Acting MVP on the show ?

[Elisabetta Duò]

15 hours ago, Cron said:

Very interesting, I read it all, you seem to be MUCH more knowledgeable about they Emmys than me, both historically and currently.  You said MANY things I didn't know.

My personal opinion is that Kit has been perfectly fine as Jon, I have no complaints, BUT...an Emmy?  Naw, i haven't seen anything from Kit as Jon Snow that made me think "Emmy," I believe you and I certainly agree on that.

If the Emmys are merely a popularity contest at times, then I would agree that's not right, but I just don't know enough about them to say..

By the way, I would think the Nikolai episode you're referring to has GOT to be 608, when he meets with Brienne, then he has that conversation with Edmure, and bluffs Edmure into agreeing to return to Riverrun and give it up to Jaime.   I'm a big Jaime fan, except for when he threw Bran out that window, naturally, and I felt that scene was one of Jaim'es top three moments in the entire series, along with his hot tub scene with Brienne when he tells her the truth about the Mad King,and when he rescues Brienne from the bear. 

Finally, I thought the Edmure actor did a great, great job in that scene with Jaime, too.

you were right, Nikolaj was in for No One.

as for Kit's chances this website for example gives him the highest chances (it's not always reliable tho... the totally missed Sherlock winning writing, best actor and best supp actor in a tv movie / short series last year): http://www.goldderby.com/awardshows/expert-predictions/emmy-awards-2016/drama-supp-actor/sort/recent/

 

[Cron]

2 hours ago, Elisabetta Duò said:

you were right, Nikolaj was in for No One.

as for Kit's chances this website for example gives him the highest chances (it's not always reliable tho... the totally missed Sherlock winning writing, best actor and best supp actor in a tv movie / short series last year): http://www.goldderby.com/awardshows/expert-predictions/emmy-awards-2016/drama-supp-actor/sort/recent/

 

Great stuff.

I saw the first two seasons of Sherlock and loved it never caught the third season, maybe i should have tracked iit down.

Maybe I will.

[Elisabetta Duò]

On 25 agosto 2016 at 11:44 PM, Cron said:

Great stuff.

I saw the first two seasons of Sherlock and loved it never caught the third season, maybe i should have tracked iit down.

Maybe I will.

tnx (personally I didn't like S3, except for 3x03, which was the episode they won all the awards for)

[Cron]

2 hours ago, Elisabetta Duò said:

tnx (personally I didn't like S3, except for 3x03, which was the episode they won all the awards for)

I remember Season 2 ended on a HUGE cliffhanger, and I was very anxions to see the resolution, but then they took SO long to come out with Season 3 that I just kind of forgot about it.  I think someone, finally, told me it had aired and I missed it, and that was that.

But based on your comment about the third episode of the third season, I might have to try to track it down.

[Elisabetta Duò]

On 29 agosto 2016 at 1:55 AM, Cron said:

I remember Season 2 ended on a HUGE cliffhanger, and I was very anxions to see the resolution, but then they took SO long to come out with Season 3 that I just kind of forgot about it.  I think someone, finally, told me it had aired and I missed it, and that was that.

But based on your comment about the third episode of the third season, I might have to try to track it down.

If you ever do, just let me know! I still prefer S1 and 2, but compared to 3x01 and 3x02, 3x03 was definitely better.

ps: sorry other users if we went a bit off topic here.

[Cron]

Will try to do so, thanks again.

[Woman of War]

"Debarred by fate from military prowess,  Tyrion can only influence events with his brain, and his trial is the show’s clearest proof that, in an unreasonable society, to have reasoning power guarantees nothing except the mental suffering that accrues when circumstances remind you that you are powerless. Tyrion is the embodiment, in a small body, of the show’s prepolitical psychological range. A perpetual victim of injustice, he yet has a sense of justice: circumstances can’t destroy his inner certainty that there are such things as fairness, love and truth. To raise, for an uninstructed audience, the question of what comes first, a civilised society or an instinctive wish for civilisation, can’t be a bad effect for an entertainment to have; although we might have to be part of an instructed audience ourselves in order to find that effect good, and we had better be protected by the police and an army from anyone who finds it trivial.

Philosophical conundrums aside, there is the matter of Tyrion’s indispensability; and here, surely, we finally come down to a certainty that there is one character the show can’t do without. Of those we come to love, there are many, but we have been ready to see them go. Everyone in the show is dispensable, as in the real world. But without Tyrion you would have to start the show again, because he is the epitome of the story’s moral scope. His big head is the symbol of his comprehension, and his little body the symbol of his incapacity to act upon it. Tyrion Lannister is us, bright enough to see the world’s evil but not strong enough to change it."

Quote Clive Barker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/09/02/why-would-anyone-both-adult-and-sane-watch-game-of-thrones/

[Darksky]

nvm

[Cron]

17 hours ago, Woman of War said:

"Debarred by fate from military prowess,  Tyrion can only influence events with his brain, and his trial is the show’s clearest proof that, in an unreasonable society, to have reasoning power guarantees nothing except the mental suffering that accrues when circumstances remind you that you are powerless. Tyrion is the embodiment, in a small body, of the show’s prepolitical psychological range. A perpetual victim of injustice, he yet has a sense of justice: circumstances can’t destroy his inner certainty that there are such things as fairness, love and truth. To raise, for an uninstructed audience, the question of what comes first, a civilised society or an instinctive wish for civilisation, can’t be a bad effect for an entertainment to have; although we might have to be part of an instructed audience ourselves in order to find that effect good, and we had better be protected by the police and an army from anyone who finds it trivial.

Philosophical conundrums aside, there is the matter of Tyrion’s indispensability; and here, surely, we finally come down to a certainty that there is one character the show can’t do without. Of those we come to love, there are many, but we have been ready to see them go. Everyone in the show is dispensable, as in the real world. But without Tyrion you would have to start the show again, because he is the epitome of the story’s moral scope. His big head is the symbol of his comprehension, and his little body the symbol of his incapacity to act upon it. Tyrion Lannister is us, bright enough to see the world’s evil but not strong enough to change it."

Quote Clive Barker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/09/02/why-would-anyone-both-adult-and-sane-watch-game-of-thrones/

A good read, I read it all with interest.

I agree with a lot of it, but not all of it.

Tyrion IS critical to the story (I've said quite a few times I view him as the "glue" that connects a lot of people and story lines, and although the show has no archetypal "protagonist," I believe Tyrion IS the "central character"), but I think Barker overstates Tyrion's imporatnce a little bit, here and there.

On the other hand, some of what Barker wrote really resonated with me.  I think thoughts along those lines especially when Tyrion is in the Eyrie, and his fate is resting on the whims of Lysa and Sweet Robin, both of whom are vastly intellectually inferior to Tyrion.  Poor Tyrion...he IS actually innocent of everything he's accused of at the Eyrie, but for all he knows he's about to DIE b/c an 8 year old (or whatever) just MIGHT be able to convince his mother, who is not real bright herself, to "make the bad man fly" on a whim.

Very scary for Tyrion, I'm sure.

[thi4f]

MVP award is usually given to 'the best player on the best team', not to 'the player who lifts his team the most'.

In other words, I should probably give the nod to an actor with loads of awesome scenes AND entertainment value. Peter Dinklage fits the bill... but I don't really think that playing a witty, charming and whitewashed Tyrion takes that much effort, especially for an intelligent person, like Dinklage. It comes natural, plus no one had more time to shine than him.

So, who was more efficient with less screen time?

Charles Dance, for sure. His Tywin was dominant, dangerous, unsettling, and cerebral. He did great, and his first appearance was thrilling - much better experience than cheap thrills of seasons 5 and 6.

Stephen Dillane was given a very uncohesive character. Examples: be famous for iron will --> but beg for sex; be loving and caring father --> burn your daughter for no reason; be the last contender to Iron Throne from Wot5K --> lose your plot to Jon Snow (ok, not his fault). Anyways, he was given a butchered character with no more than 3-4 lines per episode (on average). It's hard to make an impact in these circumstances... but he pulled it off. Show Stannis was - at least - polarizing and memorable, against all odds. Unsullied were and still are discussing his role, even though it was greatly diminished.

Jack Gleeson deserves to be mentioned. He knew exactly how to make Joffrey spoiled, disgusting, and TOTALLY unpredictable. He was making decisions in front of us and nobody knew the outcome. Other child actors (most of them) are just reading their lines and I don't see any thinking in them, no process. Their eyes are barren. Jack Gleeson was uniqure in that regard.