Season 3 Episode 9: Have NOT read the books/BEWARE SPOILERS MOD NOTE POST #1

pixelburp

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except that Shakespeare, as with many storytellers, sought to maintain a moral balance - while his heros were tragic and often died at the end, so too did the villains and overall good always triumphed over evil.

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that - from what I recall of plays such as Richard II, the nominal 'villain' triumphed, insofar as feuding royals can be good/bad Been a while since I saw it, so I could stand corrected.

The Corinthian wrote: »

GoT actively rejects moral balance in favour of realism; as with history, the good guys do not always win, the bad guys do not always get their just deserts and death is not always the closure we are expecting but, as with life, random, unexpected and often pointless.

It creates an untraditional narrative that flies in the face of accepted practice, which is quite brave, IMO, as it has to be twice as clever to keep the attention of the audience to compensate for not delivering the expected, and clichéd, pay-off. For anyone, like me, who is weary of watching or reading something where you can roughly predict how it ends, from page one, based upon these conventions, it's a breath of fresh air.

Fair enough, though I would go back to something I said earlier in the thread that GoT has become somewhat predictable in its attempted randomness; now this is more the fault of the showmakers, reserving your Big Bad Moment for Episode 9 has already become a trope - I was expecting something to happen & wasn't disappointed - and when your stories become infamous for offing characters at the drop of a hat, I've begun to expect these sorts of things to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I do admire GoT for bucking convention - I don't want people thinking that I'm picking on it for the sake of it, it's undoubtedly one of the better shows on TV - but that particular moment felt less like a clever subversion, and more a case of the author simply trying to get a reaction. Like I said, trolling. Jamie's loss of his hand felt more of a shocking, organic moment.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So suggesting that one is better off with a soap opera is not so daft an idea. What it suggests is that if you really cannot deal with a story that does not follow the traditional adherence to moral balance, then perhaps you should stick to stories that do.

Which is all eloquently put, and I accept what you're saying and the idea of talking about it, however I don't think the snarky, dismissive comments really contribute much. We shouldn't be reduced to an either / or situation where if you didn't think the moment entirely worked, you're clearly only suited to soap-opera and begone with you!

With the episode a few days old now, I don't feel as annoyed by events as I was initially, and I certainly didn't feel the same unbridled upset that others seem to have experienced. I've come to accept this being a part of the GoT world, sh*t happens, even if I don't think it necessarily always works. I have much bigger problems with other parts of the show & elements such as its misogyny, but they weren't part of this episode so won't bang that drum.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Sadism towards imaginary characters? Are you for real?

Don't take it so literally. Swap out 'sadism' for whatever term you prefer, but authors have commented in the past about how when writing their characters they can become quite emotionally invested in their creations; to the point where putting them through the emotional wringer can cause feelings of guilt or discomfort. If you've written your character so completely they feel real, to then crush those characters so thoroughly, there's a sense of sadism, sure..

K_user

Penn wrote: »

I can see why she was killed, but at the same time, I think it's a shame for the show and books to lose her because I thought she was a great character, and would have liked to have seen her still be in the show. I just think she's a bigger loss character-wise than Robb or his wife.

But having someone like Cat die just illustrates how vulnerable the characters are.

Think about it this way. Cat was at a wedding, surrounded by people she had known most of her life, had an army outside the door and was brutally slain.

Does Arya's walk in the forest sound like fun any more?

K_user

loveisdivine wrote: »

Just incase anyone doesn't already know this, stay away from Frankie Boyle's twitter, facebook etc. He is posting short sharp and massive spoilers from all the books. He ruined some major stuff for me the other day (Obviously I removed him from everything since) and I've heard he was doing it again last night/this morning.

Trying to drum up numbers for his show then... :rolleyes:

Gbear

On the brutality of the wedding, one argument I've seen is that "we already know that the world is brutal, we didn't need that idea reinforced". The same argument has been made about Joffrey's actions this season.

To me that's putting the cart before the horse. The red wedding happened because it's completely in keeping with the brutality of the world and the narrative.

Robb's story had run it's course. Ok, he could've taken Casterly Rock, but ultimately it's the enormous Tyrell/Baratheon (a lot of Renly's bannermen)/Lannister army against an ever dwindling army of Northerners. They were doomed.
And it's not like the Wedding itself was deus ex machina - it was obvious in hindsight.

Kold

People are snapping at this argument because frankly, it's absurd. The fantasy genre predates GoT and has always been divided by lovey dovey good will prevail tripe and the authors that went darker. So a key demographic of the show is the people that love the darkness but the show has outgrown the demographic and as such, is mainstream. It's why I don't watch The Walking Dead. I've read the comics for a few years and it's a fantastic concept; what happens if we don't cut to credits and the journey keeps going? What happens when society as we have all known it since child starts decaying and man switches from altruistic to self centred? The show up to as far as I watched it chose to bottle some of the more brutal events (kids murdering kids and cannibalism and such) in order to appeal to a wider audience. Yeah well f*ck that.

People complaining that they like the show and the storylines but don't like the brutality... You do know that there are other shows out there? Other fantasy worlds by other authors? Just because this one is on HBO and one of the most watched shows, you don't have to watch it if you don't like it. Some of us like to be challenged, it's not a fault of the author or the showmakers if you don't.

Either way, the way this episode has been received can probably be regarded as a huge success. I said earlier that I saw it coming, sure a little shocked but Ned's beheading shocked me more.

--Kaiser--

K_user wrote: »

We are now reminded that this story can go anywhere. That our favourite characters can be killed. That each scene with Tyrion, Jon, Dany, Arya, Jorah, is precious. We, the audience, now have fear. We have been sucked in.

That's what I'm talking about. I usually dislike biopic films and (to a lesser extent) historical dramas. Why? Because when we know what's going to happen it takes away the suspense. Likewise a franchise film like the James Bond series. You know he's not going to die so there's that much suspense taken out of every action scene. In ASOIAF/GOT we don't have any such foresight and it's one of the great things about it

Playboy

pixelburp wrote: »

*shrug* I've generally enjoyed series 3, especially when the episodes have had a tight focus on 2/3 characters; I thought the other big shock of the series - Jamie's mutilation - worked better as a narrative device, and you could see how it changed things (for Jamie especially, obviously enough!) in a subtler way that affects the characters.

The massacre just left me feeling hollow, and cheated because those characters' arcs, having been teased and pulled along for a while, are then just dispensed with. Of course it only just happened so I guess best to wait and see what ep10 throws up.

We'll see the fallout - my first instinct is to wonder if the Lannisters / Boltons have gone and created a set of martyrs (given Rob's apparent popularity) but I just react badly to any writer that arbitrarily makes a sudden gear-change in the narrative, purely to shock the audience rather than grow the story. Smacks of desperation, but that's just me & personal preference in writing

I should also point out that I didn't actually like Rob in the first place; some of his dialogue with Talisa was pretty awful & his actions seemed as lunk-headed as his father's at times.
I had actually presumed he'd lose at Casterlay Rock, perhaps lose Talisa *somehow* then have to return home to a ruined Winterfell, White Walkers at the door & a world he couldn't simply charge into battle over. I guess not!

Really bemused by this perception of the events. The show is an adaption of the books and it was always going to be a struggle to condense a huge amount of material into a ten episode season. What GRRM does in the books is to masterfully create a story that reflects the brutality of a world in a way that not only keeps the reader on the edge of their seat throughout but continues to shock his audience without undermining the meta arc of the plot. Bad things happen to good people in real life. Just because Robb, Caitlyn and Eddard suffered a horrible end does not mean that the author was using cheap tricks to elicit a reaction. In any war there is going to be casualties on both sides but that doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in the characters. By investing in characters that are killed off the reader/viewer becomes more attuned to the horror of what war really is and in the end how notions of honor, power, greed etc are futile justifications for it.

royster999

Is Kings Landing safe from the white walkers (whenever they arrive) given that Walder Frey controls access at the Twins and his alliance to the Lannisters?

DL Saint

royster999 wrote: »

Is Kings Landing safe from the white walkers (whenever they arrive) given that Walder Frey controls access at the Twins and his alliance to the Lannisters?

Well we really do not know enough about the capabilities of the White Walkers to be able to say what will happen. They may be able to walk under water or they could just kill the Frey family. I would never have thought Kings Landing was in any way safe from them...

Syferus

I'm surprised at the love Catelyn gets. She's flawed but has shown herself to be incredibly selfish throughout the series. Kidnapping Tyrion, her hatred for Jon, letting him be sent to the Wall, releasing Jaime.

To me Robb's death was the one that tugged at me, he may have done some stupid things but he remained true to who he was and to who his father raised him to be to the end. Killing Frey's wife was as fitting an end as you're likely to find for Catelyn's arc.

One thing that did get to me was the fact she died believing Bran and Rickon were dead, that there was no hope left for the Starks. No one deserved that.

I think the scene that's getting overlooking with the wedding massacre is Jon abandoning Yigrette. His affection has been eroded for her somewhat because even if she killed the horse farmer to spare him he is a Stark and it would disgust his moral values. To see her fighting so hard for him only for him to disregard her like that was a big turn for their relationship, if it even exists at all now.

Handsome Bob

K_user wrote: »

A story comes from conflict.

This would actually be my one criticism actually. The Starks have been out thought and out moved basically every step of the way by the Lannisters. It's a one sided conflict really.

I know people will say that this show isn't about the Starks but TBH, I still see them as the main protagonists. Catelyn, Robb, Jon, Ned (in season 1), Bran, Sansa and Arya wouldn't have so much focus in the show if they weren't.

So there is something very dis-satisfying about seeing them get obliterated from a story point of view. Maybe it's just me but the Starks are a big reason why I got into this show and kept watching so maybe that's why I'm slightly downbeat about where it all goes from here. The conflict between Lannister, Baratheon & Dany to a lesser extent just won't have the same interest for me.

podgemonster

While GoT IS a ficticious tale but inspired by actual events which show the true motives of what man is actually capable of and the uncertainty of life and the brutality of murder. Robb didn't die like Hamlet he died like Robert Kennedy, Michael Collins, Martin Luther King or the Douglas Clan. Good men who fall victim to a cruel world they have put themselves in.

I find we almost have been housetrained by the sugarcoated arts around us to expect honour and good to triumph. Most productions allow people with morals to overcome, to have the good guy ride off into the sunset or at least die with honour like Hamlet or Bruce Willis in Armaggeddon (first thing that popped in my head, sorry). Naturally 99% of all childrens literature and films have this as it inspire and more than likely has a good influence, we grew up lapping this up.

What Martin has done here is deviated from "The Plan". And hence this is the reason for some of the backlash.

The Joker wrote:

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

Do you ever just think just how convienient all those action movies are, Speed, Die Hard etc... every single James Bond, most comic book movies, every rom-com. Love pre-vails, evil is defeated, bad men are stopped, innocence saved. (naturally there are some execptions)

But here are the Red Wedding (refreshingly for me), love is punished, innocence killed and ultimately honour and loyalty cast aside. This is part of the reason of the popularity of the books and the series.

Anyone can be killed.

Finally i think we must look beyond the simple Stark vs. Lannister to the broader tapestry that Martin has created to see the full narrative as opposed to the narritive of a few characters albeit "good" characters.

RIP The Young Wolf

Penn

Syferus wrote: »

I think the scene that's getting overlooking with the wedding massacre is Jon abandoning Yigrette. His affection has been eroded for her somewhat because even if she killed the horse farmer to spare him he is a Stark and it would disgust his moral values. To see her fighting so hard for him only for him to disregard her like that was a big turn for their relationship, if it even exists at all now.

Personally I saw him abandoning her as his way of saving her. Redbeard (forget his name) would have killed her otherwise, and even though she went to side with Jon, him leaving her means she'd likely be accepted back by the Wildlings. Even if Jon managed to kill Redbeard and take Ygritte to Castle Black, the Watch would have killed her because she's a wildling and the Watch has no women.

I think he does love her, but he knows what his duty is and what would happen if the Wildlings succeeded.

Syferus

Penn wrote: »

Personally I saw him abandoning her as his way of saving her. Redbeard (forget his name) would have killed her otherwise, and even though she went to side with Jon, him leaving her means she'd likely be accepted back by the Wildlings. Even if Jon managed to kill Redbeard and take Ygritte to Castle Black, the Watch would have killed her because she's a wildling and the Watch has no women.

I think he does love her, but he knows what his duty is and what would happen if the Wildlings succeeded.

I think it's clear he paid zero attention to her, he just got on a horse and went to warn the Watch and/or to chase the hawk.

If he was trying to save her by leaving there would almost certainly have been at least a reaction shot of his face to telegraph it. He didn't care about her in that split second. The Watch came first.

Mr.Prodston

Also the fact that the wildlings were about to KILL Jon may have influenced his swift departure

Syferus

Syferus wrote: »

I think it's clear he paid zero attention to her, he just got on a horse and went to warn the Watch and/or to chase the hawk.

If he was trying to save her by leaving there would almost certainly have been at least a reaction shot of his face to telegraph it. He didn't care about her in that split second. The Watch came first.

I thought it was interesting the comparison between Robb and John. Robb paid the ultimate penalty for falling for a young wan when he had an oath otherwise.

At least at the moment it seems for John that his oath has come first which I think is an interesting distinction between the two. I suppose it depends on what John does next, whether he goes back to the crows or tries to rescue*? Ygritte.

kjl

Not a book reader here, but I think the development in last nights episode could be best for Arya. All she has to do now is meet the man with no face and be trained by him.

K_user

Handsome Bob wrote: »

This would actually be my one criticism actually. The Starks have been out thought and out moved basically every step of the way by the Lannisters. It's a one sided conflict really.

I know people will say that this show isn't about the Starks but TBH, I still see them as the main protagonists. Catelyn, Robb, Jon, Ned (in season 1), Bran, Sansa and Arya wouldn't have so much focus in the show if they weren't.

So there is something very dis-satisfying about seeing them get obliterated from a story point of view. Maybe it's just me but the Starks are a big reason why I got into this show and kept watching so maybe that's why I'm slightly downbeat about where it all goes from here. The conflict between Lannister, Baratheon & Dany to a lesser extent just won't have the same interest for me.

I understand where you are coming from, but the story wouldn't be as interesting if everything went the way of Ned, Catelyn, Robb and Jon.

If they bested the Lannisters at every turn then it would be more akin to a inspector gadget story - "I'll get you next time gadget".

The Starks as a family are/were the "good guys". They weren't perfect. They had issues. But as a whole they are honest lot.

However they aren't out of it yet. Sansa, Arya, Bran, Jon and the youngers are still there, along with the core beliefs of the family.

In a way you could say that Stark children are now in the same position that Dany was. They are parent-less. Their older siblings murdered. They have lost station, position, title and land. Their usefulness is now all in their name.

Where to next?

The Corinthian

pixelburp wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that - from what I recall of plays such as Richard II, the nominal 'villain' triumphed, insofar as feuding royals can be good/bad Been a while since I saw it, so I could stand corrected.

There's no real villain there, per say. Henry IV maybe, but he ends up having to do penance for his supposed crimes in the end.

Fair enough, though I would go back to something I said earlier in the thread that GoT has become somewhat predictable in its attempted randomness;

That's life innit? The only thing you can rely upon is that you can't rely upon anything, in the end.

Don't get me wrong, I do admire GoT for bucking convention - I don't want people thinking that I'm picking on it for the sake of it, it's undoubtedly one of the better shows on TV - but that particular moment felt less like a clever subversion, and more a case of the author simply trying to get a reaction.

Fair enough, but a shocking twist near the end is not really a new device, is it? Keyser Söze anyone?

Which is all eloquently put, and I accept what you're saying and the idea of talking about it, however I don't think the snarky, dismissive comments really contribute much. We shouldn't be reduced to an either / or situation where if you didn't think the moment entirely worked, you're clearly only suited to soap-opera and begone with you!

Which is also fair enough and to a degree, I think people may be unfairly painting you with the same brush as those idiots in the YouTube video posted earlier who screamed and hid behind the cushions and then swore off the series. However, your criticisms now and those you (or whoever did so) came out with that prompted such 'soap opera' comments are not exactly the same - they're a lot more reasoned now. They sounded more like moral outrage earlier.

I have much bigger problems with other parts of the show & elements such as its misogyny, but they weren't part of this episode so won't bang that drum.

Again, that's what medieval society was like; what do you think chivalry was based upon where it came to women?

Honestly, I abhor this need to censor historical attitudes in fiction (or sometimes even in the retelling of fact) because they 'offend' our more enlightened modern ones.

K_user

podgemonster wrote: »

Finally i think we must look beyond the simple Stark vs. Lannister to the broader tapestry that Martin has created to see the full narrative as opposed to the narritive of a few characters albeit "good" characters.

Exactly, this was a point that I was supposed to make earlier.

The Freys, the Boltons, the Tyrells, as a collective are "minor" characters in this tale. However they aren't just there to fill in the blanks, to come to life when the Starks, or the Lannisters, need something. Their motives are their own and GoT allows them to plot just as much as the "major" characters.

pixelburp

Well regardless of what anyone thought of the Wedding scene, I think we can all agree that the publicity it received has probably pushed Game of Thrones into a bone fide phenomenon (if it wasn't already) & it's hard to see how HBO won't already be planning for series 5 onwards, given we know series 4 is definitely happening.

I saw the Twitter explosions and tbh for all the bluster and swearing, people will be back, glued to their TV. I may not agree with the scene's intentions, but I admire the affect it has had on the audience. You can't buy that kind of publicity!

The Corinthian

podgemonster wrote: »

But here are the Red Wedding (refreshingly for me), love is punished, innocence killed and ultimately honour and loyalty cast aside.

Apparently, Talisa does not appear in the books and her part goes to another character, whom Rob seduces and 'deflowers'. Feeling responsible for having 'ruined' her, he marries her. Chivalrous honour and not love is seemingly the major factor in the decision.

I suspect the creation of Talisa and making her a true love match was designed to increase the shock and moral outrage of the Red Wedding, in the series.

Syferus

pixelburp wrote: »

Well regardless of what anyone thought of the Wedding scene, I think we can all agree that the publicity it received has probably pushed Game of Thrones into a bone fide phenomenon (if it wasn't already) & it's hard to see how HBO won't already be planning for series 5 onwards, given we know series 4 is definitely happening.

I saw the Twitter explosions and tbh for all the bluster and swearing, people will be back, glued to their TV. I may not agree with the scene's intentions, but I admire the affect it has had on the audience. You can't buy that kind of publicity!

It had reached the phenomenon stage a few episodes into season one, such was the pre-release hype that surrounded it. A good sign for everyone who wants to see this story have a conclusion is that rather than tailing off three seasons in popularity seems to be increasing.

The big question looming over the show now isn't will we get a load more of it but what is the plan if they reach the end most recent book? Will Martin share his rough outline for the conclusion of the series or will he force them to go it alone? Will the quality of the show worsen? Will the pace improve?

Pepe LeFrits

Syferus wrote: »

Will Martin share his rough outline for the conclusion of the series or will he force them to go it alone?

I believe he already has.

Paddy Cow

Syferus wrote: »

The big question looming over the show now isn't will we get a load more of it but what is the plan if they reach the end most recent book? Will Martin share his rough outline for the conclusion of the series or will he force them to go it alone? Will the quality of the show worsen? Will the pace improve?

He's already given producers an overview, just in case he dies unexpectedly.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Precious flower wrote: »

Is it bad when you feel more emotion when one direwolve is shot then when a load of main characters are slaughtered?:o I WANT A DIREWOLF!:(

Acting the buzzkill here, but they're actually Northern Inuit Dogs.

pixelburp

The Corinthian wrote: »

[...]
Which is also fair enough and to a degree, I think people may be unfairly painting you with the same brush as those idiots in the YouTube video posted earlier who screamed and hid behind the cushions and then swore off the series. However, your criticisms now and those you (or whoever did so) came out with that prompted such 'soap opera' comments are not exactly the same - they're a lot more reasoned now. They sounded more like moral outrage earlier.

Hmm, well whatever else I feel about the episode, I would never describe myself as having any "moral outrage" about it; it certainly wasn't where I was coming from or the intention If I had any moral outrage, it has long since disappeared after the baby-killing, incest, and sundry other outrages already committed by the show! What's a little massacre among friends? I just didn't like the scene from a narrative PoV, how it used its characters, but hey-ho we shall move on I guess; one more episode to go - and 70 minutes as well apparently, so I guess we might get a fair bit of closure on some threads (insofar as this show is capable/willing)

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, that's what medieval society was like; what do you think chivalry was based upon where it came to women?

Honestly, I abhor this need to censor historical attitudes in fiction (or sometimes even in the retelling of fact) because they 'offend' our more enlightened modern ones.

As I said, I don't want to bang the drum because there was less evidence in that episode than previous so it's not entirely relevant, but I think GoT has handled the gender divide a little less artfully than something like HBO's Rome managed back in the day (now there was a show cruelly ended before its time) In a similar heavy-historical setting - more so really - it achieved a more subtle, mature & intriguing portrayal of women striving in a restrictive world; GoT comes across as a bit adolescent sometimes, over-egging the pudding in places. But again, not necessarily related to the episode just aired, so we can take it to another thread is needs be

calabi yau

Did anyone else find the scenes at Walder Freis gaff darkly hillarious, including the Red Wedding. I would be the first to admit I watch GOT to witness the many and varied ways the characters are killed / dismembered

LionelNashe

What is Mance Raider or whatever his name is, and Jon, Ygette, and the Warg etc. doing south of the wall with only a couple of dozen companions? I gathered that they were on their way to attack Castle Black, but I don't know why there are so few of them or why they'd even bother to attack the castle.

Agricola

I think it was me that prompted the "go watch soap operas" comment! Personally I think that was a little unfair, I like to branch out from Coronation St now and again!

I have no truck with Martin or what he does with his characters. The whole thing is a fiction of his making and he can kill off whoever he likes. As Pixelburp said before, we can all salute the fact that hes breaking convention and giving us something very different - a story with (so far) no moral balancing. The good guys dont always win, no one is safe. If you wanted to keep an audience on the edge of their seat, there is no better way of doing it.

My only personal dislike is the manner in which these deaths occur. Im not discounting for a second that medieval life was short and brutal, life was cheap. This may be a very accurate depiction of it. But..... GOT is still a fictitious narrative, designed to entertain, and my personal preference would be for a small bit of catharsis for the viewer from time to time. Give the people the audience are rooting for a small victory, or at the very least, some mercy. Its hard to digest when long standing characters are Quentin Tarrantino'ed, for what looks like very little purpose other than to illicit the greatest shock value.

Im certainly not morally outraged though and no abuse was shouted at the TV! Its great stuff whatever way you look at it.