More Impressions on Game of Thrones

[Westeros]

This is our rather more thorough discussion of some of the things we actually see in the reel, to give more of a sense of the visual part of the adaption, but also to give a sense of some of the characters and scenes as can be grasped from what is, in the end, a very short reel that tries to capture a large part of the plot. You can read our more general, first impressions here. We’ll be focusing on the new scenes and details primarily, so in many cases we’re skipping over scenes we’ve seen in previous trailers, teasers, and the like. However, all that said, we’ll we open with the same material as HBO’s big preview trailer, what we assumed to be the reshot execution scene. Notice Theon‘s black hair.

(Note: Spoilers may be found below. Images are all previously released, but some may match scenes that were aired in the reel.)

read on >>>

Visit the Site!

[SpaceChampion]

I hope they don't make Catelyn simply react emotionally to everything. That would be a turn for the worse for the character. If she's always weepy and weak it will be tiresome. I hope the first episode also shows her strength.

[Lady Blackfish]

To get it all out of the way, first, my bitching.

Regarding the speculation that they changed Cat's reaction to Robert's offer in order to soften her up and make her more palatable to fans:

I am 99% sure Cat would have translated better on screen than in the books without any changes, simply because we don't have to read her depressing whiny thoughts, etc. Losing the POV structure would by and large help her play better, and sure, being mean to Jon and "forcing" Ned to go south would always be negatives to some degree, but really ... think about some of the female characters you can find on TV today/recently: Nancy Botwin, Betty Draper, Alma Garret, Patty Hewes, Laura Roslin, Jackie Peyton, every single bloody venal feminine creature on Rome. HBO anchored six seasons around vermin Tony Soprano, hell, they're amping up child-defenestrating Jaime Lannister way beyond his early appearances in canon, and they can't make the space in the storyline to sell litte ol' Catelyn Tully Stark, just the way she is?

You know what it takes to make a female character popular? Make her sexy to the male gaze, make her triumphant over all other women and/or the bad guys, and make her submissive to/agreeable with all the main male characters. Never give her realistic flaws or meaty problems, and always make sure she's a stereotype so that she doesn't *gasp* confuse people. For a female character, frankly there are many more important things than being popular -- like being interesting. HBO could have chosen to put their creative weight behind that. Of course guessing at their motive is still only guessing, but I can't really think of a good reason either.

On what it might mean for the character:

If they aren't careful, they will run out of ways to distinguish Cat from a purely stereotypical wife and mom type. They have apparently gotten rid of the opportunity to make it clear that:

- Cat thinks the Hand office is a good idea, and certainly has no aversion to the inherent political power as Ned does

- Cat thinks Sansa should be betrothed to the prince as there's nothing inherently wrong with becoming queen of Westeros

- Cat is considered by her uncle, Ser Not Appearing In This Season, as the right kind of woman to rule

- Cat's objections to Jon are at least largely, if not solely, political and dynastic

If they still wanted to keep her personality the way it is in the book, then when they, for example, decide to cut Brynden Tully from season one (a change I understand, if reluctantly), they should realize it puts more pressure on the other moments. So it makes it a bit harder to believe that that's how they are interpreting her character. I know it's still up in the air, but if they're playing Catelyn as a stressed out hearth-and-home-loving earth mother housewife, rather than a politically savvy alpha personality with the misfortune of being born into a beta role, who just happens to have children that she loves, we may get a sympathetic and well acted character whose alterations leave the overall plot and narrative untouched, but it doesn't make it accurate, nor the change necessary or laudable*, and I'll be disappointed.

And in future seasons it gets harder because by then she actually is worn out and desperate and defined more and more by her children, which is how, for some reason unfathomable to me, many insist that she come off as right away. Season one was the best shot for a varied portrayal, and it's necessary to set her character up so her later storyline plays the way it should.

* The hardest part is understanding why. I'd think characterizing Catelyn as a woman of the world who is actually more than a weepy wife and mom, who actually should have been in charge instead of her inexperienced son (the real reason aging up is bad for Cat: it makes Robb less obviously a green, stupid boy), no matter how hot he is, would help her sell better. I would think that stressing her political side, and making it clear that of all the Starks she's the one actually best suited for the calling, would make her more appealing to modern tastes (and I disagree slightly with Ran here: in the books she already has a "modern" aversion to war: Ned taking up Robert's offer has nothing to do with war). Wouldn't it only help the character's PR if she was less of a Westerosi housewife, defined by boring "interior" concerns? That's why I can't understand this as a move to make the character play better in the long run. HBO should make it harder for people to say things like "Who the hell does bitch think she is! Speaking her mind in front of all those experienced manly men!", not easier. Wouldn't that make her only sell better? Am I totally crazy here? CBS can take the passive jilted political wife stock figure and turn her into the heroic, institutional sexism-fighting working mother that anchors a smash like The Good Wife, but It's Not TV It's HBO is flummoxed by Catelyn Tully Stark? Possibly oddest of all is that HBO seems keen on selling this show as more-than-genre, and by all pop cultural common sense Catelyn ought to have more success to a mixed mainstream audience.

Also, what's going on with Theon's hair!

[Ran]

LB,

I am 99% sure Cat would have translated better on screen than in the books without any changes, simply because we don't have to read her depressing whiny thoughts, etc.

This is one of the details George specifically pointed out to me when I was in Belfast. He specifically felt that Catelyn might go over better simply because we weren't in her head.

And yet, David & Dan, for whatever reasons, have apparently tweaked her characterization. I'm sure they had their reasons.

I should clarify that Catelyn's aversion to war... well, obviously, she's no fan. I should say, instead, that her argument against it as presented in these scenes suggests that she's coming from a very different perspective, a modern mindset that has much less sympathy for arguments appealing to duty or honor. She never lamented Robert's rebellion, or fighting against Balon Greyjoy. She did speak against fighting for the purpose of mere vengeance, but then, she had a great deal of grief in her life at that time, and would have preferred to be able to grieve in peace rather than fear for the loss of more lives.

And as you say, it's speculation. Maybe they have some completely different goals with it.

[emmank]

Thank you for this write-up, Ran. I was very much looking forward to reading it and it didn't disappoint.

Not liking where they are taking Catelyn either. Hopefully it will come off more well-rounded when we are able to see the actual show. I did not like the weeping I saw in one of the previews; it seemed something more characteristic of Lysa. Also, the Family-Duty-Honor bit Ran referred to in his post resounded with me. I wish they had kept her interpretation more along those lines.

[Commodore]

I agree Catelyn being not averse to attaining power made her unique and interesting.

Would be a shame if they changed that.

[Padraig]

Very interesting comments Ran. :) And some nice thoughts Lady Blackfish. Overall the producers are still very faithful to the books but Catelyn definitely seems changed. Oh well.

I'd think characterizing Catelyn as a woman of the world who is actually more than a weepy wife and mom, who actually should have been in charge instead of her inexperienced son

I'm curious about this though. When you say "should" have been in charge, do you mean in a strict sense (Ned left her in charge) or do you mean that it would have been better if she was in charge?

Also, the Family-Duty-Honor bit Ran referred to in his post resounded with me.

I was thinking whether Family has now got a more modern interpretation. Family = protect. Rather than Family = pride. Not that either element is totally missing but in more modern parlance there can be a shift more towards "protect". Does make her differences from Cersei more apparent I suppose.

Not that I ever minded her weeping. She was in a horrible situation.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Personally I am a big fan of Catelyn Stark, I find all the objections to certain POV characters are "whinny" as basically immature reaction of the readers rather than any fault of the characters or how they are portrayed. I don't know anyone in real life who doesn't whine and complain in their inner thoughts, and Cately certainly has more reason to do it than most people.

I agree that there was no need to make her more "likable". She was fine the way she was in the books.

BTW, that doesn't mean I agree with everything she did. I still think releasing Jaime was foolishness of the highest order. If she wanted to keep her children safe the one she should have been thinking about is Robb, and Jaime in their custody is basically Robb's personal shield. But that debate has been done many times already and I wont resurrect it here.

[Lady Blackfish]

I'm curious about this though. When you say "should" have been in charge, do you mean in a strict sense (Ned left her in charge) or do you mean that it would have been better if she was in charge?

I mean that the way Catelyn is boxed out of power is a freaking feminist tragedy and such a storyline ought to be perfectly agreeable with modern tastes if they know to play it that way. If she had been in charge they would have traded Jaime Lannister for Sansa at the very least and gone home, and the Starks would have all been better off than going to war out of vengeance and anger over Ned's death, a motive that is repeatedly shown to be disastrous throughout the series. Catelyn may not be perfect herself, but to say that she needed to be perfect in order to be politically important is a fallacy. In the end, she was more right than not, begging Robb to not send Theon to Pyke, urging Edmure to stay at Riverrun and not remove troops from the Twins, arguing for common cause with the Baratheon brothers, understanding better than anyone how to deal with Walder Frey (which is a scene that they could show in more detail than Martin did in the book, the way that Martin reveled in Political Genius!Tyrion's "One, two, three" chapter in ACOK, if they want to get back on my good side ...). Releasing Jaime is her big tragic mistake, and even then, when we realize what she's done we also realize how badly Robb and Edmure fucked up too, those three mistakes converge all in one chapter in ASOS.

What should not happen is what happened with book readers: that the audience ends up taking on the sexism of the men in the books who think she should be packed away at Seagard so that she can get out of her hot teenage white knight hero son's hair and stop nagging and *gasp* emasculating him and just let the manly men do their manly business.

Re. family, I'd say that in the books, the "Family" in the Tully motto had more to do than simply pride or protection. It was also their political strategy. You relied on your family to back you up, the way they kept waiting and waiting for Lysa to join them. You use your family for politics, the way Hoster arranges his daughters' marriages, the way Cat uses Robb and Arya to barter with Walder Frey, the way they all collectively expect Edmure to do his part to make amends by marrying Roslin Frey. And when certain members think they have the luxury to freestyle it as a badass bachelor, well that's why it's costly.

[Padraig]

I mean that the way Catelyn is boxed out of power is a freaking feminist tragedy

Hmm. Didn't Catelyn choose to let Robb lead?

I'm also not sure of the idea that Catelyn could just walk away from the war if she was in charge. She may have wished it in her heart of hearts but doing it? Not sure at all.

And wouldn't agree on the idea that "vengeance and anger" has been shown to be disastrous. There is an interesting parallel to be drawn between this war (where the Starks lost) and the previous rebellion against the Targaryens (where they won). In that society I don't know how you can shrug your shoulders at a terrible murder and turn around and go home. Now letting vengeance and anger overcome all sense is a different argument. But I don't think that is what Robb did (for example).

It'll be interesting to see what Doran's vengeance and anger leads to.

I do agree that Catelyn was a very astute. I'm a big fan of both her and Robb. Both were put in terrible positions.

As for Family. I was trying to think of one word. Pride seemed good enough. I can interpret "sticking together" as pride. Even marrying for the sake of the family. Pride. The belief is that the family is great and it can beat all rivals...

[Lady Blackfish]

Hmm. Didn't Catelyn choose to let Robb lead?

She chose to have him stick around, not to be king and not to have him stop listening to her in particular. I imagine she imagined a relationship like the one they had in AGOT, where she mentored him, though likely the mentoring would be moved behind closed doors. Anyway, to the extent that she acquiesced, well that makes her state of empowerment more interesting, and more realistic, but I don't think it damages the overall tragedy. (There's more discussion about this in Charles Phipps' sexism, gender and feminism thread over in the book forum, BTW.)

I'm also not sure of the idea that Catelyn could just walk away from the war if she was in charge.

She'd have some angry bannermen to deal with, but what were they going to do, revolt? They couldn't even choose whom else to follow, and the only feasible option they'd have to turn to if not Cat or Robb would be Jon, who took some pretty binding oaths. Anyway, a regnant lady keeping her angry bannermen at bay isn't uncommon, it's the exact situation we find Lady Lysa in (Lysa lets everyone think the Lannisters rather terribly murdered her noble and much beloved husband). She's unpopular but neither she nor little Robert were ever undone by the decision.

And wouldn't agree on the idea that "vengeance and anger" has been shown to be disastrous. There is an interesting parallel to be drawn between this war (where the Starks lost) and the previous rebellion against the Targaryens (where they won). In that society I don't know how you can shrug your shoulders at a terrible murder and turn around and go home. Now letting vengeance and anger overcome all sense is a different argument. But I don't think that is what Robb did (for example).

I don't think common sense was on Robb's (bannermen's) side, and I don't think that the last rebellion was a total clean victory, nor do I think that the situations are totally parallel. However, that needn't be hashed out here. Of all the talking heads in the king in the north scene, Cat still comes out ahead to me, and it's still unfair that the only reason she had it so hard being listened to was because she was a mother and considered an emasculating presence. That aspect doesn't change, and even if she herself concedes some of her power away (the reasons for which are more complicated than simple submissiveness), it's still a tragedy that could appeal to a modern audience (who currently counts stuff like Mad Men and The Good Wife amongst its hippest shows), which was all I tried to say.

[HawkZ]

Gr, I am going to be pretty sad if they change Cat as much as it sounds like they may, for reasons very well summarized by Lady Blackfish and Ran. It's interesting, in a way a more "earth-mother" Cat does kinda fit more readily with a more "warrior" Ned, another potential characterization switch that I'm worried about (but less worried about due to the way S1 ends). Cat & Sansa's complex juxtaposition between the desire to stay true to Westeros gender roles and the desire fore agency & power were what really made me realize how special and unique this series was and it would be sad to me if the t.v. series lost this particular female perspective in favor of more palatable characterizations...

Question about Theon's hair - was it full out "normal" Alfie blond, or was it more like Jaime? Hair is something which can do crazy weird things during color grading, esp in scenes like the execution where the blacks look crushed out and there is a strong blue/green filter, which w/out secondary correction would knock out a lot of yellows and reds... in that scene a light brown/dark blond could look pretty darn dark.

Though of course, the screencap doesn't look like his hair was crushed out because of the scene, it just looks black. So strange. :huh: Changing his hair color in post-production would make absolutely no sense... This is kind of stressing me out :P .

[Infidel]

sexism, gender and feminism

Is there a more boring strain of literary criticism than this? Doubt it.

[Padraig]

She chose to have him stick around, not to be king and not to have him stop listening to her in particular.

I do agree that its a pity that they have changed her in the TV series. Although, her later actions don't need to change on foot of this change at least. (Although, they could of course).

OTOH, I don't quite agree on your interpretation on the Robb, Catelyn dynamics. Once Cat agreed that Robb was leading the North then she had to let him lead. Even though it frustrated her at times, I always thought she understood that. And I don't think she had any aspiration to follow Robb into the West to continue her mentoring. Sure Robb didn't always follow her advice but he didn't ignore her always either.

I do think problems would arise if the North simply gave up at the end of aGoT and agreed to give homage to Joff. But i'm not sure how peace could be agreed anyhow. How could she trust the Lannisters? That was Brynden's response to her idea. Sexism may have played a part in the rejection of her peace proposal but overall, I can't see how her plan could hold up to scrutiny. She probably would have made a better effort to get back Sansa though (if she was in charge). Although, any peace with the Lannisters would probably require hostages, so Sansa could end up in KL either way.

The main difference between Lysa and Cat is that the North had gone to war. Hard to turn back, especially when they were winning for a while. (And people probably didn't believe Lysa's accusations either). And I wouldn't suggest that the last rebellion was clean. I'm just saying that vengeance plays a major role in that world. You can't go around killing major lords. That's part of the ruling framework. Nobody has ever shrugged off such a murder to prove how successful a policy it could be.

[Lady Blackfish]

- I never said Cat was going to follow Robb west or wanted to rule for him. I said that she didn't count on Robb not listening to her and she expressed frustration that Robb stopped doing so once he became king. Catelyn doesn't care about the shiny hat, but that doesn't mean that Robb ceasing to listen to her isn't a dissipation of power. It's called soft power, and that's how most women in such a society exerted their influence.

- Complications will follow any choice they make, expecting any plan to be free of complications to be the "right" plan is naive. Just because the peace with the Lannisters would be uneasy doesn't make open war necessarily the right choice. The war was not in the crown's best interests either. The north had gone to war when Ned was alive and they had achieved a solid objective (free Riverrun), and then the situation changed that made war less necessary (can't get Ned back) and gave diplomacy a greater incentive (Lannisters had the Stark girls). Whatever the reasons that Cat's suggestion did not fly (and I think you grossly overstate how impossible her idea was), her very reasonable argument can certainly be shown as appealing to viewers if the narrative takes the proper stance. Just as appealing as Asha's in the strongly paralleling Greyjoy moot scene in AFFC (or is it more feminist when the woman is a kickass warrior babe and the men are all obviously unsympathetic?).

- I'm admittedly confused why you'd suggest (is that what you're suggesting?) that vengeance having a role in the society means that the narrative itself approves of it. I'm not talking about the society's rules, I'm talking about story. I'd say the society's rules are often frowned upon by the author, whose modern standards seem to peek in more and more to indict those rules and ways of behavior. It's as if you deny the power of a story to both recognize the complex inner workings of a system and then condemn the entire system as a whole ... or do you?

I simply claimed that Catelyn's story can easily appeal to modern television sentiments. Do you really have such a major objection to that? I can take off the word "feminist" if that's what bothers you, but regardless I don't see how Cat doesn't come off like the wisest person in that king in the north scene in retrospect, and I think a TV show, with its multitude of ways of playing around with gaze and tone and perspective, could make that more clear than the books apparently succeeded in doing, and thus take a more strongly deconstructionist approach to all the epic macho hoohaaing, which would at least be unique and not cookie-cutter fantasy epic. I think there's a continued theme of wisdom and forbearance vs action and gratification playing out in the series, I don't think I'm making that up? It's been discussed at least in passing fairly often throughout the years.

[Kaede]

Guess it says something about me that I’m more perturbed about Theon’s hair than the Catelyn thing. But I am still mighty perturbed about the Catelyn thing.

I wonder if this is an example of someone else’s character being distorted to make room for Badass Ned. “Half his life” at war, what? Book Catelyn is the politically minded one, the one who pays attention to what’s going on in the outside world, while Ned just wants to rule his own lands and take care of his family. But such a portrayal might diminish his badassery, and we can’t have that. So now we’ve got a Ned who keeps leaving hearth and home to fight in distant lands, despite the strain it puts on his long-suffering wife, because he’s been Trained to Kill. I wouldn’t have minded Badass Ned all that much by himself, but if he’s going to start warping those around him like a walking black hole of cliché, I will not be pleased.

I’ve actually been concerned about this since the original script had Theon (bit of a fixation I’ve got…) declaring that he takes orders from Eddard, not Robb. Which is kind of bizarre and looks to me like an attempt to build up Eddard as the only thing keeping his evil ward in check. The Only One He Ever Feared and all that. Maybe next it will turn out that the Others have been holding off for the past few decades because they dared not attack when the great Eddard Stark ruled Winterfell. :rolleyes:

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

I can take off the word "feminist" if that's what bothers you, but regardless I don't see how Cat doesn't come off like the wisest person in that king in the north scene in retrospect...

I don't see this at all. Why is her the wisest person, is it because things didn't work out, how do we know that things wouldn't have worked out just as bad or worse had they gone her path? Furthermore, part of the reason they felt confident enough to do what they did in the scene is because they had the ultimate bargaining chip that will always allow them to bargain for peace later on if things don't go as well, it's as if they were playing with house money. And of course part of the reason why things don't work out is precisely because Catelyn unilaterally decided to give up this advantage.

Like I said before, I like Catelyn, that doesn't mean everything she did was correct or that she was somehow "the wisest person". She had her strengths, and her weaknesses, she did something very well, and she gave Robb some very good advice at times(such as don't send Theon), but she also had her share of screw ups.

[Lady Blackfish]

I don't see this at all. Why is her the wisest person, is it because things didn't work out, how do we know that things wouldn't have worked out just as bad or worse had they gone her path?

Let me ask you this, does Ned not come off as wise because he urges Robert to not kill Daenerys? And yet couldn't bad things come of the decision not to? Catelyn made an argument based on reason: they had nothing to gain from more war, they had an opportunity to call a peace, and war ought to need a particular reason to begin or continue rather than end. Needless loss of life should be avoided, etc. The bannermen's argument was based on pride and vengeance, it's blatant emotionalism. ONE man in the room might be said to have offered a moderately reasonable argument, Brynden the Blackfish, but that's it, and he won't be in season one.

Like I said before, I like Catelyn, that doesn't mean everything she did was correct or that she was somehow "the wisest person". She had her strengths, and her weaknesses, she did something very well, and she gave Robb some very good advice at times(such as don't send Theon), but she also had her share of screw ups.

Are you under the impression that because I said Catelyn was the wisest person in that scene, that I was claiming she was perfect and never made mistakes? Are you people really that opposed to the narration siding with Catelyn's suggestion for peace? I'm so perplexed by this, did I say that they ought to show that she's a flawless perfect human being that never made mistakes? That everyone else was an idiot in order for her to be wise?

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Let me ask you this, does Ned not come off as wise because he urges Robert to not kill Daenerys? And yet couldn't bad things come of the decision not to? Catelyn made an argument based on reason: they had nothing to gain from more war, they had an opportunity to call a peace, and war ought to need a particular reason to begin or continue rather than end. Needless loss of life should be avoided, etc. The bannermen's argument was based on pride and vengeance, it's blatant emotionalism. ONE man in the room might be said to have offered a moderately reasonable argument, Brynden the Blackfish, but that's it, and he won't be in season one.

Ned may comes across as merciful, but I don't know how "wise" plays into it. How is it wise?

Of course the North have something to gain from more war. It's called respect. Sure it's vengeance, but in that world you have to exact vengeance to earn respect, so that people know not to mess with you, and your land, and your small folk.

Robb can't be an effect Lord of Winterfell if his bannermen don't respect him, because they themselves wouldn't be respected by their small folk if they can't protect them. And respecting him means respecting the fact he is willing to use force to protect and defend and avenge those who are sworn to him.

Look what happened to Tytos, who probably adopted the policy of "what good is more war and killing". Tywin had to finally put an end to all that by wiping out the Reynes and Castameres to earn that respect back.

[Lady Blackfish]

Ned may comes across as merciful, but I don't know how "wise" plays into it. How is it wise?

Because he requires proof of threat before resorting to violence upon innocents? Martin may as well have put "Ned is speaking to modern sensibilities" in neon flashing lights over his head there.

It's called respect. Sure it's vengeance, but in that world you have to exact vengeance to earn respect, so that people know not to mess with you, and your land, and your small folk.

As I said, I'm talking about the narrative's greater stance, not the rules of the society. I can understand why people within this society make the choices they do, taking into account how their environment's value system shapes their choices, but that doesn't mean that Martin is not indicting the greater society. I'm honestly surprised anyone can read ASOIAF and not see how Martin ultimately deconstructs the violent martial society of knights and badassery, and the fact that people depend so much, so readily, on might.

Martin also invests a whole lot of time in pointing out constantly that Robb is in for deep shit once he takes that crown. Just because he gives his characters reason for making their choices, it doesn't mean he's siding with them. Honestly, who would mess with House Stark if they went home after Ned's death? Who is going to come up to that frozen waste land and make a claim for it just because they didn't avenge Ned? Or are you saying there'd be infighting from the bannermen? The funny thing is the only one who is proven traitorous is Roose Bolton, and he was only less inclined to remain loyal once Robb declared for himself. See what Martin did there?

Robb can't be an effect Lord of Winterfell if his bannermen don't respect him

Of course, Robb is effectively silent in this scene. We know he goes along with the bannermen eventually, but that's something we're left to infer. The ones making arguments are Cat and the various bannermen. So what's the bannermen's excuse for not respecting Robb simply because he might have chosen peace? And how does that make them wiser than Cat?