129 replies to this topic

[SerMixalot]

Songlian, on 15 May 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I couldn't agree with you more, and well put! The scene, imo, was amazing.

That's the thing, the scene was amazing, though I knew as soon as Cleo (sic) was sent to the pen he was going to die, too obvious.

The problem it is that it goes against Jamie's character.  And that is of course the wonderful thing about reading and art, is the perceptions of the readers and viewers can be so different as to warrant such heated and lively debate.

But it was, book Jamie was a complex character, TV Jamie is a cliche.  Of course, his redemption arc will occur in the show, some will buy it some will not.  Of course it is not an objective fact whether killing Cleo (sic) is out of character, but for me it is ), the fact is that Jamie's redemption if you want to call it that began not when he had his hand cut off but when he lost in the Whispering Woods and was a prisoner, it started there (as evident by the fact that he didnt kill a vulnerable Brienne), is doubt sinking into Jamie undercutting his narcissm?  who knows, agains that is for hte reader to decide

But for me, Jamie killing Cleo (sic) is a game changer, I will not be able to believe the redemption that comes.

If you accept that his redemption came from him losing his hand, why does that same self doubt and self examination not occur from losing (Badly) and becoming a captive, facing death?  They are both of the same ilk, proof positive that his worth (his fighting ability) is not perfect.

[Currawong]

Ser Piggy Of The Baby Back Rib, on 15 May 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

As I mentioned in another post on the Episode review, I would have prefered that they save those 4 minutes and use it to have Jamie provide the backstory of how he became the Kingslayer and how Lord Rickard and Brandon Stark died.  That whole scene in the books he's being a total dick to Catelyn.  With them rushing to get so much in, I would have loved for people who haven't read the books get some more valuable history.  It helps people understand better what's going on and why.

As I also replied on the general Ep 7 thread, you have obviously forgotten Series 1.   Jaime had that whole powerful scene with Ned Stark, where he told Ned about the deaths of Brandon and Rickard - who after all were Ned's family, not Cat's.   Surely viewers can remember that!  (And if they haven't seen Series 1, they can't complain about not getting information that was given to them then).

There is absolutely no need to repeat the Brandon - Rickard information in a duplicate scene with Cat.   They weren't her family, so it's unecessary and would certainly be a waste of time. And if they follow the books and have Jaime tell the story to Brienne in Series 3 (the Harrenhal bath scene or whatever they choose to use), then we would get a triple information dump.



Edited for spelling

Edited by Currawong, 15 May 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[House Snow]

Come on people, he killed the guy instead of punching him b/c it was better TV.  All the other stuff is  so secondary.  The way it went down was the coolest way to film it, and that matters more than splitting hairs about whether it was kinslaying or in character for Jaimie.  As the one poster said, Jaimie became more popular among non-readers after that scene in this episode.  Its only going to make his redemption more complicated.  Do I root for a guy who did this in his past-thats better than Jaimie becoming the good guy whose past acts are all justified.  I'd rather him have a couple things that aren't justified, makes it *gasp* grayer.

Also some of you guys are going to be in for a rude awakening when/if Winds comes out.  Jaimie is going back to the dark side.

Edited by House Snow, 15 May 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[Brienne the Beauty]

House Snow, on 15 May 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Also some of you guys are going to be in for a rude awakening when/if Winds comes out.  Jaimie is going back to the dark side.

How would you know? Are you secretly George RR Martin?

[Pliskin]

House Snow, on 15 May 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Come on people, he killed the guy instead of punching him b/c it was better TV.  All the other stuff is  so secondary.  The way it went down was the coolest way to film it, and that matters more than splitting hairs about whether it was kinslaying or in character for Jaimie.  As the one poster said, Jaimie became more popular among non-readers after that scene in this episode.  Its only going to make his redemption more complicated.  Do I root for a guy who did this in his past-thats better than Jaimie becoming the good guy whose past acts are all justified.  I'd rather him have a couple things that aren't justified, makes it *gasp* grayer.

Oh okay.
Let's go for "cool TV" even it's stupid and nonsense TV.
We, TV viewers, are stupid after all... Let the smart intelligent things to readers... they're the only ones capable of understanding them.

Euh... Wait, I thought it was HBO, not the CW... was I wrong ?

[House Snow]

Pliskin, on 15 May 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Oh okay.
Let's go for "cool TV" even it's stupid and nonsense TV.
We, TV viewers, are stupid after all... Let the smart intelligent things to readers... they're the only ones capable of understanding them.

Euh... Wait, I thought it was HBO, not the CW... was I wrong ?

What are you talking it about?  It didn't dumb anything down.  If anything it made Jaimie more complex.

And to Brienne I'm basing it on that After Jaimie and Cersei basically living there worse nightmares, the last we see of both in the book they are contemplating going back to the way they were.

[frametown]

If you can watch the "behind the episode" stuff on hbo.com, D&D talk about this scene.  They both said that he is a monster, and loves killing and fighting more than anything.   So clearly, this is in line with their view of Jaime.  Whether that view is in line with book Jaime, as of that point, is debatable, but I personally think it is.

[Fantôme]

Pliskin, on 15 May 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

He might not have thought of his children explicitly, but Jaime is (was) a man who acts on impulse. He thought "the world cannot know, there is too much at stake, so I kill the boy".

And the truth is that there would have been war, Tywin Lannister wouldn't have just sit and watch his family being executed.

Not denying the possible consequences coming from Tywin or whoever. Denying that Jaime actually even thought about it. I would take out the  "there's too much at stake " from your hypothetical Jaime thought . Unless The "too much" refers to Cersei who is most probably the only thing motivating him there.Granted it's not just sex but genuine love. That doesn't justify anything.

[Pliskin]

Well, if you grant me the "love" thing, I'm happy (though I firmly believe in the rest too, but anyway).
I'm not trying to justify it, I've never tried. All I say is that he had his reasons. And that it wasn't the case with killing Alton.

Again : "The things I do for love".
(sorry but I love this quote :/ )

[Mulled Wino]

Pliskin, on 15 May 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

I didn't say he didn't escape, I said it didn't help him escape.
He could have punched him hard, and they would have fooled the guard both.
And he would have an ally in the escape...


No, he thought the boy would die. Which would have prevented the war, not triggered it.
I'm not defending him. Cersei herself thought Jaime was pretty stupid on this (and though it hurts me to admit it, I cannot really say she's wrong). But the fact is that he got his reasons. Even it was bad or stupid reasons.
That just wasn't the case with Alton.

he kicked off the war by killing ned's household guard....ned had no choice but to fight at that point..........

do you happen to remember how much jamie cared about cleos in the books?


and as far as the first part, an ally isn't necessarily good in an escape.  a fake fight isn't some sort of emergency, or just punching someone.,  killing someone on the other hand would get the door opened.

[Mulled Wino]

I guess no evidence on your belief that he did it to save his kids huh?  You just feel that ay even though everything in the book points another direction.

[Librarian of Lannisport]

Mulled Wino, on 16 May 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

he kicked off the war by killing ned's household guard....ned had no choice but to fight at that point..........

Ummmm, yes and no.  Cat did the equivalent of blowing up Ft. Sumner when she kidnapped Tyrion on heresay.  However, Jamie fighting with Ned in the streets of King's Landing and then pillaging the Riverlands really were the obvious acts of war.

Mulled Wino, on 16 May 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

I guess no evidence on your belief that he did it to save his kids huh?  You just feel that ay even though everything in the book points another direction.

At the beginning of A Feast for Crows, Jamie says something about how his kids were never anything more to him than a 'squirt in Cersie's cunt'.  He didn't start even considering himself a father until his own was dead.

Personally, I don't see Jamie's 'redemption' as really 'redemption'.  He's still playing a role.  He takes fulfilling his role VERY seriously.  I think what we see as his redemption is nothing more than him trying to step into the shoes he's assigned by his sister as Lord Commander of the Kingsgaurd and also breaking free of his father.  Frankly, I believe he respected Ser Selmy more than he ever did Lord Tywin.

[Mulled Wino]

Librarian of Lannisport, on 16 May 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Ummmm, yes and no.  Cat did the equivalent of blowing up Ft. Sumner when she kidnapped Tyrion on heresay.  However, Jamie fighting with Ned in the streets of King's Landing and then pillaging the Riverlands really were the obvious acts of war.



At the beginning of A Feast for Crows, Jamie says something about how his kids were never anything more to him than a 'squirt in Cersie's cunt'.  He didn't start even considering himself a father until his own was dead.

Personally, I don't see Jamie's 'redemption' as really 'redemption'.  He's still playing a role.  He takes fulfilling his role VERY seriously.  I think what we see as his redemption is nothing more than him trying to step into the shoes he's assigned by his sister as Lord Commander of the Kingsgaurd and also breaking free of his father.  Frankly, I believe he respected Ser Selmy more than he ever did Lord Tywin.

agreed on all points, it wasn't the only event that kicked off the war, but it was part of the chain of events and he had zero problem doing it, and would have done it again.  i believe he regretted not fighting ned later in the books.  hence, killing a distant cousin to escape imprisonment not being a far stretch at all for jamie lannister.

and as far as the rest goes, that's what I've been arguing.  he nowhere near pushed bran out of the window to protect his kids.  it's a laughable argument to say he did.

there's no redemption there, he merely learns to respect some other people because he can't just kill or fight them because he has no right hand.......and recognizes that cersei is a maniac.  i

[SerMixalot]

frametown, on 15 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

If you can watch the "behind the episode" stuff on hbo.com, D&D talk about this scene.  They both said that he is a monster, and loves killing and fighting more than anything.   So clearly, this is in line with their view of Jaime.  Whether that view is in line with book Jaime, as of that point, is debatable, but I personally think it is.

The thing is that it WAS in accordance with Book Jamie, early in the story.  Jamie only viewed himself in terms of he being a warrior, he solved problems by cutting through them with a sword, no patience for debate.  He was a narcissist that only thought in terms of himself and his wants and needs.  IN this way his attempt to kill Bran is in line with his character, Bran posed a threat to him and cersei.

Book Jamie begins to change when he loses the battle of the Whispering Wood, very subtly but he does change, Jamie himself is likely unaware of the change.  that military defeat demonstrated his limits as a perfect warrior vessel.  Jamie began to question himself at this point and he began his redemption arc (it is still to be seen whether his redemption is sucessful).  This is evident by his books willingness to die and his not attacking and killing a vulnerable Brienne.  These things happened before he lost his hand.

That is why killing Cleo doesnt jive with the book. First, Cleo did not pose a threat to him, he was a tool to be used by Jamie, which poses a SIGNIFICANT difference even for pre Whispering Woods Jamie.  Bran posed a threat that Jamie could not abide, Cleo did not pose a threat.  There is a distinct difference.  The closest parrallel we have in the book is Jamie ordering the deaths of Neds bodyguards, but there are significant differences here too, the men were armed and Ned himself posed a threat to Jamie (albeit indirectly), through cat's control of Tyrion.  But it is clear that Jamie orderred their needless deaths.

But I would argue that this was pre Whispering Woods Jamie, where he received an important life lesson, that his image of himself was based on completely wrong assumptions.

That is why kiling Cleo is not in character, it was a cold blooded act to someone that did not pose a threat to him.  In that I believe D&D erred in their characterization of JL

[SerMixalot]

Mulled Wino, on 16 May 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

agreed on all points, it wasn't the only event that kicked off the war, but it was part of the chain of events and he had zero problem doing it, and would have done it again.  i believe he regretted not fighting ned later in the books.  hence, killing a distant cousin to escape imprisonment not being a far stretch at all for jamie lannister.

and as far as the rest goes, that's what I've been arguing.  he nowhere near pushed bran out of the window to protect his kids.  it's a laughable argument to say he did.

there's no redemption there, he merely learns to respect some other people because he can't just kill or fight them because he has no right hand.......and recognizes that cersei is a maniac.  i

I disagree, clearly JL could be on a redemption arc as evidence I offer the following

a. his treatment of Brienne, saving her from rape, the bear and giving her a honorable goal to achieve (finding Sansa)

b. His refutation of his father and cersei

c. His wisdom over Loras's arrogance

d. His abiding by his oath not to fight the northerners or the rivermen (though he did contemplate the possibility, he was clearly relieved by not having to)

e. His attempts at finding honorable compromises and treatment of defeated enemies.

All of these examples and more show a man possibly on a redemption arc, though I would argue that it is unclear whether his redemption will occur or if so in what form

[Stanmore]

I think the point a lot of people are missing is he didn't need to kill Alton at all.  In fact killing the boy probably hinders his escape more than anything.

His plan had 3 stages.

1) get guard into room
2) kill guard
3) run off into camp full of northmen

Now i don't know about you but I can think of more than 1 way of fulfilling step 1. Fake illness, insult the guard, fake a fight with Alton, Beat the shit out of Alton without actually trying to kill him.   Granted these are all long shots, but killing Alton shouldn't have really worked either. Why would the Karstark boy go in there without calling for back up when Jaime has already proved capable of beating one person to death?

Now step 2. Wouldn't overpoweing the guard be easier with Alton to help? Jaime is good, but there's no way he could have been sure to overpower an armed man chained up like he was. Why throw away your major assest in the escape just to create a simple distraction?

Then step 3.  The boy isn't going to slow Jaime down, because you've already admited he doesn't care if he lives or dies. The two could split up increasing the chances of one getting away, or Jaime could sacrifice his cousin at this point  inorder help his own chances of escape.

Killing Alton in the cell is pointless, shortsighted and immoral, It only serves to add shock value to the scene and make Jaime look like an idiot and a psychopath.  That characterisation fits with what we've seen on the show, but it doesn't really mesh with what we learn in the later books.

[Mulled Wino]

Stanmore, on 16 May 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

I think the point a lot of people are missing is he didn't need to kill Alton at all.  In fact killing the boy probably hinders his escape more than anything.

His plan had 3 stages.

1) get guard into room
2) kill guard
3) run off into camp full of northmen

Now i don't know about you but I can think of more than 1 way of fulfilling step 1. Fake illness, insult the guard, fake a fight with Alton, Beat the shit out of Alton without actually trying to kill him.   Granted these are all long shots, but killing Alton shouldn't have really worked either. Why would the Karstark boy go in there without calling for back up when Jaime has already proved capable of beating one person to death?

Now step 2. Wouldn't overpoweing the guard be easier with Alton to help? Jaime is good, but there's no way he could have been sure to overpower an armed man chained up like he was. Why throw away your major assest in the escape just to create a simple distraction?

Then step 3.  The boy isn't going to slow Jaime down, because you've already admited he doesn't care if he lives or dies. The two could split up increasing the chances of one getting away, or Jaime could sacrifice his cousin at this point  inorder help his own chances of escape.

Killing Alton in the cell is pointless, shortsighted and immoral, It only serves to add shock value to the scene and make Jaime look like an idiot and a psychopath.  That characterisation fits with what we've seen on the show, but it doesn't really mesh with what we learn in the later books.

sounds like a perfect description of 2 handed jamie.  that's exactly what he was.  LOL!!!!

Jamie was fucking his twin sister! remember?  how is it a stretch for the producers to make him immoral?


fake illness?  c'mon, please just stop.

Edited by Mulled Wino, 16 May 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[Mulled Wino]

SerMixalot, on 16 May 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

I disagree, clearly JL could be on a redemption arc as evidence I offer the following

a. his treatment of Brienne, saving her from rape, the bear and giving her a honorable goal to achieve (finding Sansa)

b. His refutation of his father and cersei

c. His wisdom over Loras's arrogance

d. His abiding by his oath not to fight the northerners or the rivermen (though he did contemplate the possibility, he was clearly relieved by not having to)

e. His attempts at finding honorable compromises and treatment of defeated enemies.

All of these examples and more show a man possibly on a redemption arc, though I would argue that it is unclear whether his redemption will occur or if so in what form

yes, it started after brienne beat his ass amd he got his hand got cut off, but it seemed to me that it was all because he lost the only other options he had ever know.  I liked jamie from the beginning to the end of SOS TBH.  I just don't think it was as much of redemption as him trying to learn how to get by with his disfigurement

[Mulled Wino]

SerMixalot, on 16 May 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

The thing is that it WAS in accordance with Book Jamie, early in the story.  Jamie only viewed himself in terms of he being a warrior, he solved problems by cutting through them with a sword, no patience for debate.  He was a narcissist that only thought in terms of himself and his wants and needs.  IN this way his attempt to kill Bran is in line with his character, Bran posed a threat to him and cersei.

Book Jamie begins to change when he loses the battle of the Whispering Wood, very subtly but he does change, Jamie himself is likely unaware of the change.  that military defeat demonstrated his limits as a perfect warrior vessel.  Jamie began to question himself at this point and he began his redemption arc (it is still to be seen whether his redemption is sucessful).  This is evident by his books willingness to die and his not attacking and killing a vulnerable Brienne.  These things happened before he lost his hand.

That is why killing Cleo doesnt jive with the book. First, Cleo did not pose a threat to him, he was a tool to be used by Jamie, which poses a SIGNIFICANT difference even for pre Whispering Woods Jamie.  Bran posed a threat that Jamie could not abide, Cleo did not pose a threat.  There is a distinct difference.  The closest parrallel we have in the book is Jamie ordering the deaths of Neds bodyguards, but there are significant differences here too, the men were armed and Ned himself posed a threat to Jamie (albeit indirectly), through cat's control of Tyrion.  But it is clear that Jamie orderred their needless deaths.

But I would argue that this was pre Whispering Woods Jamie, where he received an important life lesson, that his image of himself was based on completely wrong assumptions.

That is why kiling Cleo is not in character, it was a cold blooded act to someone that did not pose a threat to him.  In that I believe D&D erred in their characterization of JL

this differs from killing ned's household guard how?  cuz it was more than one person?

Edited by Mulled Wino, 16 May 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Stanmore]

Mulled Wino, on 16 May 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

sounds like a perfect description of 2 handed jamie.  that's exactly what he was.  LOL!!!!

Jamie was fucking his twin sister! remember?  how is it a stretch for the producers to make him immoral?


fake illness?  c'mon, please just stop.

So faking an illness is a cliché but statrting a fight in the cell is believable? They're both hackneyed ideas, difference is they found a way to sex up the fight.

Jaime is not a psychopath. His motives are more complex than you or the show runners give him credit for.