets made? Anyone know what the ratings were like for the second series?
The lowest viewed episode of this season (s2e9 with 3.38 million viewers) was higher than the most viewed episode of last season (s1e10 with 3.04 million viewers). So, it's still pretty healthy and picking up steam.
This is an HBO show, so viewers tend to be lower anyway. GoT is doing a bit better than Boardwalk Empire and crushing Enlightened, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Girls. It isn't very close to True Blood, but how can a fantasy drama possibly compete with a combination of Twilight and Porn?
And, Season 3 has already been announced.
...Which will be only the first half of 'A Storm of Swords'.
Rumor is that book 4 won't be it's own stand alone season and that it's content will be added in where it's ment to be within the seasons dedicated to the 3rd & 5th books. All I cansay is thank god!
Spoiler:
Imagine trying to sit through and entire 10 episodes with no Jon Snow, no Daneryes and no Tyrion! THAT would likely result in the series getting the boot...
According to the books, the following happens: (spoilers through book 2, or episode 10 of season 2)
Spoiler:
1) Theon captures Winterfell. (Although, in the book he's a bit more clever, using a secondary force to draw the Stark defenders away)
2) Ser Rodrik (the older Stark guy with the giant sideburns who was killed early in the TV show) organizes a group of northerners to recapture Winterfell.
3) Forces from the Freys (the bridge guys) and the Boltons (as-of-yet unintroduced evil guys who put Joffery to shame) arrive under the pretense of helping Ser Rodrik.
4) Those forces betray the Stark loyalists and attack them in the night, defeating them.
5) Theon welcomes them into Winterfell, thinking them allies, but they kill everyone inside and burn Winterfell.
I can't remember, at that point of the book had Rob Stark reneged on his promise to marry the Frey girl?
According to the books, the following happens: (spoilers through book 2, or episode 10 of season 2)
Spoiler:
1) Theon captures Winterfell. (Although, in the book he's a bit more clever, using a secondary force to draw the Stark defenders away)
2) Ser Rodrik (the older Stark guy with the giant sideburns who was killed early in the TV show) organizes a group of northerners to recapture Winterfell.
3) Forces from the Freys (the bridge guys) and the Boltons (as-of-yet unintroduced evil guys who put Joffery to shame) arrive under the pretense of helping Ser Rodrik.
4) Those forces betray the Stark loyalists and attack them in the night, defeating them.
5) Theon welcomes them into Winterfell, thinking them allies, but they kill everyone inside and burn Winterfell.
I can't remember, at that point of the book had Rob Stark reneged on his promise to marry the Frey girl?
Yup. He had already slept with (possibly impregnated, depending on the fan theory) and married Jeyne Westerling.
According to the books, the following happens: (spoilers through book 2, or episode 10 of season 2)
Spoiler:
1) Theon captures Winterfell. (Although, in the book he's a bit more clever, using a secondary force to draw the Stark defenders away)
2) Ser Rodrik (the older Stark guy with the giant sideburns who was killed early in the TV show) organizes a group of northerners to recapture Winterfell.
3) Forces from the Freys (the bridge guys) and the Boltons (as-of-yet unintroduced evil guys who put Joffery to shame) arrive under the pretense of helping Ser Rodrik.
4) Those forces betray the Stark loyalists and attack them in the night, defeating them.
5) Theon welcomes them into Winterfell, thinking them allies, but they kill everyone inside and burn Winterfell.
I can't remember, at that point of the book had Rob Stark reneged on his promise to marry the Frey girl?
Yup. He had already slept with (possibly impregnated, depending on the fan theory) and married Jeyne Westerling.
Who for some reason now is form Volantis :L
Can't wait for the next piece of Frey treachery if done well enough, pity the red vipers duel won't happen till season 4
Is it just me or does the actor who plays Ser Jorah Mormont look too attractive for the character? I mean, hes not Drogo (Conan), but hes not 'the bear' which Danny can't even see herself doing in the books and makes her repulsed by his advances. Its also probably because she just wants him as a father figure and not as a lover.
Spoiler:
Its not even that hes low-born. Later on Danny has a sexual relationship and "love" (her words) for a dashing sellsword captain. True she refuses to marry him, but she did basically reject Mormont because he was too gruff, ugly and old. In fact she comes across as quite shallow in the books.
I though the actor cast was great as he has weathered but still slightly atractive looks, Jason Momoa is a different matter entirely.
From what I remember she just didn't love Ser Jorah in the same way he did her.
She loves Daario physically but in the setting you marry for power and position not for love (*cough* Robb Stark *cough*)
Totalwar1402 wrote:Is it just me or does the actor who plays Ser Jorah Mormont look too attractive for the character? I mean, hes not Drogo (Conan), but hes not 'the bear' which Danny can't even see herself doing in the books and makes her repulsed by his advances. Its also probably because she just wants him as a father figure and not as a lover.
Spoiler:
Its not even that hes low-born. Later on Danny has a sexual relationship and "love" (her words) for a dashing sellsword captain. True she refuses to marry him, but she did basically reject Mormont because he was too gruff, ugly and old. In fact she comes across as quite shallow in the books.
If they were to have made all the cast memebers actually resemble their characters as described in the book... Well, let's just say you'd never want to eat anything or think of sex while watching the show! (Tyrion is hienously ugly by the book for example)
Hell, the way Jorah is described, you could take a fething lawn mower to him and shave his entire body! They do want women to watch the show too!
As for the way Dany treats Jorah;
a) she thinks he's too old for her
b) he's not the prettiest thing in the world by any means!
c) his over-protectiveness of her tends to grate on her nerves. (he's very much a 'trust no one' protective father/older brother type)
Spoiler:
he kissed her without her permission and she actually found she rather liked it! But she's peeved because she believes it was highly out of line for him, (he's her knight, she's his queen), and she blames herself for allowing it too happen
Biggest!
Spoiler:
she really gets enraged when ser Baristan reveals that Jorah was Varys' informent who was selling her secrets to King Robert, hence she firmly believes Jorah to be the 'betrayal of love' she's been warned about. (of corse, I think Darrio is the real betrayal of love - Jorah at most could be the 'bretayal of gold')
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:I though the actor cast was great as he has weathered but still slightly atractive looks, Jason Momoa is a different matter entirely.
From what I remember she just didn't love Ser Jorah in the same way he did her.
She loves Daario physically but in the setting you marry for power and position not for love (*cough* Robb Stark *cough*)
My impression was that Danny didn't like Jorah for physical reasons. When she compares Daario and Jorah, she fantasises repeatedly about the former and yet realises she can't think that way about Jorah. So I assumed the person would have been quite ugly. TBH I don't get what Danny sees in Daario. She could ask or pay for any (number of?) beautiful man who knows a few tricks in the bedroom and has plenty of men hacking heads off for her. So I really don't get her fascination for this particular bloke. Plus, she has no intention of marrying Daario, same as Mormont, but still lets the former slither into her bed; which is a blatent double standard since both men wanted the same thing. So the distinction was largely physical and her preference for a "charmer".
Oh BTW, if anyone has Medieval Total War 2, they've actually made a mod called Westeros Total War where you can play as one of the Houses. Sadly no eastern map and Danny Still, worth checking out.
totalwar1402 wrote:she fantasises repeatedly about the former and yet realises she can't think that way about Jorah. So I assumed the person would have been quite ugly
Somebody doesn't have to be ugly to have no sex appeal.
And Xaro in the books was pale white, the actor is about as different as it can get
Experiment 626 wrote:]Is it
If they were to have made all the cast memebers actually resemble their characters as described in the book... Well, let's just say you'd never want to eat anything or think of sex while watching the show! (Tyrion is hienously ugly by the book for example)
Hell, the way Jorah is described, you could take a fething lawn mower to him and shave his entire body! They do want women to watch the show too!
As for the way Dany treats Jorah;
a) she thinks he's too old for her
b) he's not the prettiest thing in the world by any means!
c) his over-protectiveness of her tends to grate on her nerves. (he's very much a 'trust no one' protective father/older brother type)
Spoiler:
he kissed her without her permission and she actually found she rather liked it! But she's peeved because she believes it was highly out of line for him, (he's her knight, she's his queen), and she blames herself for allowing it too happen
Thats true, but i think it makes her rejecting his advances less easy to understand if the actor is actually good looking in a rough sort of way and has a good heart. Yes its improper for a Queen to have relations due to his lowly status. But thats not understandable once she meets Daario and clearly starts breaking her code. A sellsword captain is basically scum even comapred to a knight (of a fairly okay sized island to be fair) and Ser Jorah was never sworn like a Kingsguard so I don't know why she would view it as more improper. Technically a higher born lord would be similarly pledged to serve their Queen and yet such relations wouldn't be frowned upon at all. I think the series will put more emphasis on the issue of rank/status being a barrier, but without the physical element it doesn't make as much sense if she goes on to screw Daario.
Spoiler:
Ah, I'am not refering to his exile. I was refering to why Danny didn't fall for him and how it was coz he was ugly. Her discarding him is another thing entirely and had little to do with her not wanting him in that way. Was a shame that he couldn't realise that being contrite would have been better and that she didn't realise the parrallels with her own exile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
totalwar1402 wrote:she fantasises repeatedly about the former and yet realises she can't think that way about Jorah. So I assumed the person would have been quite ugly
Somebody doesn't have to be ugly to have no sex appeal.
And Xaro in the books was pale white, the actor is about as different as it can get
Well, the mans described like the bear he wears on his chest. ie Big, hairy, lovable, but you wouldn't want him sinking his claws into you. I can't quote where Danny says Jorah's not a looker, but the one on the GoT ain't that bad. I'll admit that Jorah is clumsy when it comes to romance, in fact its probably why he was only able to win his previous wifes favour by spending money to desperately try and make her happy. Daario is a charmer and a looker apparently(golden teeth apparently) so is the polar opposite of Jorah. The sellsword is all exterior beauty and mummers show whilst his motives are selfish n corrupt. Jorah is blunt, ugly, but loyal, sincere and smitten with love on the inside.
Spoiler:
I could imagine them both coming to blows in the Yunkai camp. But i hope Jorah doesn't kill him, because Danny definetly would not forgive that and IMO if she killed Jorah would be a totally stupid . I mean she actually knows Daario is a selfish bloodthirsty mercenary who feels nothing for her but describes it as love. Shes sixteen, does she not get that any experienced peasant with all his fingers and tongue could give her one?
I can understand the situation of Dany constantly refusing Jorah because 'he's not a looker' being highly confusing to non-book readers, but it's just a downside to the nesessities of filming the series really.
I mean, I know I sure as hell wouldn't watch any scene with Jorah if they'd actually made Ian Glen look like a manbear!
Hell, he'd remind me far too much at that point of the hairy beargut mamoth that lives across the street from me and likes to prance around without a shirt on all summer... (*curles into the fetal position*)
Still, I think there's alot more to come with the whole does she/doesn't she question with Dany & Jorah.
Spoiler:
He at least has to live long enough to vouch for Tyrion and have Dany ask for his forgiveness, otherwise her character will likely continue as a mopey train-wreck
dogma wrote:Her taste in men is based on her fear of power. But she doesn't really know what power is. It's a variation on the "I want a nice guy." syndrome.
Fear of power? I would have said the exact opposite. She says shes afraid of being dominated by Daario but she still wants him utterly because hes a tough guy and likes him because of his power. What do you mean by not know what power is?
I could get the like cruel boys thing. But Danny isn't a highschool student. Danny is
Spoiler:
Queen of Mereen, Mother of Dragons and Dovahkiin
and should really be surrounded by rakish suitors like Daario. It would be more understandable if she were having her cake and eating it rather than nibbling and calling it love. Just doesn't make sense. By all rights the woman should devalue the sort of affections Daario shows to her as a mummers show that any actor could pull.
Dany likes Daario because of his looks and the fact he's headstrong and impulsive with some mystical, unknown quality.
Jorah is pretty plain compared to him, nothing exotic about him at all, same with Ser Selmy, but he loves thew queen a subject loves, not in the carnal sense
Spoiler:
I did feel really sorry for the Martell boy, he was so innocent then got himself killed by playing with fire
I did not mind Dany taking a young exciting lover to take her mind off her other worries - she does not have the worry of becoming pregnant that often historical female rulers had and is an absolute monarch. I just wish she had been more hard line as Queen -- I had hoped Book 5 she would act that way but it was a more a filler book in the vein of the endless Wheel of Time.........and as for the extra characters - most of them held little or no interest to me. It took till the very end of Book 5 for her seemingly to get back to the old Dany.
Spoiler:
locking her dragons away was a majorily bad move as they with her unsullied, were her power base. Also the whole never actually meeting Tyrion was a really annoying plot - the two of them working together would have been a really interesting match up. Did not like the introduction of Dany's relative
Regarding appearance of characters - whilst pretty - the present actress does not fit my minds eye of the Queen of Dragons (everyone in the books describes her as tall and slender) - she plays the role well though. Again no issues with Ser Jorah appearance really.
Its not that she takes him as a lover. Its that she thinks she actually loves him; when really there are hundreds of men like him who would be just as willing to do her. I mean, I think women rulers like Catherine the Great had favourites whilst they juggled rakish suitors; but they never were mad enough to think about love. Its worse because Danny knows all of his flaws but just ignores them. I mean, you don't love somebody who you think doesn't feel anything for you as a person (even sexually she thinks he would discard her without being dragon queen), is repulsively bloodthristy and just wants to be King. She doesn't treat it as a shallow just sex relationship, which is both safer and more appropriate.
I quite liked Daenerys having a bit of puppy flesh on her in the series. Plus being short makes her seem more of an under-dog and generally shorter women are better proportioned IMO.
Mr Morden wrote:she does not have the worry of becoming pregnant
Spoiler:
Or does she?
bum Bum BUUUUMMMM
Spoiler:
As I read it not until the very end of book 5 is this posisble again?
Spoiler:
Exactly what is going on at the end of ADwD is unclear. Either she just got her period again, or she was actually pregnant and just suffered a miscarriage.
Either way, she thought she wasn't able to get pregnant, but Mirri Maz Duur didn't actually say that. In fact, she predicted Dany would have another child.
It will be interesting to see how the TV show influences the next novels...............for instance the excellent Bron appearing again
If anyone is bored, I did try and scribble some word how I would have prefered Dany to act in the most recent novels
Spoiler:
It was true that she still had nightmares about the mans daughter, horrific visions of the burning child in the claws and talons of her very own Drogon, yet even these nightmares would not separate her from her children.
She had tried to console herself with the thought that children died every day but that was cold comfort. A queen, even the Mother of Dragons, must make difficult choices, sacrifices even - and she better than most, understood this. One man had lost a child, had she not lost the same - and a husband too..........
Some had urged that she put aside her source of power and strength, confine them in a pit perhaps, separated from her love. This she would not do. Too many she had sworn to protect had already perished, dying at the hands of those who would see her lost, and she would not abandon any more and certainly not her children.
It was time that the city and people of Meereen learned who it was that ruled them - she was tired of the customs that they urged upon her - trying to make her acceptable to them. She had decided she could either be absorbed into their world or retain her true identity as the blood of the dragon, with all that that entailed. The people would have to accept her as she was - good and bad.
As she prepared for yet another appearance before the petitioners of her city, she disdained the tokar, something the Green Grace and others had advised against. Her costume was simple and accentuated her natural beauty whilst allowing her to move freely, something denied her by the favoured garment of the masters and mistresses of Meerem. It seemed her handmaidens approved, for their fussing on this morning was minimal and their chatter increased.
Entering the room, she was proceeded by Missandei, who smiled broadly before she announced the Queens entry into the hall.
"All kneel for Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Queen of Meeren, Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men. Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Breaker of shackles and.............." she paused for effect before her strong young voice finished on a crescendo "Mother of Dragons".
When Daenerys strode into the great audience chamber, it was silent and full of tension and all eyes were fixed upon her as she made her way past the unmoving but ever watchful Unsullied. Amongst the gathered courtiers, some faces were full of fear, others bore no expression but suspicion was evident in their eyes, yet many freedmen still obviously held her in high esteem, perhaps bordering on worship.
She did not glance upon those who stood awaiting her pleasure, their eyes following her slight form as it approached the marble steps where her advisors stood awaiting her. Even they looked uncomfortable at its summit, the cause of which was very evident to all in the room.
Curled around the sumptuous couch upon which the ruler of Meereen had traditionally received her peoples requests and occasionally demands, was the pale and sinuous length of a sleepy dragon. Viserion watched her approach with the slit eyes of a cat, smoke curling lazily from his nostrils, his long tail twitching occasionally across the warm marble - its surface heated by his very nature.
Pausing only to caress the white and gold head of the recumbent beast, Dany seated herself and looked down upon the court. Again the length of ivory tail flicked across the stone as the Dragon curled its head back to gaze upon its mother in evident adoration. The Queen of Meeren gazed upon her court, her fine teeth showing as she smiled, and those who looked upon her would later swear that they could see the predatory nature of her pale child mirrored in that smile......
Behind the queen stood two men whose expressions were at odds with the rest, satisfaction and anticipation warred with their obvious concern at the presence of the great reptile. Ser Barristan and Skahaz mo Kandaq were hard men and they were pleased that their patron seemed to have had enough of seeking to please everyone and had prepared a proclamation that would confirm this intention.
Conspicuous by his absence was Reznak mo Reznak who upon reading the list of pronouncements was seemingly overcome with fear and remorse - retiring directly to his rooms in the hope that "Her Radiance would reconsider her proposed actions." This she would not do, and at the urging of her more martial councillors, she had ordered that his quarters be closely watched lest he seek to warn others of her intentions, although she restrained them from outright violence against his person.
Daenerys had considered making the pronouncements herself but had, after due consideration, opted to allow her faithful Missandei to read the words. She did not look upon he girl as she drew breath to recite the words upon the scroll she had unsheathed, but instead her eyes swept across the courtiers as she prepared to gauge their reactions.
"Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Queen of Meeren has listened to the pleas of her subjects and will once more allow the fighting pits to open....Any freeman may try his sword in them, and in addition as per tradition, murderers and rapers may be forced to fight as well as all those who persist in slaving."
As instructed, Missandei paused a moment to allow her Queen to see how this was received and with a sinking heart Dany noted the ripple of pleasure and excitement sweep the room, from former slaver and freedman alike.
Does blood call to them this much, well then perhaps they would enjoy her next act?
"Our beloved Queen, the Breaker of shackles will not countenance the continued presence in her city of the cowardly murderers that hide in the shadows. Any that claim allegiance to these cutthroats will face her children in the pits, for they are not fit to face men in battle - instead they shall perish in fire and blood, feeding her children and making them and your Queen stronger.........." The murmurs ceased as the multitude absorbed her words.
Oh dear, does this shock you my bloodthirsty people, well you should not bait the dragon in her lair, for her anger is a fearful thing to behold..............
Dany switched her attention for a moment to little Missandei as she continued to speak. "To better protect her people, she will take under her wing a son from each of the Great Masters, that they may better understand our glorious regent and she might better comprehend her subjects. Escorts are on their way to make sure they reach her Pyramid safely and without interference from these skulking cutthroats." All patently understood her meaning and again the murmurs began..... Listen closely my children for I am not done yet....
"Our trusted servant, your very own Skahaz mo Kandaq will create a new watch, Meereenses will keep the peace in Meereen. It gladdens her heart that the Great Masters have agreed to each give a hundred pieces of gold for each soul taken by the thieves in the night to pay for this watch - rejoice that all are united in their efforts to stamp out this scourge."
Daenerys did not need to turn to see the smile upon the shaveplate's face, she had seen it blossom on his face when she had first announced it to her council, even as the blood drained from the that of Reznak. Ser Barristan had neither smiled nor flinched but she knew he understood and agreed, even if he did not enjoy or truly approve. She was not sure she did either, but she was a Queen now and hard was the throne upon which she sat.
She wondered what effect her words would have, would they make the situation worse or give her some respite from the murders in the night.....only time would tell.
apologies
)
nuts!