120 replies to this topic

[Bronn Stone]

Mazikeen, on 13 May 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

I don't believe that we'll see the Tower of Joy fight. You'd have to cast some pretty impressive actors for just one scene (people who actually look like they could be The Sword of the Morning or The White Bull), not to mention 3 full Kingsguard armours, the Dawn sword (which is supposed to be all sorts of awesome) and so on. While it would be a very nice scene to see, it's a little heavy on the budget and it doesn't advance the story in any significant way, it only provides back story. Which is important, yes, but I don't think it'll be considered important enough to spend so much money and effort on it.

The budget points may be valid, but the actors would not need to be any special thing as actors.  They'd need to be REALLY good fighters though.  I'd cast stuntmen who could act a little.  The scene isn't terribly complex from an acting standpoint.

I suspect they're gonna need to make Dawn eventually, if the show lasts long enough.  As Ran has hypothesized over the years, it is probably Lightbringer and will probably play a big part in the eventual resolution of the Others conflict.

[Abaddon]

IF they were to do this (I don't think they have, personally): they could shoot a fairly extensive scene or set of scenes once in season one.  Then, take just snippets of it, only do the FX/post for snippets as they use them, and have those bits show up in different places in Seasons 1-3.  Since everyone in the scene except for Howland Reed and Ned is dead before the series starts, and Ned is dead after the 1st season, it seems like the only complication would be Howland Reed, who doesn't show up until... well, we don't know (although if I recall correctly, we do know he's going to show up at some point?).

That one complication is a pretty big one though.  They'd have to risk having a guy they couldn't get again five or whatever years down the road (or might not choose for the presumably bigger role in store for the character) or recast him, which would be cheesy and undermine the impact of the sequence.

[walrus]

I would be very disappointed if they left the Tower of Joy out entirely.  Honestly though, I'd prefer to see it portrayed as it was in the books with just the prefight dialog onscreen and not the actual battle.  Also, if they portrayed Ned's companions as they did in the book ("In the dream they were only shadows, grey wraiths on horses made of mist.") they could basically blur them out and eliminate the need to actually cast Howland Reed yet.

[NW Deserter]

Quote

Honestly though, I'd prefer to see it portrayed as it was in the books with just the prefight dialog onscreen and not the actual battle

Definitely agree with this, and it seems like it would make it a fairly easy scene to film. Have the infamous conversation ("No...now it ends." <shivers>), have Ned draw his sword and run at them, fade to black, have a woman's voice overlaid saying "Promise me..." and then have Ned wake up suddenly. That would be a great opener to episode 6, methinks.

[kalbear]

I think for the most part we aren't going to get flashbacks; the creators have already stated that they like using old soldiers shooting the shit as the way to cover backstory. I'd dearly love to see ToJ, but I doubt we will that much if at all.

[RDKfromwesteros]

I dont believe they will show anything more then some voices speaking before Ned wake up, though would be awesometo see at least a glimpse of that

[RDKfromwesteros]

I think the series wont have much of flhashbacks or dreams, since most of information its in dialogs, i'am still waiting for a more complete three eyes crow dream but anyway

Edited by RDKfromwesteros, 13 May 2011 - 09:50 PM.

[Huan]

Another dream I'd like to see is Jon in the Winterfell crypts. But I think he related that dream to Sam soon after meeting him, so most likely we won't see that. Perhaps its significance will be incorporated further down the road.

[Anomandaris86]

NW Deserter, on 13 May 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

Definitely agree with this, and it seems like it would make it a fairly easy scene to film. Have the infamous conversation ("No...now it ends." <shivers>), have Ned draw his sword and run at them, fade to black, have a woman's voice overlaid saying "Promise me..." and then have Ned wake up suddenly. That would be a great opener to episode 6, methinks.

I agree that that would work very well, perhaps even better...still, it's such an epic fight, it would be a shame to pass it up. I guess one thing they could do is have it your way in season 1, and then in the last season or whatever when "the truth" comes out they could show it again, this time as an uninterrupted sequence of events.

[The Anti-Targ]

Mazikeen, on 13 May 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

I don't believe that we'll see the Tower of Joy fight. You'd have to cast some pretty impressive actors for just one scene (people who actually look like they could be The Sword of the Morning or The White Bull), not to mention 3 full Kingsguard armours, the Dawn sword (which is supposed to be all sorts of awesome) and so on. While it would be a very nice scene to see, it's a little heavy on the budget and it doesn't advance the story in any significant way, it only provides back story. Which is important, yes, but I don't think it'll be considered important enough to spend so much money and effort on it.

Tower of Joy will be spoken of again in one of the yet to be published books, by the only man left who now lives who lived through the epic fight. If the TV series gets that far it'll be in the season covering this unpublished book when we see it on screen, not the GoT season. By then it'll be well worth going to the expense of filming the scene.

[NW Deserter]

Anomandaris86, on 14 May 2011 - 01:28 AM, said:

I agree that that would work very well, perhaps even better...still, it's such an epic fight, it would be a shame to pass it up. I guess one thing they could do is have it your way in season 1, and then in the last season or whatever when "the truth" comes out they could show it again, this time as an uninterrupted sequence of events.

But the actual fight hasn't been revealed in the books, that's one of the big mysteries - how Ned and Howland Reed were the only ones to survive. For all we know something crazy went down that Martin's yet to reveal.

[Frog One]

NW Deserter, on 14 May 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

But the actual fight hasn't been revealed in the books, that's one of the big mysteries - how Ned and Howland Reed were the only ones to survive. For all we know something crazy went down that Martin's yet to reveal.

Hawland Reed is fuckn badass! I wanna know more about the guy but Martin seems to be stashing him for a grand entry kickin ass and saving lives style. We know how skilled Ned is in combat to a good extent, but to take out those big dogs I'm thinking Reed gotta be one badass mofo.   

[bens]

Kalbear, on 13 May 2011 - 05:40 PM, said:

I think for the most part we aren't going to get flashbacks; the creators have already stated that they like using old soldiers shooting the shit as the way to cover backstory. I'd dearly love to see ToJ, but I doubt we will that much if at all.

There's no way to get "Promise me, Ned" without a flashback, though, since Ned won't talk to anyone about it (and he won't see Howland Reed before he dies). It seems like that line is important to establish before Ned's head gets chopped off.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

bens, on 14 May 2011 - 03:50 PM, said:

There's no way to get "Promise me, Ned" without a flashback, though, since Ned won't talk to anyone about it (and he won't see Howland Reed before he dies). It seems like that line is important to establish before Ned's head gets chopped off.

I agree.  I still think we'll see it in some form, most likely as an hallucination while he's imprisoned.  Maybe not the entire ToJ scene, but something.

Edited by Ser Helman Tallhart, 14 May 2011 - 07:41 PM.

[Rand]

NW Deserter, on 14 May 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

But the actual fight hasn't been revealed in the books, that's one of the big mysteries - how Ned and Howland Reed were the only ones to survive. For all we know something crazy went down that Martin's yet to reveal.

Dayne is catching a breather after just killing 10 other dudes leaving only Ned who is cowering in fear, when all of a sudden Howland Reed who was hiding the whole fight jumps out of a tree and throws a net on him. While Dayne is tangled Ned finds his bravery, charges and runs him through with Ice.  

How does that work?    

[Frog One]

Rand, on 15 May 2011 - 12:16 AM, said:

Dayne is catching a breather after just killing 10 other dudes leaving only Ned who is cowering in fear, when all of a sudden Howland Reed who was hiding the whole fight jumps out of a tree and throws a net on him. While Dayne is tangled Ned finds his bravery, charges and runs him through with Ice.  

How does that work?    

Anticlimactic as a premature ejaculation.

[Manakhkubar]

Rand, on 15 May 2011 - 12:16 AM, said:

Dayne is catching a breather after just killing 10 other dudes leaving only Ned who is cowering in fear, when all of a sudden Howland Reed who was hiding the whole fight jumps out of a tree and throws a net on him. While Dayne is tangled Ned finds his bravery, charges and runs him through with Ice.  

How does that work?    

Was my favourite scene from the 7th episode. I really like how D&D come up with these ideas congenially.

[NW Deserter]

Meh that's lame and super stereotypical. I'd hope for something better than that.

Looks like there's no second preview scene for this episode, unless they put it up within the next few hours.

Also, this is the first week I don't have HBO available anywhere to watch the episode! I'll have to resort to unsavory means to get a chance to watch it...  

[Été]

NW Deserter, on 15 May 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Also, this is the first week I don't have HBO available anywhere to watch the episode! I'll have to resort to unsavory means to get a chance to watch it...  

I might actually get up early tomorrow morning to watch it before classes   Someone help me

[Greylander]

Lord Varys,

You keep refer to "leading from the front" as "stupid".  Even a rudimentary knowledge of military history should tell you that many great generals "lead from the front".  George Washington was notorious for being out in front of his men with bullets whizzing all around him.  The relative merits of leading from the front/rear is something that has been discussed and debated in military circles for millenia, and there is not definitive answer.

Some things to understand:

• "leading from the front" does not necessarily mean literally in the front, but does, generally, mean being in or very near the thick of battle.

• battles can last for hours or days, being in the "front lines" does not mean that you are hacking at the enemy every moment.  Typically, groups of men come together, hack at each other for a while, then separate, regroup, officers try to bring order, encourage the men, decide what to do next, charge another group of enemies (or brace themselves for an imminent charge).  This happens over and over, becoming more chaotic as the day ensues.  For a general "leading from the front", he will be surrounded by his elite unit going through this same process.  During lulls in fighting, he will receive communications and send out orders by means of runners, drummers, trumpeters.

• "morale" (in simple terms the willingness of the troops to stand an fight rather than run away) is more important than both numbers and strategy, and a general who "leads from the front" imparts a *huge* amount of courage to his men -- they respect him, possibly love him, they will be ashamed to run when he is "leading the charge" so to speak.  A general who "leads from the rear" sacrifices these advantages.

• Even from a hilltop or tower, a general is not really going to have a good view of what is going on  -- the battlefield may be spread over a mile or more, there can be other hills, trees, buildings, dust, smoke, fog... so the "view" is not all that much of an advantage.  The general in the rear will tend to have better information and be in a better position to make better tactical decisions, but this is a matter of degree -- as I note in the 2nd point above, the general in front can still stay informed and give orders.

Bottom line, there is nothing inherently "stupid" about leading from the front.  Nor is there anything inherently "cowardly" about leading from the rear.  A good general, first and foremost, knows himself and knows his men and makes the decision to lead from front or rear accordingly, and may even make a different decision from one battle tot he next or even through the course of a single battle.

Given Ned's "man who passes the sentence should swing the sword" philosophy, I seriously doubt that he would not lead from the front.  He would not expect men to take risks that he was not willing to take.  The overall attitude of the Northmen strikes me that they would not respect or follow a leader who "lead from the rear" as for them it would be a sign of weakness.