155 replies to this topic

[Evamitchelle]

Howdyphillip, on 25 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

And... This right here is exactly have an issue with. Why is it that we have thread after thread of negative responses? Why can't we have a neutral thread discussing the changes? I do not object to a discussion of Catelyn's change, I agree with the premise that what was done in the show is not as compelling a tale as the story told in the books. There are plenty of well thought out posts here that summarize frustrations without disparaging the show. I said this earlier, but to read just the opening thread titles here in this weeks forum, you would get the overall impression that this show is "terrible" and has been "ruined", "whitewashed", "emasculated", and "gutted". Although there are definitely people who feel that way, I think that this is not the case with the vast majority of people who watch this show, or even post in these forums.

Then create a positive thread of your own ? From what I've seen on the boards most people here find the Theon storyline to be have been done well, and as a result there's not much point to create a thread about it because most people have the same point of view and there can only be so many "I agree this is the best thing ever !!" before people start moving on to another subject. The point of a discussion board is to generate discussion after all. And most people gave the episode a 8 on the "How would you rate episode 208" thread, so the reaction isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

[Ran]

Quote

Seems to me that another option was to have the same loyal guys actually guard Jamie through the night as a 4th option.

The suggestion seems to be that when faced with a bunch of armed men wanting to kill Jaime Lannister, none of them would actually be willing to die in his stead.

By using some loyal guys to escort her and Jaime to Robb, she would at least not be asking them to die in his stead, they'd just be, you know, escorting her.

Edited by Ran, 25 May 2012 - 09:14 AM.

[Mulled Wino]

Ran, on 25 May 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

The suggestion seems to be that when faced with a bunch of armed men wanting to kill Jaime Lannister, none of them would actually be willing to die in his stead.

By using some loyal guys to escort her and Jaime to Robb, she would at least not be asking them to die in his stead, they'd just be, you know, escorting her.

I just find it hard to believe that Karstark's men would be able to impose their will on all the other Northmen there.

[Kittykatknits]

Mulled Wino, on 25 May 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

I just find it hard to believe that Karstark's men would be able to impose their will on all the other Northmen there.

I don't think it's all that hard to believe. Goes back to what Ran said, why would any Northmen wan't to risk themselves and potentially die for the kingslayer?

[RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon]

Howdyphillip, on 25 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

And... This right here is exactly have an issue with. Why is it that we have thread after thread of negative responses? Why can't we have a neutral thread discussing the changes? I do not object to a discussion of Catelyn's change, I agree with the premise that what was done in the show is not as compelling a tale as the story told in the books. There are plenty of well thought out posts here that summarize frustrations without disparaging the show. I said this earlier, but to read just the opening thread titles here in this weeks forum, you would get the overall impression that this show is "terrible" and has been "ruined", "whitewashed", "emasculated", and "gutted". Although there are definitely people who feel that way, I think that this is not the case with the vast majority of people who watch this show, or even post in these forums.

So defend the show then, put why you like the changes and add to the discussion. Stop having a go at bored members for posting their opinions on the show. They are welcome to, they are here for that and they are welcome to use whatever language they like to describe the changes. A lot of the other "negative" threads have people defending the show and they bring up interesting points. You however have added nothing to the discussion and have just complained about negativity and what people have said.

[Mulled Wino]

Kittykatknits, on 25 May 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

I don't think it's all that hard to believe. Goes back to what Ran said, why would any Northmen wan't to risk themselves and potentially die for the kingslayer?

because strategically it makes little sense to kill him at that point.  Any way you look at it, Jamie Lannister as a hostage is worth a lot more alive.  

The north has some capable generals that could figure that out without robb around, especially since Robb already stated publicly that he wanted Jamie alive.  Karstark's forces are a minority, not a majority.

[Evamitchelle]

Mulled Wino, on 25 May 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

because strategically it makes little sense to kill him at that point.  Any way you look at it, Jamie Lannister as a hostage is worth a lot more alive.  

The north has some capable generals that could figure that out without robb around, especially since Robb already stated publicly that he wanted Jamie alive.  Karstark's forces are a minority, not a majority.

Sure, they can also realize that killing Jaime is not a good idea. They still won't risk their lives to save him.

[Kittykatknits]

Evamitchelle, on 25 May 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

Honestly that line is a bit patronizing. "I respect your opinion but you're being stupid" is basically what you're saying here. I think D&D's writing for Cat is horrible, like they've missed the entire point of the character. I don't think they're doing it on purpose to "piss off book fans", they just have massively different interpretations on the character. Like when they say that Jaime is a psychotic monster and that Jon lacked a father figure. From the portrayal of Cat on the show my guess is that they see her as the "Good Mother" but not much more. And in my opinion that's missing the mark. For one thing Catelyn should be the main character here, instead of playing second fiddle to Robb most of the time and following his orders like a trained puppy. The idea to go talk to Renly was hers, as was the decision to actually talk to him. Instead she's being ordered around by her teenage son. Cat spends most of her times fighting that in the books : the prejudice that all the men around her have against her because she's a middle-aged mother who never picks up a sword. Pretty much every major lord in Robb's command tells her at one point or the other "oh you're the gentle sex you don't know anything about war" as a way to shut her up or try to make excuses for her with "it was mother's madness". And because of that prejudice they ignore her sensible advice : send anyone but Theon to the Iron Islands, exchange Jaime for Sansa, ally yourself with Renly, make peace with the Lannisters, don't go fight Lord Tywin at the fords etc. In the show that dimension is entirely gone because Cat never says much of anything. When Robb is named King in the North she tays silent, Robb is the one who suggests going to Renly, she never mentions Theon as an envoy etc. The one thing she can't shut up about is going back to Winterfell with her babies, which she never says aloud IIRC, much less to Robb. I think Game of Thrones is a great show on the whole, the actors in particular are fantastic, but there a few characters that I think D&D just don't get at all, mainly Catelyn and Sansa. Sansa isn't even a major character anymore it seems, when she's got something like 3rd most POV of all characters in Clash. Instead they have time to include 3-minutes long scenes of Ros being threatened by ultimate pimp Littlefinger or of Joffrey torturing prostitutes because he's evil. I'd consider that pretty mediocre writing.

Yes! I could not have said this any better. I said in another thread there are elements of the show that I love and, with few exceptions, the acting has been excellent. My concerns stem mostly from the writing and directing. Comments from D&D also lead me to believe that they have very different views of the characters than I do. Catelyn, Jame, and Jon have been changed in ways that make no sense to me and Sansa is now a minor character.

Catelyn is one of my favorite POVs in the series, I enjoyed every one of her chapters. She gives great insights to the prejudice that women face in this world and I liked seeing how she handles it. It has really disappointed me that she has been reduced to the "good mother" role who just wants to go home. In the books, she put herself where she felt she could have done the most good for ALL of her children, an important point that I think has been dropped.

[Howdyphillip]

Evamitchelle, on 25 May 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Then create a positive thread of your own ? From what I've seen on the boards most people here find the Theon storyline to be have been done well, and as a result there's not much point to create a thread about it because most people have the same point of view and there can only be so many "I agree this is the best thing ever !!" before people start moving on to another subject. The point of a discussion board is to generate discussion after all. And most people gave the episode a 8 on the "How would you rate episode 208" thread, so the reaction isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

First of all, It would be disingenuous of me to start a cheerleader thread for show Catelyn because as I have already pointed out on numerous occasions I don't think that her story line on the show is nearly as enjoyable as it was in the books. Her nuances and motivations have been changed to be almost diametrically opposed from one another,

I also question why her motivations were not brought up in the discussion with Robb and Karstark. but I can easily attribute that to her making a decision that at that particular moment, she believed Robb wasn't ready to listen to any excuses because of his overwhelming anger with her, and that she was just waiting for a better time. I am actually not far off in assessment from much of the discussion that is taking place here.

I will again say that I don't think having a discussion on the issues is a bad thing. What I have been trying to convey is that all of these things can be said without the vitriol and hatred that seem to permeate the board right now. Starting topics with negative connotations limit discussion, and gives the appearance that this show is not liked. As you have pointed out, the average rating from this board is an 8 (I gave it a 7 as it was my least favorite episode this year). You could never tell that by reading a list of topics discussing this show though. That is my major complaint with the thread title, and I believe the proper place to address that is within that particular thread.

Edited by Howdyphillip, 25 May 2012 - 09:45 AM.

[Mulled Wino]

Evamitchelle, on 25 May 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Sure, they can also realize that killing Jaime is not a good idea. They still won't risk their lives to save him.

I disagree.  They far outnumber the Karstarks and they are put at more peril by allowing Jamie to die.


TBH the whole scene is dumb.  If there was so much bloodlust to kill Jamie, wouldn't the Karstarks be monitoring everything that was going down in the Kingslayers cage?

If we're going to assume that the Karstarks would kill their fellow northmen to get at Jamie, then why did he even make it through the conversation with Catelyn?  If they wouldn't kill Catelyn, why didn't she just protect him overnight?

[Howdyphillip]

Mulled Wino, on 25 May 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I disagree. They far outnumber the Karstarks and they are put at more peril by allowing Jamie to die. TBH the whole scene is dumb. If there was so much bloodlust to kill Jamie, wouldn't the Karstarks be monitoring everything that was going down in the Kingslayers cage? If we're going to assume that the Karstarks would kill their fellow northmen to get at Jamie, then why did he even make it through the conversation with Catelyn? If they wouldn't kill Catelyn, why didn't she just protect him overnight?

Have you ever been around a group of angry guys rousing themselves up to do violence while sitting around and drinking? I thought that the writers made a completely believable case that Jaime was in for some killing if he were to stay where he was. With or without Catelyn watching on.

This is another case where I can point out that the writing is not "terrible". It is actually well thought out the majority of the times. It is however vastly different. I can honestly say that I don't like it as much without saying they are "gutting" the character. They are changing the character, and they are doing so in ways that are thought out and believable.

Edited by Howdyphillip, 25 May 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[Evamitchelle]

Howdyphillip, on 25 May 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

I will again say that I don't think having a discussion on the issues is a bad thing. What I have been trying to convey is that all of these things can be said without the vitriol and hatred that seem to permeate the board right now. Starting topics with negative connotations limit discussion, and gives the appearance that this show is not liked. As you have pointed out, the average rating from this board is an 8 (I gave it a 7 as it was my least favorite episode this year). You could never tell that by reading a list of topics discussing this show though. That is my major complaint with the thread title, and I believe the proper place to address that is within that particular thread.

The thread titles are a bit over-the-top, that's their purpose, they're supposed to make people want what's inside them. Even so I fail to see what's vitriolic or hateful about it. "The gutting of Catelyn's motivation" suggests that the OP had fault with one particular aspect of Cat's plotline in the show, namely the motivation behind her release of Jaime, and he then explained why he was disappointed in the change. If the OP had just said "D&D are morons they're screwing everything up" that would have been unhelpful and vitriolic. Here it's just strong disapproval, but it's still constructive.

Most of the other posters expressed their opinions rather mildly by saying "It felt off" or "it was weak" or "why Cat did't explain herself confuses me". There's nothing even remotely hateful about those, it's just criticism. Saying something is terrible isn't particularly vitriolic either.

[birdsong66]

Quote

I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again: however much I like Michelle Fairley (I think she's terrific), the writers have not done Catelyn Stark justice, not from episode one and on. My hopes that she'd become more like the character in the novel later in the first season never quite transpired, and I've grown increasingly frustrated with the way they've handled her this season. And so I'm at the point where to some degree I'm looking forward to the Red Wedding so that they can put Catelyn out of the picture and I don't have to keep wincing every time they make the character on the show less and less compelling.

It really is this cut and dry.  The changes to her character would make sense had Catelyn not been a fully fleshed out character in the books.  That is simply not the case.  If her motivations and behavior had been at all vague or muted in presentation, the changes make sense.  As I think everyone can agree this was/is not the case, the decision to reduce Catelyn to a bland, sexless, diluted "MOTHER" archetype insults me, personally, and to a certain extent, suggests that the producers either A) don't care for the character, or misinterpret the character, neither case being one I would spend a good deal of time defending, on a board or in discussions with people I watch with.  

And this misinterpretation has been there from episode one....removal of "It should have been you," her wanting Ned to be The Hand, her refusal to allow Jon Snow to stay, god forbid we have a scene where she might reflect on post-coital "aching loins," and my personal favorite, Catelyn cowering against a rock while Tyrion protects her versus she slices the throat of a clansman threatening Tyrion.  Every scene subsequent to that wherein her empowering book dialogue is given to everyone else in an effort to build those characters for TV viewership, read: one victory does not make us conquerors, etc., or the additional actions, while somewhat badass, read: punching Jaime with a rock, make her appear somehow less than the whole, reactionary, trite, a shadow of the original.

It isn't so much that we hate what D&D have done, or that we believe that the character has been gutted so much as the discontent that I, and apparently many others feel, that stems from the overall theme that Catelyn is a throwaway POV character, whose motivations, beliefs, and actions are only significant as they relate or define another character's, those characters who the producers have decided are more worthy or interesting or fundamentally better.  I do not agree.  Period.  It is also insulting to me personally, and I freely admit this, that the "MOTHER" archetype is defined by D&D for HBOGoT as intellectually inferior, overly emotional, subject to inconsistencies in thought and action, and every other manner of cliche applicable.  I will state again, it is a testament to Michelle Fairley, and her alone, that anyone even bothers with a thread on the subject of Catelyn, and not in any way evidence of the skill which with D&D have chosen to present her.

THAT SAID:  I'm really hoping, HOPING (!), that D&D have chosen to present Catelyn as a passive cliche of motherhood/womanhood, whatever, as a means to truly define how powerless women in general are in Westeros, as I believe they have successfully done with other female characters.  In this, she truly represents what Cercei reflects on when stating (to Sansa I think) don't love anyone because that love will make you do ridiculous things for those you love; you can't help but love your children, regardless of father, but in the end, it will kill you just the same.  Taking that theme, applying it to Catelyn better illustrates how loyal and loving she is, and defines her transformation to SH as even more disturbing because she has become that animal that loved too much, tried too hard, wanted and wanted, ultimately denied, and who, without any self imposed boundries, gives leave to her previous notions in favor of revenge, pure, true, and just.  It could be fantastically awesome.  Or, it can wither on the vine.

[Mulled Wino]

Howdyphillip, on 25 May 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Have you ever been around a group of angry guys rousing themselves up to do violence while sitting around and drinking? I thought that the writers made a completely believable case that Jaime was in for some killing if he were to stay where he was. With or without Catelyn watching on. This is another case where I can point out that the writing is not "terrible". It is actually well thought out the majority of the times. It is however vastly different. I can honestly say that I don't like it as much without saying they are "gutting" the character. They are changing the character, and they are doing so in ways that are thought out and believable.

Yes I have.

And I don't see how she was able to get him out of the cage without any of these angry men noticing without any sort of protection if he was going to die that night.  Did they plan a mandatory meeting?

Personally, I'm cool with the writing here and the scene.  Catelyn makes a lot of mistakes, and this is another of her blunders that I don't think deviates excessively from her book character.  My opinion is that the right thing to have done would have been to protect him until the king could decide what should be done and that doing so was an option available to Catelyn.  It definitely was if there is an option of hustling him out of there and escorting him to Robb.

[birdsong66]

Quote

Personally, I'm cool with the writing here and the scene. Catelyn makes a lot of mistakes, and this is another of her blunders that I don't think deviates excessively from her book character. My opinion is that the right thing to have done would have been to protect him until the king could decide what should be done and that doing so was an option available to Catelyn. It definitely was if there is an option of hustling him out of there and escorting him to Robb.

Except, he killed his own cousin in an escape attempt, and was recaptured.  The idea that someone who still possess the physica/intellectuall where with all to kill two men prior to his first attempt at escape being escorted into a tent for a guarded conversation with TKotN doesn't exactly sound like a smart idea.  Also, it presents another change in the book as by this time, Jaime is in a weakened physical/emotional state due to imprisonment which is obviously not the case on HBO.

I mean, I get what you are saying, and I also wondered why it was that Catelyn and Brienne wouldn't just remain in the cage overnight, as while they might have killed Brienne to get to Jaime, killing Catelyn would have been a double down bet on treason, escorting Jaime to Robb under guard would have made even less sence, IMO.

[Mulled Wino]

birdsong66, on 25 May 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Except, he killed his own cousin in an escape attempt, and was recaptured.  The idea that someone who still possess the physica/intellectuall where with all to kill two men prior to his first attempt at escape being escorted into a tent for a guarded conversation with TKotN doesn't exactly sound like a smart idea.  Also, it presents another change in the book as by this time, Jaime is in a weakened physical/emotional state due to imprisonment which is obviously not the case on HBO.

agreed, all the more reason not to just let him go.  how do you trust this guy?  just a flat out boneheaded move.

i don't out too much stock into the cousin killing.  jamie doesn't care about anyone but himself at this point in the books and in the show.

birdsong66, on 25 May 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

I mean, I get what you are saying, and I also wondered why it was that Catelyn and Brienne wouldn't just remain in the cage overnight, as while they might have killed Brienne to get to Jaime, killing Catelyn would have been a double down bet on treason, escorting Jaime to Robb under guard would have made even less sence, IMO.

im on the same page.  the dungeon doesn't translate to the cage.

[Greywolf2375]

Howdyphillip, on 25 May 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

. What I have been trying to convey is that all of these things can be said without the vitriol and hatred that seem to permeate the board right now. Starting topics with negative connotations limit discussion, and gives the appearance that this show is not liked. As you have pointed out, the average rating from this board is an 8 (I gave it a 7 as it was my least favorite episode this year). You could never tell that by reading a list of topics discussing this show though. That is my major complaint with the thread title, and I believe the proper place to address that is within that particular thread.

That's just pure hyperbole.  Are there unfounded "this was teh worst thing evar!1!!1" comments - yes.  But looking over ALL the comments in all of the threads, the hatred and vitriol is a very, very small percentage of all posts.  It may be memorable because it stands out in it's ridiculousness, but that doesn't mean it is the leading type of comment.  I remember reading theonering.net and other sites before LOTR came out...what we have seen on this site is a far cry from what I would consider harsh on a large scale.

Even if a thread topic is poorly worded, it doesn't stop comments from an opposing viewpoint, if anything it invites them.  There are some - the Nitpick Without Repercussion and Cheer Without Fear threads that seem to have people respecting the requested boundaries.  Even reading those though, the vast majority of people are not looking at the series as black and white

[SerMixalot]

For me the biggest concern is that D&D just dont seem to understand the basic concept of certain characters. Now that perception may only be presented to explain the show characters and where they are going, but even in that terms they fail.  Jon as seeking a father figure?  That makes absolutely zero sense and in my book is indefensible as a character motivation.  But there we have it and it is clear that they have inbued TV Jon with that trait in his relationship to Mormont. And this is this perceptual dissonance that viewers have.  Jons actions dont make sense for what we know of Jon as a viewer and a reader.  A bastard raised by his father with a hostile mother figure, surrounded by stoic male father figures who clearly loved and instructed the young man is 180 degrees from Jon seeking a father figure.  Thus when D&D present his character that way it simply makes no sense from a concious and subconcious level.

WRT Cat, she is one of the most fascinating characters in the book, because she is so strong and single minded in her actions.  They are consistent and logical from her perspective.  That strength, as pointed out above makes her unique in breaking the female mother mold of the genre and larger fictional literature.  It therefore becomes disappointing to many perceptive, mature viewes that her character is so changed, back to the cliched irrational grieving mother role, because that is so hackkneed (sp?) and predictable as to make the series less than its potential.  And many of these changes simply make no sense, except for the most probable in that the writers intended on dumbing down her character.  Specific changes were made that would not impact the budget or flow of the series that reduce her from a powerful figure in Robbs camp to the dottering mother.  And that is a shame.

Again, I believe this hurts the series in the long run.  When the series starts to fall back on cliches and stereotypes it loses the thing that makes the series so special. The maturity and uniqueness, the reality and the mold breaking that attracts people to its story. If this story were simply Westerosi 90210, where cliched romance meet medieval violence, it will become cliche and boring.  It works cause it is the Sopranos meets King Arthur, with magic.  Simplifying characters to meet mass appeal brings this to the level of cliched fantasy and that simply does not have the mass appeal that this series must have to survive.

[birdsong66]

Quote

agreed, all the more reason not to just let him go. how do you trust this guy? just a flat out boneheaded move.

And yet another example of a change from the book that did not get fleshed out enough to make a bit more sense.  In the book, it is made very clear that who Catelyn trusts is Brienne and  Tyrion, specifically because he swore an oath while sitting the Iron Throne in Joffrey/Cercei's absence, because he poisoned her and gave Joffrey a new weapon to play with, and some would argue that this vow is exactly why he needed both to be elsewhere.  Dropped plot line:  Poison, vow in front of court assembly, evidence that Joffrey likes to hurt defenseless things.

For HBO's fleshing as it is, we are supposed to remember Ned's bones as a show of good faith from Tyrion, and the conversation with LF when he proposes such a trade.  Plot additions:  Ned's bones, LF and Tyrion's "pact," LF's attempt to sway Catelyn to him, absolutely no witnesses to Cat/LF exchange, or LF/Tyrion's exchange.  It is the HBO version/sequence of events which makes the subsequent release all the more "boneheaded" as it lacked all manner of effectively fleshing it out.  Given this, I see little reason to not include "it should have been you" because one can't remove this as a means to soften/lend support to a character for TV, and then fail to properly detail who it is she trusts, why she did it without throwing her in front of a bus.  Does that make sense?  i mean me, am I making sense?

Also, add me to those who are really sad they didn't include "No one calls my Lady a traitor in my presence...."  Really?  He could still have been pissed at her without failing to come to her defense with this simple declaration, IMO.  Rather like the lone wolf dies but the pact survives premise informs Arya, but  remains lost on Robb.

[LordofWinter]

turdle, on 24 May 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

i think the reason is pretty obvious, they wanted to get the kingslayer out and about. the producers basically said as much before the season premiered. if this were an isolated incident, i would be more apt to agree with you, Howdyphillip. but as many cat fans have been pointing out since the beginning of this season, cat is often doing the exact opposite of what she does in the books. for example, cat wanting to go home at the start of the season. imo, this season has been mediocre at best. the one redeeming aspect of it has been theons story. they failed to build up to the riot, they failed to build up any tension north of the wall, and they've failed to build up any tension leading into blackwater. just a bunch of bullet points. point a to point b, with unnecessary, long, invented-for-the-tv-show scenes inbetween.

i agree, and i stated as much in plenty of other threads. it's not just this season where they are giving her decisions a 180. it started in the first season when she pretty much begged Eddard not to go to KL.

and i'll never understand people who say that changes like this don't effect the overall story. ALL PLOTS AND SUBPLOTS OF ANY STORY ARE PUSHED AND GUIDED ALONG BY THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT OF EACH OF THE CHARACTERS. WHEN THEY MAKE A CHOICE THAT YOU THE READER CAN SEE, THERE IS A PURPOSE TO THAT. IF THE CONTINUITY OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT ISN'T IMPORTANT THAN I GUESS NEITHER ARE LANDSCAPES OR DIALOGUE.