Climbing the Spitball Wall - An Unsullied's Take on A Song of Ice and Fire - Reading Complete! Now onto Rewatching the Show and Anticipating Season 6!

[OhOkayWhat]

Very interesting comments of the people of the board! but first, I will comment specifically about this part of Audreythe2nd comment:

 

....I think it will be extremely interesting to see these good people make decisions that they think will result in some kind of happy outcome for the greater good, and have it NOT turn out like that at all.....

 

I will not comment about if they all are really portrayed as "good" people in the show, but I totally agree with you about that it will be very interesting if they show "good people making bad decisions that make everything go wrong". How soon some of they will notice all is going wrong? what will they do about that? will they have heavy discussions about their decisions?....so many questions!

[WindyNights]

I obviously can't know any of this for sure without seeing the end of the story, but here's what I think is happening - Tyrion of the books was a "good" or at least grey character who is progressively getting worse and worse and more villain-like. As a result, he's probably going to make some decisions as pertains to Dany and Westeros that are very questionable. Tyrion of the show is more straightforwardly noble-minded, and he's in the company of 3-4 other people who have been portrayed similarly (Dany, Varys, Jorah, etc.) All of these characters are pretty "good" people with a similar goal. I think it will be extremely interesting to see these good people make decisions that they think will result in some kind of happy outcome for the greater good, and have it NOT turn out like that at all. Dany's "conquest" of Westeros is going to go badly, books and show, and as a result, we're going to have a lot of characters with great intentions come out on the defacto antagonistic side. That's why I think it's not a big deal if they have downplayed Tyrion's more villainous traits from the books - it's just as interesting to have a good character attempt to do something noble and have it fail spectacularly, as it is to have a darker character do something for selfish or treacherous reasons and have the outcome be terrible. I'm actually quite a bit more interested in the former, as it's not something I see done in stories very much.

The problem here is that it removes Tyrion's character arc where he becomes his father. There is no realization for him that he and his father are similar people.

Tyrion in the show is really watered down. Now it's a tv adaptation so I expect some watering down but the only layers they seem to have stripped off of Tyrion are the bad layers. Tyrion's supposed to have a dark side that's really not all that present in the show besides being an alchoholic which gets played more for laughs.

So then we end up getting scenes where Tyrion is playing pick up artist with a sex slave. : |

Very interesting comments of the people of the board! but first, I will comment specifically about this part of Audreythe2nd comment:

I will not comment about if they all are really portrayed as "good" people in the show, but I totally agree with you about that it will be very interesting if they show "good people making bad decisions that make everything go wrong". How soon some of they will notice all is going wrong? what will they do about that? will they have heavy discussions about their decisions?....so many questions!

They do that all the time on the show. Seasons 1-5 are basically this.

[Audreythe2nd]

They do that all the time on the show. Seasons 1-5 are basically this.

Then I see no reason for them not to continue this theme. :)

The problem here is that it removes Tyrion's character arc where he becomes his father. There is no realization for him that he and his father are similar people.

 

Again, keep in mind I have no idea where this is going. But I don't see any reason that this realization can't still be forthcoming (if it is in fact an important realization in the great scheme of things), especially as Tyrion dabbles more in Meereen and eventually returns to Westeros with Daenerys. In fact, those might be more opportune moments to show Tyrion in this light, as opposed to when he's simply travelling crossland. It goes to what I said on the other page - it was probably also a choice the writers made based on the overall tone of the season, where they figured with all the darkness already present, if they darkened Tyrion up as well, the audience might just want to kill themselves. I'm especially curious as to the character development of Tyrion on the show during Seasons 7 and 8 because those will obviously tip the hand the most as to what they were trying to accomplish overall with his arc, and how well it matches up with what Martin was trying to do in Book 5 especially. 

[John Potts]

I get the distinct impression that Tyrion might well end up as Tywin Mark II - the most powerful (and most hated) man in Westeros, but whom nobody dares to cross - but the one who is (more than most others) responsible for bringing order to the Realm. It's not impossible he'll "Come back to the Light" but it seems unlikely, given GRRM's reputation.

[Avaleigh]

Hey, we're supposed to start our season 1 rewatch today! Anyone else going to watch along?

 

I think I will. Are we creating a new thread for it ?

I was going to post in the season 1 subforum since they have threads where book talk is allowed. 

[OhOkayWhat]

So many things to comment about and i will comment only about some of them.

 

 

Terra,

 

But Shae, you will be surprised by how many people say the hoe deserved it, both for the book and the show. Maybe not everyone expresses his opinion on the internet, but this could be truly assumed to be the general consensus for the casual viewer. As Shimpy said when she read Sansa's marriage to Tyrion ,for example, a lot of fake Unsullied were thrashing her because she's a stupid brat; it's only later that Shimpy discovered the rage was because Sansa didn't kneel for Tyrion - it's still a ludicrous reason, but in the show there was none and still she was insulted -.

 

None of us have a statistical method to determine with accuracy the existence of the consensus that you describe among the casual viewers. But I admitt it is possible (and maybe it very possible)  that such consensus actually exist.

 

About Shae, Tyrion and Sansa, I think the show made mistakes (some of the mistakes were really big) with the relationships between them. But if i want to point specifically about one the relationships (Sansa and Tyrion), i think the show,even if it also included some mistakes, did a better job with it.

 

 

 

WSmith84,

 

And I'm sorry, but if the show needed more good guys to balance out the bad, then maybe they shouldn't have cut out or changed all the good guys that actually appear in the story.

 

The question is: why is it better to include more characters in the show instead than to use the changed versions of fewer characters?

 

Not that I actually care that Tyrion was overhauled; I care that the end result is a bland character.

 

About the blandness, I think that is subjective. Other person can say that we are watching an interesting character.

Edited March 21, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[OhOkayWhat]

WindyNights,

 

The problem here is that it removes Tyrion's character arc where he becomes his father. There is no realization for him that he and his father are similar people.

 

How can we remove something that maybe was not there in the first place?. Why should we think that Show-Tyrion story include a Tyrion-becomes-Tywin arc? Show-Tyrion is not the same being than Book-Tyrion.

Edited March 21, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[stillshimpy]

Hey, we're supposed to start our season 1 rewatch today! Anyone else going to watch along?

 

I'll be starting it later today :-)  I figured I'd just comment here, if Mya has no objections, simply because it's a rewatch to specifically contrast as an adaptation, for me, that is.  I guess it was always that for you guys :-)  

[Avaleigh]

The only reason I suggested posting in the past seasons subforum was to give posters who haven't been keeping up with this thread a chance to participate. I'm happy to post wherever although I admittedly probably won't be able to keep up. 

 

What's the pace going to be anyway? 

[WSmith84]

WSmith84,

The question is: why is it better to include more characters in the show instead than to use the changed versions of fewer characters?

 

To remind viewers that not everyone in this story is a complete and utter turd? To give us more characters to actually care about? And they changed characters to make them darker, or not worth rooting for. Maybe if they'd written some of the characters more like their book counterparts (Loras, Edd, Bronze Yohn, Edmure, Blackfish, Sansa, Jaime) they wouldn't feel the need to lighten other characters to balance it out.

 

And I completely disagree that the show did a better job with Shae. I see why they changed her; her character from the books would be boring for an actress and probably quite chafing to an audience, but she had no consistency and made little sense. I liked the protectiveness that she had for Sansa; it was nice to have someone genuinely on Sansa's side without strings attached, and I wish that they had used that more and not ditched it just to drag Shae back to her book plot. The show had the potential to make her an interesting, well-rounded character, but they botched it. And I know that the writers are capable of doing that: season 1 is chock-full of examples.

[Avaleigh]

I think the show did a crap job with Shae but to me she was a crap character to begin with so they didn't really have much to work with. I was disgusted with Tyrion for killing her but it wasn't any great loss to me that she was gone from the story. The worst part is that Shae's death only kept her even more present in Tyrion's mind so she didn't really go away. Her insensitivity to Lollys when Shae too presumably had a rough life made it very difficult for me to sympathize with her as a character. 

 

I certainly cringed when people were saying that Shae deserved it, but at least here at PTV that very much seems to be a minority view. Same with the small amount of people who feel that Sansa ought to have been grateful to Tyrion for not raping her. Literally about fifty people back at TWoP liked the post where a poster said 'Take a minute and think about what you're saying. You're saying that Sansa should be thankful to Tyrion for not raping her.'

 

The book at least does a better job of explaining that Tyrion wasn't the only one who got their arrangement twisted. Shae was just as deluded as Tyrion and at times seemed shockingly stupid but then I have to remind myself that she's only eighteen or so.

 

Shae's death on the show was laughable and they totally failed if they were trying to make this a dark turn for Tyrion since they made the decision to have Shae attempt to attack him instead of having her back away and use the knife in self defense. Instead she lunges at him and there's an element of it being self defense as opposed to it being full on murder and we basically have him crying over it like he's terribly sorry or something. It was so stupid and the entire episode was basically a letdown on nearly every level save Tywin being told by his daughter about how blind he is. 

 

To give us more characters to actually care about?

 

For me personally I don't need characters to be "good" for me to care about them. They only need to be interesting. When I think of some of the best shows of all time The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men--the cast of characters are filled with interesting assholes that you probably wouldn't want to be friends with in real life. I feel the same way about GoT. Most of my favorite characters are interesting assholes. 

 

I felt like Robb was one of the least interesting characters in the series. I cared about seeing whether or not he would win but I can't say that I cared at all about his personal relationships since they were so damned boring or frustrating. I felt a pang when Robb hugged Jon and another one when he held his mother after Ned's death. Otherwise Robb for me as a character is the Red Wedding. That's the only thing I cared about when it came to his character. 

 

In terms of the interesting "good" guys, I think that only Jon and Davos qualify for me. (I'm talking POVs, or other main characters.) This goes the other way too. As far as the worst of the bad guys Ramsay, Joffrey, the Mountain--there's only so much I can take so I was beyond thrilled to see Joffrey's death scene and am looking forward to gruesome deaths for the other two. 

 

I like seeing Dany dip into the madness, I enjoy all of the complexity with the Hound, I was intrigued at the thought of Sansa possibly taking on some of Stoneheart's role--overall I tend to like seeing characters step into the dark side. 

 

With a character like Melisandre, the interesting things to me are her motivations and the information that she has. Her (extremely) limited sympathy for Davos is curious but it doesn't change my impression of her character overall, so I didn't feel the absence of this part of her character on the show because it's so minimal. She could have knocked the cup out of Cressen's hand if she'd really wanted to save him. She told him that he didn't have to drink but she doesn't really win any brownie points with me over this because she supposedly already knew from the flames that he would drink the poison. The books emphasize her appearance and beauty pretty much every time she's mentioned. When that isn't being emphasized we have a host of characters who are creeped out by her when they aren't checking her out. I feel like the show is basically emphasizing the same qualities that the book is. I have numerous issues when it comes to the show as an adaptation and what they've done to certain characters (fucking hell, Jaime!) but with Melisandre my complaints are super minimal. 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Avaleigh

[OhOkayWhat]

WSmith84, I think Game of Thrones is too dark and it has too many dark characters independently of the existence of the novels. Even if Game of Thrones was not an adaptation and A song of Ice and Fire novels did not exist, I think the show should not be too dark and it should not have too many dark characters. So, I will change my question: independently of the existence of the GoT show and ASOIAF novels, without talking about them specifically, why is it better to add characters than to transform (from its original source) characters in a show?

Edited March 21, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[WSmith84]

WSmith84, I think Game of Thrones is too dark and it has too many dark characters independently of the existence of the novels. Even if Game of Thrones was not an adaptation and A song of Ice and Fire novels did not exist, I think the show should not be too dark and it should not have too many dark characters. So, I will change my question: independently of the existence of the GoT show and ASOIAF novels, without talking about them specifically, why is it better to add characters than to transform (from its original source) characters in a show?

 

To give the audience more than one or two characters to root for? To give us a sense that the world which is under threat is actually worth caring about? And again, if the showrunners felt that the tale was too dark, why did they make the choice to make some of the characters that they included darker, and not worthy of rooting for? Sansa, Loras, Edmure, Blackfish, Jaime, Edd, Ellaria etc. All are written as less deserving of sympathy and are harder to root for or care about. You can't on one hand say 'the tale is too dark so we'll write this character lighter' but then write several other characters as darker or less deserving of audience sympathy.

 

Let's take the wildlings. They were generally reduced to a group of dour savages. The Thenns were changed from a proud people, similar to the Westerosi, to a group of (comedically) villainous cannibals. Mance was just... stoic. That's about all I can say. Tormund had most of his personality stripped, again being reduced to mostly stoic. There's little to no reason to empathise with them.

 

If the show doesn't want to cast that many characters, fine. But could they at least write some of the characters that they do choose to include as deserving of sympathy? Why did Ellaria have to be turned from voice-of-reason to I-want-to-murder-an-innocent-girl? Why is Loras reduced from a proud and capable warrior to just a walking gay stereotype?

 

And the show has no trouble casting multiple prostitutes, or men necessary for the Wonderful Return to Craster's Keep. So they clearly are fine casting extra characters who are undeserving of sympathy. I'd just like to see a bit of balance. And I don't think the answer to that is to change one of the greyest of grey characters to the obvious hero.

[OhOkayWhat]

WSmith84, I agree with some things in your comment, and I disagree with some of them, but it does not answer the question: Independently of the existence of the GoT show and ASOIAF novels, without talking about them specifically, why is it better to add characters than to transform (from its original source) characters in a show?

Edited March 21, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[WSmith84]

WSmith84, I agree with some things in your comment, and I disagree with some of them, but it does not answer the question: Independently of the existence of the GoT show and ASOIAF novels, without talking about them specifically, why is it better to add characters than to transform (from its original source) characters in a show?

 

To give the audience people to root for? To remind the audience that there are more characters than just one or two that are worth investment? And in a setting where the characters' world is at stake, to give the audience a reason to want it to survive?

 

And again, forgetting characters that were not included, why transform characters that were included into less likeable, relatable, sympathetic versions from the source if you are worried that the tale is too dark? Your argument seems to be 'Character X needs to be made lighter because they couldn't cast characters A, B, C, D'  but at the same time, characters E, F and G were also cast and made darker. That's a real sticking point for me. I just can't see the logic. Why take a dark character and make him light whilst at the same time making plenty of light characters dark, if you're worried that the tale is too dark?

[Avaleigh]

To give the audience people to root for? To remind the audience that there are more characters than just one or two that are worth investment? And in a setting where the characters' world is at stake, to give the audience a reason to want it to survive?

 

And again, forgetting characters that were not included, why transform characters that were included into less likeable, relatable, sympathetic versions from the source if you are worried that the tale is too dark? Your argument seems to be 'Character X needs to be made lighter because they couldn't cast characters A, B, C, D'  but at the same time, characters E, F and G were also cast and made darker. That's a real sticking point for me. I just can't see the logic. Why take a dark character and make him light whilst at the same time making plenty of light characters dark, if you're worried that the tale is too dark?

It sounds like they were attempting to go for grey characters but weren't always successful with the attempts.

[OhOkayWhat]

WSmith84, my comment was more a question than an argument, and maybe I asked incorrectly. I will change the question like this: Lets forget we are talking about Game of Thrones and its characters becoming darker or lighter (that is the reason i said "independently of the existence"), do you think is it better to add characters than to transform (from its original source) characters in every TV adaptation?

Edited March 21, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Mya Stone]

I've edited the thread title to show that it's fine to continue the comparison in hindsight and begin the rewatch and discussion of the show. :)

[WSmith84]

WSmith84, my comment was more a question than an argument, and maybe I asked incorrectly. I will change the question like this: Lets forget we are talking about Game of Thrones and its characters becoming darker or lighter (that is the reason i said "independently of the existence"), do you think is it better to add characters than to transform (from its original source) characters in every TV adaptation?

 

Depends on the adaption. And how much transformation is required. Sometimes, it's better to keep the cast smaller and work with what you've got, sometimes it's better to expand the cast. I don't think there is a golden rule for this. It's probably easier to keep the cast smaller and transform a character, but it doesn't guarantee better results.

 

I would argue that completely overhauling a character is probably not the best way to go with an adaption, as that character is probably going to follow the plot of the source material.

Edited March 21, 2016 by WSmith84

[Andeleisha]

Woohoo, rewatch!! LETS ALL TELL SHIMPY WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE A BOOKWALKER FIVE YEARS AGO!

 

So I watched episode 1 yesterday and (since I'm watching this with an eye towards shimpy's experience!) the thing I was reminded of was how EXCITED I was to see all these characters in the flesh for the first time. They were already familiar to me from the books, so seeing them on screen was like "oh hello, you're Catelyn!" 

 

On rewatch, this feeling especially struck me with the minor characters. (The major TV show characters have grown too much to feel new I guess?) I kept thinking "That's Rodrick!" or "That's Jory!" They all show up in these early episodes, and while I think the show does a better job of explaining their job titles in later episodes, certainly in the pilot recognizing them felt like easter eggs for book fans. 

 

shimpy, did you know that there is actually an UNAIRED pilot out there? They didn't like it so they re-wrote it and recast a few parts before they gave us the pilot we all know and love. Here's a link to an article about the unaired pilot! (Apologies if this has been linked before, my brain is a little mushy today.) 

[OhOkayWhat]

Depends on the adaption. And how much transformation is required. Sometimes, it's better to keep the cast smaller and work with what you've got, sometimes it's better to expand the cast. I don't think there is a golden rule for this. It's probably easier to keep the cast smaller and transform a character, but it doesn't guarantee better results.

 

 

I agree with this, there is not an universal rule for this.

 

 

 

I would argue that completely overhauling a character is probably not the best way to go with an adaption, as that character is probably going to follow the plot of the source material.

 

This is a very interesting thing to think about. Sometimes you change most of the character and you are able to follow the plot of the source material and that change make your story more interesting. But of course, all this is relative to each case.

Edited March 21, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Avaleigh]

I would adore having the opportunity to see Jennifer Ehle as Catelyn in that pilot. Michelle was great but I would have loved to see what Ehle would have done with the role.

[Andeleisha]

Me too, Avaleigh! I hope they release it someday, or at least a copy leaks online. I adore Jennifer Ehle. 

[Lady S.]

shimpy, did you know that there is actually an UNAIRED pilot out there? They didn't like it so they re-wrote it and recast a few parts before they gave us the pilot we all know and love. Here's a link to an article about the unaired pilot! (Apologies if this has been linked before, my brain is a little mushy today.)

I would adore having the opportunity to see Jennifer Ehle as Catelyn in that pilot. Michelle was great but I would have loved to see what Ehle would have done with the role.

 

I believe this is the old original pilot script that IGN read, btw. It's notably missing scenes we know were filmed at some point like the Mad King flashback with Brandon Stark, but that stuff could have been added later. 

[Ashara Payne]

Before we earnestly start,

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/unabashed-book-snobbery/id1065512366?mt=2#episodeGuid=tag%3Ablogger.com%2C1999%3Ablog-8124285961825271292.post-3836184731960672906

Theories

[stillshimpy]

All right, well I've watched the pilot and it's painful as usual to see the parade of soon-to-be-dead-characters-I-liked.   I still think that Nicolas ...etc (I'm sorry, I just have no clue how to spell his name) just biffed that tower scene in a way that defined the character.  I was watching him pretty carefully all the way through and right up until that moment, I was thinking, "Wow, okay, yeah there are hints of the Jaime who eventually....*glib shove*...or you know, not...." but it was actually worse than I remembered, because he gives the air of heading back for a second go.  

 

Sean is great and whereas I know his Ned will seem like an idiot on more than one occasion, I'm really a bit troubled by how much older they cast Catelyn and Ned.  It just ....they look even older than the actors actually are and for whatever reason they chose to wardrobe the people of the North in a way that makes them look grubby and as if they are complete strangers to any kind of sophistication.  Ned's not dressed like a Lord of anything.  

 

It was so good to see all the characters again.  Bran looks so incredibly young, particularly juxtaposed with seeing Bran in the trailer for this season and he looks like a nearly grown man in the trailer (a man grown!).  Poor Kit Harrington.  He oddly looks MUCH older when he's clean-shaven....in fact....I'm not sure what light filter they were using in the Winterfell scenes, but it wasn't a friend to anyone other than Esme Bianco/Ros.  However, since Kit Harrington ends up looking thirty in that punishing light, clean-shaven and is really putting his back into acting the part of a fifteen-year-old, I suddenly remembered why I didn't like Jon at all for the first season. 

 

It's strange that the best "Oh wow, he really is perfect" out of the pilot was Viserys for me. But man alive, that wedding scene with the half-naked women and the brutish men was really pretty outrageously insensitive and playing with gross cliches, for no reason.  That's not how that wedding plays out in the books with Dany nearly fainting at the sight of those revolting foods and twerking, gyrating, raping and all manner of "oh jeez, show, bad plan" things going on. 

 

I did actually like that they changed Drogo's wedding night with Dany though, as that was one of the more absurd things in the books.  

 

Ned's friendship with Robert is the most endearing relationship in the pilot and from the word 'go' Lena Headey is playing someone other than book Cersei.  I do like her choices and found her "lovely country" to be the funniest thing in the pilot.  Nicolas Waldau Castros, is that it?  Yeah, unfortunately he basically undid all the acceptance the books built up, again.  

 

That was a just catastrophically bad call on that line read.  I wouldn't make such a fuss over it, but it is played in the exact opposite manner of the books and its kind of infuriating.  It's CERSEI who is freaked out and horrified in that scene and he just doesn't give a shit, at all.  Seems to think it's funny.  He's a merry child killer.  

 

Oh and I'm back to hating on Theon.   Everyone can guess why.  How to lose me in two simple steps:  Be an eager would-be-puppy-murder, Theon ....or treat trying to outright kill a little boy like it's a joke you're trying to land, Jaime. 

 

But I was also so caught by how excited everyone who had read the books must have been to see those beautiful opening credits.  To hear that great music.  To see inside the Throne room as Jon Arryn lies in state (couldn't figure out why Jaime is not in his Kingsguard uniform at any point).  

 

I feel bad about this, because I know Michelle Fairley is such a gifted actor and she does some heartbreaking work, but I can't escape feeling like she's miscast.  I get that they were going for sort of rougher, tougher, colder and grimmer North and poor Winterfell really does look like Wuthering Heights: The Shit Years on those interiors, but between the brutal light fliters, the choice to make everyone seem permanently grubby and simply not shooting anyone to flatter them I did feel like attacking everyone with some clarifying shampoo and a liberal dusting of light diffusing EVERYTHING.  

Edited March 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[WSmith84]

I forget how shabbily-dressed most of the Northerners are. I mean, I know they're meant to be a little less flashy (probably helps that they're poorer) but you'd think they could make them look a little nicer than the peasants. One character that filled me with joy to see, rather unexpectedly, was Maester Luwin. I think it's because he was almost a symbol of a whole, untouched Winterfell. And the actor was a great choice; whatever one says about this show, it's hard to deny that the casting is (generally) fantastic. Mark Addy is just effing terrific. As is Harry Lloyd. It does make his non-appearance in season 5 seem like a worse decision, because he made that character so much more than what was on the page. Anyone interested in seeing him play an entirely different creepy character should check out the episodes 'Human Nature' and 'Family of Blood' from Doctor Who, btw.

[stillshimpy]

There was one HILARIOUS choice on set dressing.  As we pull in on a scene of courtyard in Winterfell, as Catelyn marches through the mud and shit, determined to bring the dark words...blah blah...to the godswood and extras in awful costumes bustle about in that criss-crossing pattern directors everywhere adopt and pretend they don't realize how artificial it looks....someone marches by with a bunch of wheat still on the stalk.  This giant bundle of wheat, taller than they are and they're just toting it across the middle of this "Action: everyone look busy!  You carry a Scythe.  You, get this too neatly bundled bunch of dried wheat that wandered in from a Pottery Barn catalogue staging attempt and .....walk it somewhere.  Fuck the thought that the wheat would be taken by wagon to a mill, en masse.  You just take this random, decorative bundle we got off Peter Dinklage's Thanksgiving display and ....walk it somewhere@ Action!"

Edited March 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[WindyNights]

I'm sort of irritated that a lot of the colorful banners and clothes have been cut out.

Everyone dresses the same in brown, gray and blue.

Show Cat is very brittle-sounding. But you know if she were 20 years younger I think she would've been exactly how I pictured Catelyn Stark.

Not sure why they swapped out Gared for Will.

Good adaptation choice of having Will tell Ned about the White Walkers.

Sophie, Isaac and Maise are perfect as Sansa, Bran and Arya.

Jon is woefully miscast. He's too old to act like that.

Viserys is wonderful. And Daenerys is actually not bad here.

Man, they should've brought Illyrio back.

Kinda sad that they adapted Arya's chapter out.

Would've liked to see Robb and Joffrey sword-fighting although it'd be kinda hard to buy Show Joff and Show Robb as almost equals in swordsmanship.

Ugh, I hate Tyrion's first scene. It's so sleazy.

Rodrik is so well-cast.

Mark Addy knocks it out of the park.

[WSmith84]

A small point on Jaime; maybe I'm reading his expression wrong, but he looks almost... a little contemptuous of Tyrion in that brothel scene. I figure that they were going for amused, maybe even fond, but I'm not sure it came out totally right.

[OhOkayWhat]

Love the little scene with Arya watching the King, Queen, knights, etc. arriving at Winterfell and she is all: ohhh!..and suddenly it seems like she is OHH! when she see the Hound with the dog helmet (Arya is using a helmet too). I wonder what was she thinking at that moment and if that foreshadows their future road trip. Maybe it is not foreshadowing but it is interesting anyway.

Edited March 22, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[glowbug]

Watching the first episode, I was once again reminded of how great this show can be. The first season was by far my favorite and I don't foresee that changing with this rewatch. The opening scene is so creepy and a great setup for the series. I think most of the White Walker scenes were well done in the show even if the White Walkers in the beginning didn't quite fit the description of them in the books.

 

The casting was, of course, superb. Mark Addy does such a great job as Robert that it doesn't even bother me that he's much too short for the role. I also love Sean Bean as Ned. I know that some people aren't happy with his casting but I think he does a great job. Maybe I would feel differently if I read the books first. I truly don't mind the changes they made to Cersei in the show, I just wish they hadn't sacrificed Jamie's characterization in the process. Given what we learn about his character in book/season three, the line reading of "The things I do for love" was really off. I wish there had been more bitterness or regret or something to indicate he wasn't a total psychopath. Pushing a child out the window is obviously a horrible thing to do no matter the circumstances but it's made even worse when the person doing it sounds so nonchalant about it. On a shallow note, NCW looks perfect for the part of Jamie, although I do wonder what his doppelgänger, Josh Holloway (Sawyer from Lost), would have done with the part had he been available. 

 

Theon, the attempted dire wolf puppy killer, sucks. I don't remember him snapping at Robb like that in the book though it's been a few years since I read it. Robb, even as early as the pilot, comes across as a different character than his book counterpart. He's not as nice or likable. Or maybe it's that I already know what's coming with Talisa and it's coloring my perception of him. Kit Harrington is one of the few casting missteps, and it's only made more painfully obvious when compared to most of the rest of the cast.

 

Emilia Clark wasn't bad in this episode but she's also one of the weaker actors in the series. Harry Lloyd is great as Viserys but I'm in the minority in that I don't feel any sympathy for him. Maybe I will as the episodes progress but I know I didn't the first time around. Jason Moma as Drogo is another great casting choice. Like Shimpy, I'm glad they changed the sex scene between Dany and Drogo from how it was portrayed in the books. I agree that it was unrealistic and I think it was actually a bit insulting. While GRRM is a brilliant storyteller in many regards, his sex scenes are awful.

 

I look forward to watching more episodes, although I'm dreading a few scenes. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by glowbug

[WindyNights]

Watching the first episode, I was once again reminded of how great this show can be. The first season was by far my favorite and I don't foresee that changing with this rewatch. The opening scene is so creepy and a great setup for the series. I think most of the White Walker scenes were well done in the show even if the White Walkers in the beginning didn't quite fit the description of them in the books.

The casting was, of course, superb. Mark Addy does such a great job as Robert that it doesn't even bother me that he's much too short for the role. I also love Sean Bean as Ned. I know that some people aren't happy with his casting but I think he does a great job. Maybe I would feel differently if I read the books first. I truly don't mind the changes they made to Cersei in the show, I just wish they hadn't sacrificed Jamie's characterization in the process. Given what we learn about his character in book/season three, the line reading of "The things I do for love" was really off. I wish there had been more bitterness or regret or something to indicate he wasn't a total psychopath. Pushing a child out the window is obviously a horrible thing to do no matter the circumstances but it's made even worse when the person doing it sounds so nonchalant about it. On a shallow note, NCW looks perfect for the part of Jamie, although I do wonder what his doppelgänger, Josh Holloway (Sawyer from Lost), would have done with the part had he been available.

Theon, the attempted dire wolf puppy killer, sucks. I don't remember him snapping at Robb like that in the book though it's been a few years since I read it. Robb, even as early as the pilot, comes across as a different character than his book counterpart. He's not as nice or likable. Or maybe it's that I already know what's coming with Talisa and it's coloring my perception of him. Kit Harrington is one of the few casting missteps, and it's only made more painfully obvious when compared to most of the rest of the cast.

Emilia Clark wasn't bad in this episode but she's also one of the weaker actors in the series. Harry Lloyd is great as Viserys but I'm in the minority in that I don't feel any sympathy for him. Maybe I will as the episodes progress but I know I didn't the first time around. Jason Moma as Drogo is another great casting choice. Like Shimpy, I'm glad they changed the sex scene between Dany and Drogo from how it was portrayed in the books. I agree that it was unrealistic and I think it was actually a bit insulting. While GRRM is a brilliant storyteller in many regards, his sex scenes are awful.

I look forward to watching more episodes, although I'm dreading a few scenes.

TBF, I'm of the opinion that he's purposefully making his sex scenes either disturbing or thematically appropriate rather than titillating/ pleasant to read about.

Like Tyrion being a two pump chump is supposed to represent how pathetic and desperate he is.

[GertrudeDR]

Going off memory here (I didn't do my homework :p) my favorite scene is the dinner. So much characterization happening here. Arya flinging food at Sansa, who is outraged, and Robb laughing showing that he's still a kid. A look from Cat is all it takes to switch him into responsible adult mode. Robert laughing with a serving maid while Cersei looks on. I just love how they did so much with such little vignettes here.

 

I agree that Jaime's line was a clunker here. His intro with Tyrion didn't bother me, but then again I already knew Jaime before he walked onto the screen. He was more visible than in the books, but the sneering contempt he radiates, even with his family, seemed about the right tone for him.

 

And oh god, the opening credits were such a nice surprise. And seeing them all come alive! The godswood with the pond and the tree - loved this first episode sooooo much It felt so familiar and yet was such a thrill.

[Terra Nova]

I still think they really overplayed the 'Northeners are a tad different from the rest of Westeros' and made them look straight out a Monthy Python movie.

Also, take a look here at the unaired plot version of Illyrio's costume, it's so colorful and eccentric!

 

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/gameofthrones/images/9/93/Ian_McNeice_as_Illyrio.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120109215632

 

It's a shame they opted for a pretty unadorned, plain white robe in the final product. But the small Targ pins with the three dragon heads on Vis & Dany were a beautiful touch.

Also, kudos for re-using Dany's marriage dress for her pyre scene in the season finale, since it both foreshadows the 'bride of fire' title from the House of the Undying and her slightly off-the-rail mental rant when she's in the fire, when she thinks it's a re-hash of her marriage. 

So much subtlety *sigh*

Edited March 22, 2016 by Terra Nova

[Avaleigh]

Everyone looks so much younger in the pilot, wow. It never fails to amaze me.

 

The opening sequence is great and I always think of how much the Royce actor reminds me of Matt Damon. 

 

Tyrion looks like a completely different character especially with his hair being extra blond here. 

 

I seem to remember from the books that Dany's wedding was an occasion where there were no other women and that was one of the creepy things about it. I agree too with Shimpy that the wedding night portrayal here makes more sense than in the books. 

[stillshimpy]

Yeah, I didn't understand for years that Jaime was meant to have any affection for Tyrion.  I like NCW -- despite my complete inability to absorb his name -- and I have seen him in other things.  I know a lot of times actors really like to put their own spin on a character and that makes sense.  It just doesn't always serve the story in the long run and I think his choices as Jaime were ill-considered.  

 

But it is a really good pilot.  

 

Show Cat is very brittle-sounding. But you know if she were 20 years younger I think she would've been exactly how I pictured Catelyn Stark.

 

By the way, thank you for the link to the unaired pilot stuff, as I had NO idea any of that existed.  I'm glad they changed the tone of Ned and Cat's marriage, as Catelyn was always a character people seemed to react to in a way that didn't match up with what is onscreen.  In the pilot she gives Jon one stinker of a look, but that's it for interaction.  Then she doesn't want him at the feast, which sucks, but Jon's kind of lacking in charm and you know, expecting your wife to hang around your illegitimate kids is not the stuff of reason.  

 

BUT that is one of the problems with casting Catelyn Stark much older than she is in the books and making Fairley look older than she normally does too.   In a woman twenty years younger (or thereabouts) Cat's behavior is closer to understandable.  In a woman who is younger, her strange faith in her sister's message is more forgivable.  

 

Basically, for me, a lot of Cat's characterization needs to be hung on a woman in her thirties and I like Michelle Fairley, but the very least they could have done was to shoot her through a kinder filter, because all of the costuming and makeup choices for her made her look to be older than Fairley actually was.  

 

Oh and one amusing and distracting note:  Ned's scars are hilarious.  Strangest wound pattern ever :-D 

[vibeology]

The aging up kills me. I get that they want to hire certain actors and they want a clear line between the "kids" and the "adults" but it really messes with the story. (Also, Harry Potter because when they aged up the adults I think it really damaged the adult characters, but that's a similar rant for a different place.)

 

The whole point is that the generation that's leading now was young, like their kids when their war went down. They had to grow up too quickly, much like Robb and Jon and Dany etc. It shapes them and leads to their own mistakes going forward. Ned, in the show is late 40s I'd guess. Being a naïve fool with no knowledge of politics is kind of ridiculous coming from someone who should have his years of experience. I get that Ned mostly hid out up North, but doing the math on Jon and Dany means that he was in his late 20s during Robert's Rebellion and had been living in the South for years. How can he not have any understanding of politics? Cat too doesn't work older. First off, she should have been long married by the rebellion. Secondly, it makes her blind faith in her Tully family and Littlefinger very questionable because she should have been old enough to see that these people were damaged by their childhood. Robert works a bit better, because acting like a teen as a grown man as characterization is even stronger with him older. Overall, I hate the choice though and I think it really takes away from the story.

[WSmith84]

I know this is off-topic, but I just saw this posted on westeros.org and thought it was quite an interesting insight into Tyrion's character:

 

What Tyrion lost in aDwD is his sense of identity. One thing is the Tyrion that he claims to be, and another, one, what he really is. We often see them in conflict.

 

Tyrion presents himself as the one person loving cripples, bastards and broken things, but he's not such. He only plays the role because he needs to keep the appearance of being morally superior than those who shun him for being a dwarf. And the Lannister gold and power is the vehicle helping him to do so. He can be charitable and merciful because he's still part of the nobility that despises him.

 

Tyrion's presence in the Shy Maid is like a little purgatory in which Jon plays the role of his father, Aegon is Joffrey and the others are the rest of the Lannister family. We're kinda suppose to also see how Tyrion's dynamics probably were (that's why he remembers a couple of moments with them there). Yes, Tywin was ashamed of him but the rest of the family (except Cersei) had a different attitude. In the Shy Maid, Jon treated him badly, but the rest of them treated him fine, and despite Aegon wanted him saved, he only needed to call him "dwarf" once to make him lose his temper and try to get even with a boy.

So, rather than Tyrion being in the bottom of the barrel, he's presented nude, stripped fro power, Lannister gold and his mask of "good man". This is the Tyrion that was probably supposed to be had he been born tall and handsome. Not a nice person.

[mac123x]

Regarding the unaired pilot -- you can see the parts that they reused in the real pilot, because they switched from 35mm film to HDTV cameras.  The scene with Ned and Robert in the crypts is pretty obviously from the original shoot -- the grain pops way up as soon as they go down there.

 

Unintentionally hilarious scene -- Jon, Robb, and Theon shirtless at the barbershop desperately trying to keep their abs flexed throughout the dialog.  (KH wins, IMO).

[WSmith84]

I think I remember NCW on the commentary of the second episode saying that Alfie Allen hadn't eaten all day and had drunk a load of wine before that scene because someone told him it enhanced the physique. People should check out that commentary, btw. Lena and Mark are hilarious together.

[Lady S.]

Regarding the unaired pilot -- you can see the parts that they reused in the real pilot, because they switched from 35mm film to HDTV cameras.  The scene with Ned and Robert in the crypts is pretty obviously from the original shoot -- the grain pops way up as soon as they go down there.

The actors' hair is another telling point. Sean Bean and Joseph Mawle didn't have their wigs in the original pilot, and Alfie Allen's hair was blonder. The hunting bit at the end right before Bran's last climb is where you can see the differences in brighter light. The feast scene is also mostly re-used footage, I think, except for the parts with Cersei and Catelyn. We see Sansa talking to them and Catelyn reacting to Arya and Robb, but Michelle Fairley was only in the same frame with Lena Headey iirc. That's why the boys had to be shaved before King Robert arrived, so Robb and Theon wouldn't just suddenly have their facial hair disappear when it cut to the parts of the original pilot.

[Ashara Payne]

I really hope we get to see it one day

[glowbug]

Maybe they'll include it with the inevitable box set of the entire series once it's finished.

That's the kind of bonus feature that would possess some who already collected the seasons individually to pick up the complete series box set.

Edited March 23, 2016 by glowbug

[Ashara Payne]

They could do a whole season equivalent with just deleted scenes, digital effects montages, interviews, etc.

[WindyNights]

Seems the show will be diverging even further than we thought

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/23/game-thrones-season-6-wont-spoil-books

[GertrudeDR]

Meh, that doesn't really change my opinion of how the show will progress in regards to the book. Of course there are going to be differences - we've already seen that. But he even admits that certain key elements are going to be the same. So yeah - plot points will be hit, but they change the journey.

 

(spoilers below have storylines we can expect based on how season 5 left off and leaked photos, etc)

 

Even assuming they were going to stick to the books, book readers already know much of the

Ironborn plot, the North remembers, the Riverlands, Braavos, possibly some of Bran's story (and the ToJ!), Septon Meribald and the Hound. It's possible Sam ends up in the same place he is in the books if they pad out his family scenes and his journey. I think they might work in the Pink Letter after Jon's resurrection too

Those are obviously not going to be the same, but right there we have a lot we can reasonably expect. There's a ton the fandom suspects will happen, so (for example) we are not going to be terribly surprised if Dany ends the season with the Dothraki fighting united behind her.

 

For the other stories, of course we are going to be spoiled on the broad strokes. Cersei's trial will have to be resolved and how she continues from there. That's a broad stroke that I think would be hard to work around. I'm of the mind that there won't be a ton of surprising stuff this season due to extensive fan speculation and them reaching back into books 4 and 5, but enough that we're going to be spoiled on some big things. I am resigned to it.

 

Plus I don't trust the showrunners on this - of course they would want to scratch George's back while also convincing people that really, they can watch the show no matter how die-hard a book fan they are.

[WindyNights]

Meh, that doesn't really change my opinion of how the show will progress in regards to the book. Of course there are going to be differences - we've already seen that. But he even admits that certain key elements are going to be the same. So yeah - plot points will be hit, but they change the journey.

(spoilers below have storylines we can expect based on how season 5 left off and leaked photos, etc)

Even assuming they were going to stick to the books, book readers already know much of the

Ironborn plot, the North remembers, the Riverlands, Braavos, possibly some of Bran's story (and the ToJ!), Septon Meribald and the Hound. It's possible Sam ends up in the same place he is in the books if they pad out his family scenes and his journey. I think they might work in the Pink Letter after Jon's resurrection too

Those are obviously not going to be the same, but right there we have a lot we can reasonably expect. There's a ton the fandom suspects will happen, so (for example) we are not going to be terribly surprised if Dany ends the season with the Dothraki fighting united behind her.

For the other stories, of course we are going to be spoiled on the broad strokes. Cersei's trial will have to be resolved and how she continues from there. That's a broad stroke that I think would be hard to work around. I'm of the mind that there won't be a ton of surprising stuff this season due to extensive fan speculation and them reaching back into books 4 and 5, but enough that we're going to be spoiled on some big things. I am resigned to it.

Plus I don't trust the showrunners on this - of course they would want to scratch George's back while also convincing people that really, they can watch the show no matter how die-hard a book fan they are.

Yeah but they've already been prepping us for a while that the show is going to get further and further from the books. This is confirmation of that.

And I think it's noteworthy that they said there will be some key similarities rather than there will be some key differences. That strongly implies that there will be more differences than similarities.

Also are we even doing a trial by combat in the show?

[GertrudeDR]

I don't know if it will come to trial by combat specifically, but there has to be a trial of some sort. Cersei didn't confess to everything she was accused of. And I don't expect any trial to play out as it will in the books, but the outcome I would expect to be roughly similar.

[Haleth]

I think the trial by combat is fairly certain.  Nice knowing you, Lancel.