Game of Thrones Season 3

Off Topic
183

[quote]Ironwarrior25 wrote:

[quote]Irish Daza wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
I havent gotten to the “red wedding” in the books yet, but can someone explain the difference between the book and show? [/quote]

Jeyne doesn’t come to the twins.

The Band plays really badly (not real musicians - crossbowmen)
Catelyn is suspiscious and only relaxes one she forces Walder to share salt. Grey Wind starts acting up and Rob agrees to have him locked up against his mother’s wishes.
There is a deliberate attempt to get GreatJohn Umber drunk (he still puts up a decent fight when things go pearshaped)
As soon as The Rains of Castermere starts it all goes to hell in a handbasket.
Catelyn’s hostage is an idiot nephew not the wife.
There is more detail in the massacre of the troops (three large tents for the feast dropped on Rob’s troops and set on fire with them in them.

That’s all I noticed[/quote]

Can’t wait to catch up with the books, just struggling to find the time at the moment. He has certainly shown he is not afraid to have some shocking events in the plot. Anyone know when the next book is out, can’t seem to find anything on the internet.
[/quote]

No one knows when. What do you mean can’t find the time? It’s only 5000 or so pages.

184

[quote]Irish Daza wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
I havent gotten to the “red wedding” in the books yet, but can someone explain the difference between the book and show? [/quote]

Jeyne doesn’t come to the twins.

The Band plays really badly (not real musicians - crossbowmen)
Catelyn is suspiscious and only relaxes one she forces Walder to share salt. Grey Wind starts acting up and Rob agrees to have him locked up against his mother’s wishes.
There is a deliberate attempt to get GreatJohn Umber drunk (he still puts up a decent fight when things go pearshaped)
As soon as The Rains of Castermere starts it all goes to hell in a handbasket.
Catelyn’s hostage is an idiot nephew not the wife.
There is more detail in the massacre of the troops (three large tents for the feast dropped on Rob’s troops and set on fire with them in them.

That’s all I noticed[/quote]

thanks, good episode and it was all good until they killed the wolf. that pissed me off

185

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Irish Daza wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
I havent gotten to the “red wedding” in the books yet, but can someone explain the difference between the book and show? [/quote]

Jeyne doesn’t come to the twins.

The Band plays really badly (not real musicians - crossbowmen)
Catelyn is suspiscious and only relaxes one she forces Walder to share salt. Grey Wind starts acting up and Rob agrees to have him locked up against his mother’s wishes.
There is a deliberate attempt to get GreatJohn Umber drunk (he still puts up a decent fight when things go pearshaped)
As soon as The Rains of Castermere starts it all goes to hell in a handbasket.
Catelyn’s hostage is an idiot nephew not the wife.
There is more detail in the massacre of the troops (three large tents for the feast dropped on Rob’s troops and set on fire with them in them.

That’s all I noticed[/quote]

thanks, good episode and it was all good until they killed the wolf. that pissed me off
[/quote]

It’ll piss you off more if they show you what they do with it in the book.

186

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

It’ll piss you off more if they show you what they do with it in the book.[/quote]

Well… We don’t know that that isn’t still going to happen next episode?

187

[quote]Irish Daza wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

It’ll piss you off more if they show you what they do with it in the book.[/quote]

Well… We don’t know that that isn’t still going to happen next episode?[/quote]

any stark chapter in the book is now being skipped unless it’s arya.

188

[quote]Aggv wrote:
thanks, good episode and it was all good until they killed the wolf. that pissed me off
[/quote]
Lol. Did you notice in some of those reaction videos the girls were like shocked, but kinda okay right up until they killed the wolf with it’s little whimper; then they fuckin lost it lol.

189

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Irish Daza wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

It’ll piss you off more if they show you what they do with it in the book.[/quote]

Well… We don’t know that that isn’t still going to happen next episode?[/quote]

any stark chapter in the book is now being skipped unless it’s arya. [/quote]

Aggv - don’t do that

Apparently GRRM has tons of extra Arya chapters that didn’t make the edit/publish cut. So know that even the author himself is with you, but also that everything printed kinda do matter.

190

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Irish Daza wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

It’ll piss you off more if they show you what they do with it in the book.[/quote]

Well… We don’t know that that isn’t still going to happen next episode?[/quote]

any stark chapter in the book is now being skipped unless it’s arya. [/quote]

Don’t think that’ll help you anyway, IIRC you hear about the point in question second hand in someone else’s chapter.

I don’t think they’ll show it but will be pretty brutal if they do.

191

I suspect they will show the massacre of the entire army in the next episode as they show the aftermath of the red wedding. I too am wondering if the wolf situation will happen then as well.

I think it kind of has to unless they roll over it later on in the series. It does play a part in a certain person’s actions if I remember correctly

192

Loved how they made the audience wait for like 10 solid seconds before slitting Cat’s throat.

The first book (and season) make it seem as if the Starks are the perspective we are supposed to see the plot-line from and that they are the “good guys”.

It’s right around this part where I realized that’s the wrong mentality to take, especially since we start seeing things from Jaime’s (and eventually Cersei’s) perspective.

By the way what’s the deal with Theon? In the books they just turn him into Reek, but what’s going on here? Is that guy torturing him Ramsey?

As for the people who haven’t read the books, you can believe one of two things:

A) It gets better
B) It gets even worse

I think you know which one it is.

193

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
Loved how they made the audience wait for like 10 solid seconds before slitting Cat’s throat.

The first book (and season) make it seem as if the Starks are the perspective we are supposed to see the plot-line from and that they are the “good guys”.

It’s right around this part where I realized that’s the wrong mentality to take, especially since we start seeing things from Jaime’s (and eventually Cersei’s) perspective.

By the way what’s the deal with Theon? In the books they just turn him into Reek, but what’s going on here? Is that guy torturing him Ramsey?

As for the people who haven’t read the books, you can believe one of two things:

A) It gets better
B) It gets even worse

I think you know which one it is. [/quote]

Yes, it is the Bastard of Bolton.

194

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
Loved how they made the audience wait for like 10 solid seconds before slitting Cat’s throat.

The first book (and season) make it seem as if the Starks are the perspective we are supposed to see the plot-line from and that they are the “good guys”.

It’s right around this part where I realized that’s the wrong mentality to take, especially since we start seeing things from Jaime’s (and eventually Cersei’s) perspective.

By the way what’s the deal with Theon? In the books they just turn him into Reek, but what’s going on here? Is that guy torturing him Ramsey?

As for the people who haven’t read the books, you can believe one of two things:

A) It gets better
B) It gets even worse

I think you know which one it is. [/quote]

I think it was Jamie who said something along the lines of every villain thinks he’s the hero and the other perspectives later on (Cercei, Jamie, etc.) support that theory. Cercei thinks everyone is out to get her and she thinks she’s the cleverest Lannister ever …

I think GRRM does this so we see how everything isn’t black and white, evil or good but everyone is very complex and have rationalized their actions to align with their own perspective (sometimes to the point of cognitive dissonance).

Also, about Theon in the show v. book … in the show there was/is no such thing as a Reek. Also, in the book Reek was really Ramsay masquerading as Reek to save his own skin. Also, in the book when we’re reintroduced to Theon/Reek all the results of his torture were revealed in detail to us but that can’t really happen to the same effect in the show so they are showing it to us.

195

[quote]magick wrote:
Having Talisa instead of Jeyne in the T.V. show certainly did add to the shock value of the scene. I would imagine most people freaked out simply because of the brutal way in which Talisa dies more than the shock of seeing Robb and his entire party get massacred.

And Robb’s face at seeing the whole thing is “priceless”. I can’t imagine the shock of seeing your pregnant wife get stabbed, especially when you’re not even over 20…

That being said, removing Jeyne did make Robb look more like a good guy than he really is. I mean, the only reason he married Jeyne (and effectively fucked his entire cause in the process) was because he slept with her. In the T.V. show, Robb marries Talisa because he’s in love with her. Obviously marrying someone out of love rather than out of duty sounds better. I don’t think people would have been nearly as shocked if things went exactly as they did in the book.

Which is why this T.V. show is more awesome than the book in certain ways. It actually knows how to deal with the source material.[/quote]

I disagree with making Robb look better than he really was (in the literary sense). In the case of Jeyne, he owned up to his action of sleeping with her by marrying her, showing responsibility for his actions. This USED to be a mark of honor: owning up to your actions. In the show, we see him back out of his supposed “duty” (marrying a Frey) to marry “on whim”, while in the book, he acts out of responsibility. I’d venture to say that his actions in the book make him look more appealing as a leader, and give the Frey’s less offense (which would make the massacre even more shocking).

In terms of dramatic effect, having Talisa is much more compelling, only because of the interchange between Robb and Talisa concerning naming the prospective boy Eddard Stark. To have all three lives destroyed in a sudden, under handed manner is much more heart-wrenching. that is what got me.

I have no opinion, though on what was better story-wise. Both have their pros and cons, from my perspective.

196

I think the Starks WERE the good guys (I mean, even Theon acknowledged that he loved Ned as a father and saw Winterfell as his home), but that doesn’t mean that the “bad guys” don’t have redeeming qualities.

In that regard, this shift makes sense because the only Starks remaining are Arya, Sansa, Bran, and Jon Snow, with Arya and Bran being minorities and on the run and whom we don’t know much about, and Sansa enslaved by a forced marriage to Tyrion. This means that Jon Snow is the only Stark of consequence (in terms of sympathy and political/plot interest) at this juncture. There is no choice but to see things from a different perspective.

The dead Starks all have counterparts among the Lannisters/Royal family. Ned:Tywin, Cat:Cercei, Robb:Jaime. Jon Snow is the only “viable” Stark left, politically speaking, and he has no counterpart (perhaps you could argue Tyrion, both being the black sheep). I think the presence of such obvious “good guys” made it really hard to see beyond a certain perspective with other characters like Cercei, Jaime, Tywin, etc. Robb, Cat, and Ned acted like a counter-point to them. You can’t look at Cercei without comparing her to Cat. You can’t look at Jaime without comparing him to Robb. With Robb and Cat both gone, those comparisons are gone as well. You need to look at Jaime without the “goodness” of Robb overshadowing. You need to look at Cercei without the “virtue” of Cat overshadowing.

I could be wrong, though…that’s the great thing about literature.

197

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
I think the presence of such obvious “good guys” made it really hard to see beyond a certain perspective with other characters… You need to look at Jaime without the “goodness” of Robb overshadowing. You need to look at Cercei without the “virtue” of Cat overshadowing.
[/quote]

That’s a good point, and the new ability to empathise with the “baddies” mirrors the situation that many of the lords of Westeros must be in when their allegiance shifts.

198

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

I think the Starks WERE the good guys (I mean, even Theon acknowledged that he loved Ned as a father and saw Winterfell as his home), but that doesn’t mean that the “bad guys” don’t have redeeming qualities.

In that regard, this shift makes sense because the only Starks remaining are Arya, Sansa, Bran, and Jon Snow, with Arya and Bran being minorities and on the run and whom we don’t know much about, and Sansa enslaved by a forced marriage to Tyrion. This means that Jon Snow is the only Stark of consequence (in terms of sympathy and political/plot interest) at this juncture. There is no choice but to see things from a different perspective.

The dead Starks all have counterparts among the Lannisters/Royal family. Ned:Tywin, Cat:Cercei, Robb:Jaime. Jon Snow is the only “viable” Stark left, politically speaking, and he has no counterpart (perhaps you could argue Tyrion, both being the black sheep). I think the presence of such obvious “good guys” made it really hard to see beyond a certain perspective with other characters like Cercei, Jaime, Tywin, etc. Robb, Cat, and Ned acted like a counter-point to them. You can’t look at Cercei without comparing her to Cat. You can’t look at Jaime without comparing him to Robb. With Robb and Cat both gone, those comparisons are gone as well. You need to look at Jaime without the “goodness” of Robb overshadowing. You need to look at Cercei without the “virtue” of Cat overshadowing.

I could be wrong, though…that’s the great thing about literature.

[/quote]

I never actually thought about it from the counterpart perspective, interesting thought.

After a second read, I feel the Starks were never the good people. They simply followed the Westerosi Northern “protocol” to the letter, called it honor and felt good about it.

You dessert the nights watch? Beheaded, no questions asked.
Fatass best friend tells you to leave your home and take up a job you hate? Damn, gotta go.
Find about Jaime and Cersei? Tell her exactly what your plan is.

The Starks are no different, they simply have “honor” on their side, so its all good. Deviate from this tradition, like Jaime did, and get called a Kingslayer.

Take even Robert’s Rebellion for example. Why did Robert of all people become King? He had the most Targaryen Blood in him. Why overthrow a King only to replace him with the closest match?

My underlying point is that the Lannisters fail to follow a code that Skarks abide by religiously. After some examination, I find that does not make one or the other any better.

199

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
I never actually thought about it from the counterpart perspective, interesting thought.

After a second read, I feel the Starks were never the good people. They simply followed the Westerosi Northern “protocol” to the letter, called it honor and felt good about it.

You dessert the nights watch? Beheaded, no questions asked.
Fatass best friend tells you to leave your home and take up a job you hate? Damn, gotta go.
Find about Jaime and Cersei? Tell her exactly what your plan is.

The Starks are no different, they simply have “honor” on their side, so its all good. Deviate from this tradition, like Jaime did, and get called a Kingslayer.

Take even Robert’s Rebellion for example. Why did Robert of all people become King? He had the most Targaryen Blood in him. Why overthrow a King only to replace him with the closest match?

My underlying point is that the Lannisters fail to follow a code that Skarks abide by religiously. After some examination, I find that does not make one or the other any better.
[/quote]

Interesting points from defender and IF, good stuff.

From what I recall, Robert always fashioned himself as the “hero” figure and given just how mad Mad King Aerys had become near the end, it was hardly a stretch to cast him as the “villain”.

200

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:

My underlying point is that the Lannisters fail to follow a code that Skarks abide by religiously. After some examination, I find that does not make one or the other any better.

[/quote]

I think the show does a poor job of conveying just how obsessed with honor Ned is, and the consequences. He could have achieved justice for Jon Arryn by taking Stannis (I think?) up on his offer of men to help take the throne from Joffrey. Had he done that, many of his own men would have lived, and the kingdom might have been spared a devastating war. Instead, he turns down the offer and even GOES TO CERSEI WITH WHAT HE KNOWS, TIPPING HER OFF THAT SHE NEEDS TO ACT. He is too proud to get his hands dirty and ends up fucking his family, his loyal men, and ultimately his people as a whole.

Cat on the other hand fucked up in two ways. By releasing Jaime, she gives up the only hostage/leverage she has, and leaves the Lannisters free to act. Even arresting Tyrion was a rash act.

When I was watching the show and saw Robb marry that other chick I was like “Damn dude your war is fucked.” I don’t think I really need to explain how he fucked up there. None of these deaths bothered me that much because in that world, these people basically fucked themselves.

One thing I like about Tyrion is that he doesn’t hold himself to any high standard and regularly engages in intrigues, deceit, and general whoring, but seems to have better, non-malicious motives. He protects Sansa from Joffrey. He seems genuinely concerned not only for his own skin but also the welfare of the people of King’s Landing during battle.

203

Am I the only one who feels like George Martin is less of a dark, gritty fantasy writer with realistic characters in no-bullshit dire situations and more of just a massive troll who deliberately writes awesome characters just so he can kill them horribly in front of his readers?

204

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
I never actually thought about it from the counterpart perspective, interesting thought.

After a second read, I feel the Starks were never the good people. They simply followed the Westerosi Northern “protocol” to the letter, called it honor and felt good about it.

You dessert the nights watch? Beheaded, no questions asked.
Fatass best friend tells you to leave your home and take up a job you hate? Damn, gotta go.
Find about Jaime and Cersei? Tell her exactly what your plan is.

The Starks are no different, they simply have “honor” on their side, so its all good. Deviate from this tradition, like Jaime did, and get called a Kingslayer.

Take even Robert’s Rebellion for example. Why did Robert of all people become King? He had the most Targaryen Blood in him. Why overthrow a King only to replace him with the closest match?

My underlying point is that the Lannisters fail to follow a code that Skarks abide by religiously. After some examination, I find that does not make one or the other any better.

[/quote]

This one I disagree on.

As Omar said, “A man got to have a code.” The Starks have that, and it does not involve incest, or straight up murder, or conspiring against and killing one’s own family members. The Starks are indeed the good guys, but they’re in such a fucked up world that a group so pure cannot actually live.

The Stark “code” is really one of honesty to a fault, justice to the extreme, and never shirking one’s duties. Honestly, the Starks in America in 2013 are probably that one douchebag “supercop” that pulls you over, follows the letter of the law exactly, and gives you six tickets on your birthday for every single thing you did wrong.

The Lannisters are the opposite of that - the absence of ALL morals. There’s nothing off limits to them - not treason, not regicide, not patricide, not incest not murdering children - pretty much the embodiment of Hobbes philosophy of “bellum omnium contra omnes” to a T.

So maybe you don’t really like the Starks all that much, but make no mistake that they are the fair, just, and “light” side of this equation. The Lannisters, who are dark but for flashes of light here and there, are absolutely the insidious, cunning, “dark” side.[/quote]

The Lannisters do have a code.

“A Lannister always pays his debts”.

Clever, because it is a promise and a threat neatly rolled into one.

Then, they live in a feudal society and they can make and break kings, they have done both. To complain that they break rules when rules flow from them is a moot point and their rule breaking, as in the case of a tyrannicide is not always unwarranted.