Re: Game of Thrones Discussion

by Gentleman Johnny Wed May 20, 2015 4:56 pm

And from a literary perpective, or even a film making one, that's a valid approach. Requiem For A Dream was an incredible, powerful movie that I never, ever want to see again.

by reboundstudent Wed May 20, 2015 5:01 pm

Gentleman Johnny wrote:And from a literary perpective, or even a film making one, that's a valid approach. Requiem For A Dream was an incredible, powerful movie that I never, ever want to see again.

Oh yeah, there are plenty of books and movies that I felt were amazing but were just too emotionally exhausting. Like I said, I'm just confused about this reaction now. I think that's partially because I assumed my interpretation (that this was a bleak, cynical break down of the fantasy genre) were a much more common reading, or that if someone was bothered by the violence themes, they would have left at earlier points. I just wonder why was this, in particular, the breaking point.

It's probably attributable to what Eselle said, that there aren't as many entertaining points alongside the awful to make it "worth it", but since I never found it all that entertaining on balance I think I struggle to understand that perspective.

by **Dan_Brodribb** Thu May 21, 2015 12:35 pm

I don't watch Game of Thrones, but I have been following the online reaction, and I've noticed a couple of things for myself.

One, that having not seen what everyone is talking about makes it easy for me to listen or read and understand where people are coming from. I don't have my own opinions on what I've seen getting in the way.

It feels freeing.

The other thing I'm noticing is how different an experience it is watching something that is part of a cultural conversation and something that isn't. With GoT and even the Mad Max discussion I get the sense that stating my public opinion on them is also taking a political position. Whether I like it or not is a marker for my politics, my artistic sensibilities, or my cultural identity.

In contrast, right now I'm watching season 2 of The Americans. I've seen almost nothing about it in the public consciousness. And it's such a different experience to be able to watch something and process it without feeling any sense of needing to Have an Opinion On It. Its like there is an empty space around the show, as opposed to movies or shows where every second is part of a discussion.

by bomaye Thu May 21, 2015 12:41 pm

I think it's kind of like a cost of watching. The cost of watching GoT is you will be grossed out or disturbed from time to time (that's what HBO deals in), but the characters and plot are such a benefit that you can deal with it.

The cost of watching the Ramsay storyline is larger than most of the others due to his character regularly being involved in extreme content, and as more characters get sucked into his orbit, they get involved in the extreme content and make the cost even higher. The benefit of seeing someone finally revenge kill him doesn't outweigh the cost, because there's nothing you can do now to make up for the lives of the characters he's ruined, and there's no real way his hideous actions add anything of value to the show. The cost is also more pronounced because the plot has slowed to a crawl for many of the characters and locales. The more extreme you get, the more of a balancing act is required, and the showrunners are increasingly losing their balance.

by **Enail** Thu May 21, 2015 2:47 pm

Going to follow Dan's lead in chiming in on stuff I'm not watching: It sounds like the showrunners don't necessarily realize that those 'extreme content' parts are a high cost segment for many viewers, and that they may even see them as deposits rather than withdrawals from the viewer bank of enjoyment (presumably they realize they're not fun to watch, but think they're exciting or intense or something else that adds rather than detracts).

by bomaye Fri May 22, 2015 5:49 pm

I stand corrected, there is something worthwhile that came out of the Ramsay/Theon story

by **eselle28** Tue May 26, 2015 5:47 pm

I suppose there wasn't any hope that the Sand Snakes would be cool after last week's embarrassing fighting scene, but couldn't they have been less egregiously uncool?

(It's Game of Thrones, so as usual, it's NSFW).

by bomaye Tue May 26, 2015 6:28 pm

I actually really liked that scene, it put Bronn in a place of weakness he's not usually in, which kind of establishes that if they can mess with the usually unflappable Bronn, they can mess with anyone

[Not a book reader though, I've a lot of book reader disappointment with the desert battle lesbians]

by **eselle28** Tue May 26, 2015 7:42 pm

bomaye wrote:I actually really liked that scene, it put Bronn in a place of weakness he's not usually in, which kind of establishes that if they can mess with the usually unflappable Bronn, they can mess with anyone

[Not a book reader though, I've a lot of book reader disappointment with the desert battle lesbians]

I thought it was a good scene for Bronn, but I thought it was a lazy one for the Sand Snakes. Sexual manipulation is well within their capabilities as a group, but I think I might have been more tolerant of a portrayal of it if the battle scene last week had been more effective or if the show had gone to the work of establishing that the Snakes weren't just capable of playing sexual mind games but also of engaging in diplomacy or hiding behind chaste, respectable reputations. The show tends to go toward nudity so often that I'd have appreciated it if they showed these women being scary in other ways.

Beyond that, this episode was an improvement over last week's, though.

by JP McBride Thu May 28, 2015 1:56 am

eselle28 wrote:I thought it was a good scene for Bronn, but I thought it was a lazy one for the Sand Snakes. Sexual manipulation is well within their capabilities as a group, but I think I might have been more tolerant of a portrayal of it if the battle scene last week had been more effective or if the show had gone to the work of establishing that the Snakes weren't just capable of playing sexual mind games but also of engaging in diplomacy or hiding behind chaste, respectable reputations. The show tends to go toward nudity so often that I'd have appreciated it if they showed these women being scary in other ways.

I think she was honestly flirting with him. It's subtle, but I think it shows in the way her sisters rolled their eyes, and in her "You're handsome, too" line at the end.

by Gentleman Johnny Thu May 28, 2015 5:05 am

Yeah, I think the key was that she actually has a soft spot for him. I mean, why save him otherwise?

by Andrew Corvero Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:44 pm

This is a show for masochists...the fact that I still like it says something about me I guess.

Spoiler:

by Gentleman Johnny Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:49 pm

by bomaye Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:09 pm

I unsuspended my disbelief and just sat through that scene thinking "the kid actress must've had a ton of fun screaming her brains out."

It was obvious she was going to be sacrificed at some point, buuut doesn't mean I wanted to see it

by Andrew Corvero Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:19 pm

bomaye wrote:I unsuspended my disbelief and just sat through that scene thinking "the kid actress must've had a ton of fun screaming her brains out."

It was obvious she was going to be sacrificed at some point, buuut doesn't mean I wanted to see it

Yes, I expected it, but then again as you said it doesn't really make it easier to stomach.

The only thing I didn't expect was for Selyse to show a little bit more humanity than Stannis, since she seemed to be more of a Lord of Light fanatic than he is and she also disliked her daughter.

I guess they wanted to make Stannis unsympathetic so that when he'll be crushed by the Boltons we won't miss him.

by Gentleman Johnny Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:26 pm

I hit the point in episode 6 where I no longer have any emotional investment in GoT except for Arya. So it was pretty much "oooo, Stannis evil. Dragon pretty!"

by **eselle28** Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:45 pm

I've been disconnected from the show recently as well, so it didn't really hit the same.

That being said, I think this has been a long time coming, whatever was in the books. I think Stannis has been headed down this path since Renly died. It's just that he's only been asked to take small steps until now.

by JP McBride Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:09 pm

Damn, I was hoping for Tommen + Shireen as a couple.

by reboundstudent Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:20 am

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/14/game-thrones-jon-dies-interview

So, yep, apparently in the show, Jon is really dead. So the whole story of who his real mother is, all the hints dropped throughout the season of the connection between the Starks and the Targaryens, Ghost.... all pretty much pointless. Once again, a shock character death is worth more than actual story progression or completion.

I sound bitter, and I am a little. I've had this complaint about GR Martin since the Red Wedding; characters end up in places and in situations not because of plot or character development, but because they are pieces of a chessboard, set up just in order to fall. Jon's death depends not only on his own stupidity (the guy who managed to survive as a double-agent among Wildings is too dumb to prepare against a mutiny), the stupidity of the Night's Watch (several witnessed the army of the dead, and yet somehow continue to think the Wildings are the bigger issue), and the convenient absence of a dire wolf. The presence of Melisandre at the Wall is apparently just to troll viewers.

I'll continue to watch the show, just to see how much bleaker it can get, but Harrington's interview seals it for me that this show is just one long, slow descent into the deconstruction of the fantasy happy ending (ie, everyone ends up dead or miserable.)

by **eselle28** Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:44 am

What? Really? I finished the episode nodding at my boyfriend and agreeing with him that Jon was going to be back next season. As you point out, this seems like one of the less "realistic" deaths when it comes to the character traits and motives involved. I'm also not sure how this mixes things up in any way. Some past major character deaths have been game-changers, and I'm confused what this will bring because it seems like the Night's Watch was and will continue to be in chaos. I suppose maybe Melisandre takes Jon's blood to Stannis?

Speaking of that, we had three ambiguous deaths this episode. If you want the audience to understand someone's dead, show them a body or a funeral. If you want to have a cliffhanger, don't give an interview the day after clarifying the character actually died. Hell, I'm not sure you should ever have to give an interview indicating a character actually died. I'd be very surprised if both Stannis and Myrcella are actually dead. My bet is that Myrcella really is a gonner and Brienne stops short of her swing because she sees Sansa and Theon.

There were some nice moments in that last episode, but I thought it had some of the show's usual frustrating notes. Sansa's character growth was to declare that she'd rather die than live like this and follow Theon in taking advantage of a quick moment to escape, which seems less than compelling. I thought the Cersei stuff mostly worked and was in character, though, and the idea of Tyrion ruling Mereen as part of a triumvirate sounds cool.

by reboundstudent Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:54 am

eselle28 wrote:What? Really? I finished the episode nodding at my boyfriend and agreeing with him that Jon was going to be back next season. As you point out, this seems like one of the less "realistic" deaths when it comes to the character traits and motives involved. I'm also not sure how this mixes things up in any way. Some past major character deaths have been game-changers, and I'm confused what this will bring because it seems like the Night's Watch was and will continue to be in chaos. I suppose maybe Melisandre takes Jon's blood to Stannis?

I thought Jon would be back as well, because killing him is just ridiculous when it comes to actual story development. Without Jon, one of the major, long-standing mysteries of the entire series is just useless trivia (his parentage), you have no PoV character at the Wall, you lose yet another protagonist, and the whole thing just looks like a giant "Gotcha!" Taking Jon's blood to Stannis, to me, doesn't really make sense.... but like you said, pretty much every death this episode was left ambiguous except Jon's, which is extremely annoying.

by **reboot** Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:03 pm

Do you think there is a chance that the interview was a bit of a disinformation campaign so that they can "Gotcha!" fans if Jon comes back in a not quite Jon-like form? I could see the marketing department pitching something like that

by **eselle28** Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:14 pm

reboot wrote:Do you think there is a chance that the interview was a bit of a disinformation campaign so that they can "Gotcha!" fans if Jon comes back in a not quite Jon-like form? I could see the marketing department pitching something like that

At this point, I'm just going to keep on pretending that it has. Kit Harrington said pretty definitively that he's not coming back, which makes me think that this is the end of Jon as we know him, but I'm going to cross my fingers that we get lots of shots of a walker or Ghost.

by Gentleman Johnny Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:35 pm

Until next year, anyway.

by **Werel** Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:15 pm

Man, boyfriend + I had just concluded definitively that Jon was not really dead. Not gonna place any bets on our TV intuition, I guess.

Piddly joy after sick-watching the whole season in two days: Samwell + Gilly. There's a little something titillating in this show for almost everyone's tastes. (And then like ten times as much sickening boner-killing atrocity, but hey.)

by Sponsored content