How will the TV series deal with R+L=J?

[Lord Godric]

I feel like flashbacks will be neccessary to adequately explain this. One easy flashback I can think of is when Ned is in the dungeon before his execution. It would be a perfect time to slip in a Tower of Joy flashback in a dream sequence. As for Rhaegar, I would imagine that he will be referenced quite a few times. At least by Robert/Ned and Dany/Viserys.

Now that I think of it, I really do hope they explain Robert's Rebellion enough. It is crucial to many points of the story, and I can't imagine not being told about it. It would certainly create problems in (possible) future seasons.

[The SmilingKnight]

You asked a wide open question: Explain how flashbacks could possibly go badly. I gave you an example.

No you didnt.

You just made some statements without backing them up with any example.

What you did is made more statements and half predictions based on ... nothing really. Maybe some unreasonable fear that it would all go wrong.

As to how to explain past events important for the plot or characters... obviously you would use both dialogue and a few flashbacks where visual representation would be more useful, direct and powerful addition.

In the case of Robert and Rhaegar obviously you can have Robert and Ned talking, remembering, Robert saying "he kidnapped her, he raped her" etc

Which from his point of view would be true.

Then you show their duel at the Trident.

Maybe even Eddards brother and father being tortured to death by Aerys.

The mountain killing the princess and her children.

Jaime killing Aerys.

And Tower of Joy.

That gives the viewers the background explanations they need and creates a bit of mystery too, if done right.

The other two options are 1. just to talk about it which would be incredibly lame and time consuming both, and 2 to pretend non of it happened which leaves huge plot holes which would confuse anyone watching the series for the first time.

So you're saying that I believe their writers/directors to be infallible, but also saying that I assume they will do flashback badly?

Thats how it looks, yes.

I also agree that for readers, the show would be unequivocally superior with extensive flashbacks.

I disagree. No need to make them extensive.

[aimlessgun]

No you didnt.

You just made some statements without backing them up with any example.

What you did is made more statements and half predictions based on ... nothing really. Maybe some unreasonable fear that it would all go wrong.

I posited a situation where non-readers would be focusing their energy on following the developments of characters in the present day: politics, getting to know the characters and any other goings on. And then posited the insertion of flashbacks that weren't done well enough. Result: flashbacks being confusing and distracting.

Did I say it would happen? Did I even say it would probably happen? It's a hypothetical. I'm sorry I didn't write a script for you so I could fall within whatever narrow response for 'Explain how' is acceptable to you.

Thats how it looks, yes.

I disagree. No need to make them extensive.

Now you're just giving me a hard time :P This is what I get for the ill-advised 'accomplished TV writer' comment: hounded to death by the Smiling Knight!

[Padraig]

Why would you change anything if there are no flashbacks?

Exactly. :) You don't have to make any changes to the plot if you don't have those flashbacks. Not sure why we are still debating this.

The point is that presenting a few crucial memories is the better option then not presenting them.

Well of course. But as you say yourself, you don't have to change anything in future seasons if you don't present that memory, so its no big deal.

Not sure why you think it would be a cheap scene to film? Why would this be cheaper than most other scenes? And yes, of course it could be confusing. In the books, it is easy to understand who the 3 KG are. But in the TV series, it will not be so easy.

As for your list of flashbacks. The only one I could agree with is Jaime and Aerys. We probably do need to see that to understand Jaime's change. Obviously it would be nice to have the others but I could give you another 6 that were as equally valid as your list. Like seeing Gregor rape and kill Elia? Seriously, why is that crucial? We know Gregor is a monster. This just shows he is a monster. And we'll see more evidence of what kind of monster he is as the series move forward.

The "show don't tell" thing breaks down because you can't show everything. :) You must always ask what do you gain from showing something. I don't need to see every significant brutal rape scene from the past. Its the more subtle scenes where you gain from showing them.

Besides, we all love the ToJ scene and we've never seen it except in our imagination. So clearly, seeing it on the screen isn't the key to loving GoT. :)

They do introduce the Targaryens at the very start of the program, so I think we should figure out who they are. Robert talks about Lyanna's kidnapping at the beginning also, so we'll figure out what happened there. You can throw the ""show don't tell" thing at me there but that's why GRRM wrote it so that Robert would visit Lyanna's tomb and we would see his grief. There are different ways to show things.

Btw, we don't learn about what Aerys really did until Jaime tells us in aCoK. I hope they stick to that timeframe.

[The SmilingKnight]

Now you're just giving me a hard time :P This is what I get for the ill-advised 'accomplished TV writer' comment: hounded to death by the Smiling Knight!

Ok, Ok... i guess i can kill you later, or something...

Exactly. :) You don't have to make any changes to the plot if you don't have those flashbacks. Not sure why we are still debating this.

Well of course. But as you say yourself, you don't have to change anything in future seasons if you don't present that memory, so its no big deal.

You grossly misunderstand.

I meant to say that they could just decide not to have any flashbacks and just roll with the "present" layer of the story (which is something like youre advocating) - and end up with mediocre shit as a result.

You could also choose to have different characters just retell those past event but that leads to to the same mediocre shit result which is also lame and boring.

And changing plot just for the sake of not having a few flashbacks would be completely moronic.

Thats what i meant, really.

Not sure why you think it would be a cheap scene to film? Why would this be cheaper than most other scenes? And yes, of course it could be confusing. In the books, it is easy to understand who the 3 KG are. But in the TV series, it will not be so easy.

Really? How do you know that? Why would any of the scenes be any more expensive then any other?

Theyre certainly much shorter and focused then a lot of other ones.

And I think that the Kingsguard armor and the dialogue between Dayne and Eddard would be telling enough unless you think that the future audience are morons.

As for your list of flashbacks. The only one I could agree with is Jaime and Aerys. We probably do need to see that to understand Jaime's change. Obviously it would be nice to have the others but I could give you another 6 that were as equally valid as your list. Like seeing Gregor rape and kill Elia? Seriously, why is that crucial? We know Gregor is a monster. This just shows he is a monster. And we'll see more evidence of what kind of monster he is as the series move forward.

But the audience doesnt know Gregor is such a monster. They need to be shown. Not told.

Its crucial for a different reason though - it shows why Eddard dislikes Lannisters and it connects to future events, like say, just for example that little duel with Red Viper of Dorne?

The "show don't tell" thing breaks down because you can't show everything. :) You must always ask what do you gain from showing something. I don't need to see every significant brutal rape scene from the past. Its the more subtle scenes where you gain from showing them.

I dont know... it seems to me youre lacking ability to discus these things without interpreting what i propose into something i never said.

I mentioned two rape scenes, first with multiple reasons and connections to the plot and another one crucial for the character of Tyrion, his relation to his father and that little talk he and Jaimie had before he put a bolt in his father bowels.

But you say "I don't need to see every significant brutal rape scene from the past." Like i proposed hundreds.

And ultimately, who cares what you dont want to see?

I want to see things that are important for the plot and characters and i would want the series to be as uncompromising in this as possible.

Especially considering that they will most certainly shy away from many things, twist others, change and adjust countless details and events.

Besides, we all love the ToJ scene and we've never seen it except in our imagination. So clearly, seeing it on the screen isn't the key to loving GoT. :)

I argued something entirely different then "love for GOT" as a reason for its inclusion.

They do introduce the Targaryens at the very start of the program, so I think we should figure out who they are. Robert talks about Lyanna's kidnapping at the beginning also, so we'll figure out what happened there. You can throw the ""show don't tell" thing at me there but that's why GRRM wrote it so that Robert would visit Lyanna's tomb and we would see his grief. There are different ways to show things.

Do you know why is a book filmed?

Its to translate written into visual yknow?

And the more strong powerfull and impresisve moments you have - the better! its the frigging basics of visual entertainment!

Thats why you need to see Robert smashing Rhaegarrs chest on the trident and see bloody red rubies falling into the river, thats why you need to shock the audience with brutality of Gregor (in adition to reasons i mentioned above) or show Jaime sitting on the iron throne with the body of the king below him.

Btw, we don't learn about what Aerys really did until Jaime tells us in aCoK. I hope they stick to that timeframe.

Sure, they could just let us see Jaime killing Aerys in the first season which would help hold his villainous reputation longer.

[Padraig]

I meant to say that they could just decide not to have any flashbacks and just roll with the "present" layer of the story (which is something like youre advocating) - and end up with mediocre shit as a result.

Well, they could end up with bad TV in many ways. :) So i'm not sure why reducing the number of flashbacks automatically means we end up with bad TV. No plot points have to be changed by doing so. We just learn what happened in different ways.

Really? How do you know that? Why would any of the scenes be any more expensive then any other?

You said they are cheap. How do you know that? :P If they are as expensive as everything else, that's hardly an encouraging sign. And they would feature new characters, younger characters (the complexity of that shouldn't be underestimated), different locations etc. You have the advantage of having read the books, so lets not start calling anyone morons.

But the audience doesnt know Gregor is such a monster. They need to be shown. Not told.

They wouldn't know straight away. But you just have to look at the guy to get a clue. And then he will try and kill Loras. Then we hear about his raids on the Riverlands. If we get a S2, we will learn a lot more from the Arya trip. We don't need to be shown his worst acts. Our picture of him will grow as the series continues. Since the audience aren't morons, they don't need to be spoon fed that he is a monster by showing what he did to Elia.

Now actually, one of the things I would have put on my list of flashbacks would have been the Targaryen bodies been presented to Ned and Robert. I accept that is a very significant scene. But showing what Lannister monster did the deed is less interesting IMO. Anyhow, you seem to be more interested in seeing the big action-brutal scenes. That's why I picked up on the rape scenes you listed. That's not so much me.

And ultimately, who cares what you dont want to see?

Good point. :)

We all want to see what is important to the plot. But its a complicated plot. There is a ton of things to see.

I argued something entirely different then "love for GOT" as a reason for its inclusion.

Huh? When I say "love for GoT", I mean your desire to see a very good TV rendition of the series (which you presumably love). I accept that you think these scenes are important, even if I disagree.

I said previously that its not that I don't want to see flashbacks. Just that there are too many things to see. So no point talking about the basics of visual entertainment. This series is not going to live and die on its action though. That i'm sure of.

We know Jaime kills Aerys in the 1st season. They could have a very brief scene of him doing the deed and then do a much longer version at the end of any S2 but that seems pointless to me. Kind of ruins your previous point that you only want to see a very limited set of flashbacks.

[Maltaran]

But the audience doesnt know Gregor is such a monster. They need to be shown. Not told.

Its crucial for a different reason though - it shows why Eddard dislikes Lannisters and it connects to future events, like say, just for example that little duel with Red Viper of Dorne?

We don't need to see the actual rape scene for that - just show a short flashback of Tywin presenting the bodies of Elia and the children to Robert, and some mention in dialogue of the rumours about exactly how they died (remember, the stories of Gregor raping Elia are mostly just unconfirmed rumours until he admits it to Oberyn in their duel).

[The SmilingKnight]

Well, they could end up with bad TV in many ways. :) So i'm not sure why reducing the number of flashbacks automatically means we end up with bad TV. No plot points have to be changed by doing so. We just learn what happened in different ways.

Because if you dont have flashbacks, genious, you end up with bunch of unexplained and incomplete plots and character motivations. not to mention loosing some very impressive moments.

as i have explained! Already!

You said they are cheap. How do you know that? :P If they are as expensive as everything else, that's hardly an encouraging sign. And they would feature new characters, younger characters (the complexity of that shouldn't be underestimated), different locations etc.

They would be cheap because they are all very short and dont require anything new being built, nor costumes, nor sets.

For christ sake they are just memories some characters have and no different then any other part of the book in any way.

They wouldn't know straight away. But you just have to look at the guy to get a clue. And then he will try and kill Loras. Then we hear about his raids on the Riverlands. If we get a S2, we will learn a lot more from the Arya trip. We don't need to be shown his worst acts. Our picture of him will grow as the series continues. Since the audience aren't morons, they don't need to be spoon fed that he is a monster by showing what he did to Elia.

No, when you look at the guy he is just another big guy with a sword.

When you see what he did to Elia or Sandor thats when you know what he is and then he becomes really fearsome, just like in the books.

His atrocities and manner in which he does them are whats making him "special" and unique.

No we dont have to wait until season 2 to get the basic info on a character just because youre squeamish.

That doesnt make any sense as much as the sentence that audience arent morons so they dont have to be spoon fed... wtf does that even mean?

Thats your argument? To cut important parts of the story out just because you wouldnt like to see them?

Why am i still arguing with you?

Anyhow, you seem to be more interested in seeing the big action-brutal scenes.

Ohhh riiight... im a psychopat whos enjoying a good rape, riiiight.

We know Jaime kills Aerys in the 1st season. They could have a very brief scene of him doing the deed and then do a much longer version at the end of any S2 but that seems pointless to me. Kind of ruins your previous point that you only want to see a very limited set of flashbacks.

I SAID that you can show just Jaime killing Aerys and then later show how crazy Aerys was and that killing him was largely justified. that doesnt mean repeating the same thing twice only longer.

And i argued for a limited number of flashbacks not by the number but by their importance.

by the way, im tired of your inability to understand what is said, your translations of my words into something nebulous and your unreasonable fears and "arguments" so dont expect further answers from me.

We don't need to see the actual rape scene for that - just show a short flashback of Tywin presenting the bodies of Elia and the children to Robert, and some mention in dialogue of the rumours about exactly how they died (remember, the stories of Gregor raping Elia are mostly just unconfirmed rumours until he admits it to Oberyn in their duel).

The scene can be shown in a graphic manner without actually seeing the grizzly bits directly. Im not arguing that we should get treated by a pornographic rape scene, thank you very much for that wild imagination.

For example we could see Gregor killing Aegon by smashing him against the wall presented as just a shadow on the wall that horrified Elia watches.

Sufficiently horrible yet not directly graphical. We could see Amory Lorch dragging Rhaennys from under her bed then stabbing down with a sword without seeing the actual stab.

And so on.

And no, its not an unconfirmed rumor in the story. Those that were involved, and through them we see the story, knew it pretty well.

[Gertrude]

It's vital to be shown Elia's rape and murder? It's obvious we disagree greatly as to what is essential. We should be told this, of course, but shown? I don't think it's necessary at all and dialog could get this across just as effectively. I feel bad that your enjoyment of the series is going to hinge on your checklist, because I doubt it will live up to the standards you have in mind.

[Padraig]

Because if you dont have flashbacks, genious, you end up with bunch of unexplained and incomplete plots and character motivations. not to mention loosing some very impressive moments.

Surely you know by now that I don't agree with that at all? :) You yourself said they can explain these flashbacks verbally. So "unexplained" is incorrect. "Incomplete" is at least something we can argue about. But when it comes to tToJ scene, what difference does it make across the first 4 books? Not a lot. As you yourself say, they can't cover everything, so you can't be very concerned about things that don't make much of a difference to the plot?

Similarly, "very impressive moments"? We all would love to see such moments but as people have said before, budgets are finite. So we'll have to live without some of those impressive moments. I'd rather they drop most flashbacks than some of the scenes in "real time".

They would be cheap because they are all very short and dont require anything new being built, nor costumes, nor sets.

Seriously? No costumes? No sets? :lol:

Those flashback characters are new characters and younger characters. As I said before. :) They are not the same as everyone else.

Yes, we are supposed to think he is a big fearsome man with a sword originally. And gradually we are to learn the horror he is. I'm not totally against showing the horror he is from the start but why change the books? Its one of those mysteries that is gradually uncovered.

To cut important parts of the story out just because you wouldnt like to see them?

When did I say this?

audience arent morons so they dont have to be spoon fed... wtf does that even mean?

What words are confusing you?

I SAID that you can show just Jaime killing Aerys and then later show how crazy Aerys was and that killing him was largely justified. that doesnt mean repeating the same thing twice only longer.

Actually, if they do flashback to Jaime's time with Aerys, they' have to show the story all the way to his death. It wouldn't have the same impact if they just show his madness and not show what it lead up to. (Yes, I know they would have showed the scene a season or 2 earlier in your version but that's not the same). People need to see it all. At the same time.

Ohhh riiight... im a psychopat whos enjoying a good rape, riiiight.

Geez. Take it easy. Although, I honestly don't know why you have fixed on the need to see Elia getting raped in S1. Even though, as Gertrude said, the truth isn't confirmed until aSoS.

For example we could see Gregor killing Aegon by smashing him against the wall presented as just a shadow on the wall that horrified Elia watches.

Sufficiently horrible yet not directly graphical. We could see Amory Lorch dragging Rhaennys from under her bed then stabbing down with a sword without seeing the actual stab.

Whatever...clearly you think that important to see.

[Ran]

Indeed, there's never a "flashback" to the rape and murder of Elia. No one who is a POV witnessed it. It's one thing to want to see Ned's dream of the tower of joy -- he was there -- or Jaime killing Aerys -- because Jaime was there -- but Elia's cruel death and the death of her children is only described in the novels, not depicted. Why should the TV series do differently?

ETA: Oh, I see. It's needed so we can see how bad Gregor is? Why do we need to see how bad he is? I think we'll see that pretty well when he nearly severs a horse's neck from its body or suggests that outriders who don't see the enemy don't need eyes and you can just hand the eyes to the next outrider to see if that'll help improve their eyesight. or leads the rape, pillaging, and burning of the riverlands.

I'm not actually sure there are any necessary flashbacks.

[The hairy bear]

While I'm not opposed to flasbacks per se, if they are done "just for a few seconds" or "without much expense" if much prefer not having them.

Also, please remember than seeing the flashbacks does not substitute having the event "explained". Let's take Tysha's rape is a good example of this:

If we have to see how Tyrion saves her from the outlaws, how they convince a septon to marry them, how Tywin catches them, how Jaime confesses, and the actual rape. If we are "shown" this, it'll take at least twenty minutes. We'll also have to cast a younger Tyrion and a younger Jaime, plus we'll introduce Tywin via flashback several chapters before his actual appareance in the present.

The other option would be showing short images while Tyrion's explains it to Bronn as a voiceover. But then you have to ask: wouldn't yo prefer to watch Dinkalge's face as he acting one of the most traumatic moments of his character, or see some unkown child acting his part in a bunch of crude images?

The budget is limited. Why are we going to cast Oswell Whent when we haven't cast Arys Oakenhart? Why it's most important seeing Elia than seeing Maege Mormont?

[The Mance]

Actually, if they do flashback to Jaime's time with Aerys, they' have to show the story all the way to his death. It wouldn't have the same impact if they just show his madness and not show what it lead up to. (Yes, I know they would have showed the scene a season or 2 earlier in your version but that's not the same). People need to see it all. At the same time.

Actually I think it would be interesting to see just the throne room scene through Ned's eyes in S1, and then revisit the backstory with Jaime later on. It really worked well that way in the books, and the juxtaposition of the different pov's was one of the most important moments of S3 character redemption for Jaime, I thought. And from the way they seem to be bigging up the Jaime vs. Eddard as arch badass nemesesesesses (sp?) its probably a sure thing they are going to do the whole S1 throne room showdown flashback. That scene sort of looses its impact if everyone is sympathetic with Jaime for having just disposed of a homicidal lunatic.

but Elia's cruel death and the death of her children is only described in the novels, not depicted. Why should the TV series do differently?

I think thats the most important factor in determining what scenes should even be considered for flashbacks. If the story was related in the course of dialogue in the books, as opposed to dream or memory, then dialogue should be good enough for the TV version. In fact, for some of the events being discussed, it may even be that GRRM has revealed certain scenes through the words of a particular pov for a reason. He may have wanted us to hear things filtered through the biases of a certain character (Robert's hatred of Rhaegar), or to only have some of the facts of the situation revealed now because he's saving a big reveal for later (Gregor's atrocities). And we can't know exactly how much of the truth of a particular story we should be privy too at what point in the story.

[Lord Godric]

I'm not actually sure there are any necessary flashbacks.

Do you think just verbally explaining all the backstory would be adequate? I feel like trying to tell us about Robert's Rebellion and Rhaegar and Lyanna so casual viewers can understand will need something more than verbal history.

[Ran]

If it's done right, sure. You can hint at a lot and do it in a way that's poetic and beautiful and true to the material. There's plenty of films that deal with people dealing with traumas or tragedies in their past that never once succumb to the shorthand that is the flashback.

I'm not saying there won't be any flashbacks. I'm not saying I don't want flashbacks (the tower of joy first and foremost, for reasons I've already cited), I'm just saying that I'm not sure any of them are utterly vital to the narrative as flashbacks.

And in some sense, there's the question of just how much more obvious will the dangling plot thread of Jon's parentage be to viewers, seeing those flashbacks on screen. When we read the books, with their many plot strands and so on spaced out over what may be weeks of reading, it's not a surprise many people miss them... But will viewers miss the implications of such scenes? Probably not. And for what pay off? They'll still have to wait before the show eventually confirms or denies their speculations.

So it may make senes from the producers' perspective to actually cut down on references to past events. Not to make those past events disappear, but to try and make them somewhat more mysterious in the context of the TV show, if it turns out that the move to television makes the insights as written by GRRM for a novel too obvious on the screen.

[Padraig]

Actually I think it would be interesting to see just the throne room scene through Ned's eyes in S1, and then revisit the backstory with Jaime later on.

That I would agree with. I'm not sure they will do it but it would definitely be an interesting way to show Aerys death from 2 different POVs. And tell us a lot about the relationship between Ned and Jaime.

I more or less agree with Ran. Less time can be spent on the past on screen and we would not suffer very much. The odd flashback would be nice but I have already accepted we may see very few.

[Lady Winter Rose]

If you couldn't agree are flashback needed or not, try imagine or write monologue or dialogue about Targaryen matters. You know, talk about Big Rebellion Question.

[The SmilingKnight]

It's vital to be shown Elia's rape and murder? It's obvious we disagree greatly as to what is essential. We should be told this, of course, but shown? I don't think it's necessary at all and dialog could get this across just as effectively. I feel bad that your enjoyment of the series is going to hinge on your checklist, because I doubt it will live up to the standards you have in mind.

First, its not essential. I said that short list is some flashbacks i would like to see (or that i consider important) because they would serve very well to explain present a future events, provide motivation and characterization for different character and relations between them.

Not every scene i mentioned has the same "essentialness".

I do consider visually presenting past events and memories of some characters essential though.

I hope you can figure out the difference.

Indeed, there's never a "flashback" to the rape and murder of Elia. No one who is a POV witnessed it. It's one thing to want to see Ned's dream of the tower of joy -- he was there -- or Jaime killing Aerys -- because Jaime was there -- but Elia's cruel death and the death of her children is only described in the novels, not depicted. Why should the TV series do differently?

Because its a different medium then books. A visual one, perhaps?

ETA: Oh, I see. It's needed so we can see how bad Gregor is? Why do we need to see how bad he is? I think we'll see that pretty well when he nearly severs a horse's neck from its body or suggests that outriders who don't see the enemy don't need eyes and you can just hand the eyes to the next outrider to see if that'll help improve their eyesight. or leads the rape, pillaging, and burning of the riverlands.

-Hacking a horse neck doesnt even come close to what monster he really is.

-Colorful banter.

-Youll never see rape pillaging and burning of the riverlands.

Unless youre proposing that they build all of riverlands, hire hundreds of extras and film Gregor burning it all. Not to mention CGI etc.

I'm not actually sure there are any necessary flashbacks.

What a compelling argument.

While I'm not opposed to flasbacks per se, if they are done "just for a few seconds" or "without much expense" if much prefer not having them.

Also, please remember than seeing the flashbacks does not substitute having the event "explained". Let's take Tysha's rape is a good example of this:

If we have to see how Tyrion saves her from the outlaws, how they convince a septon to marry them, how Tywin catches them, how Jaime confesses, and the actual rape. If we are "shown" this, it'll take at least twenty minutes. We'll also have to cast a younger Tyrion and a younger Jaime, plus we'll introduce Tywin via flashback several chapters before his actual appareance in the present.

The other option would be showing short images while Tyrion's explains it to Bronn as a voiceover. But then you have to ask: wouldn't yo prefer to watch Dinkalge's face as he acting one of the most traumatic moments of his character, or see some unkown child acting his part in a bunch of crude images?

Youre wrong here for a very simple reason of supposing it would be filmed in entirety, like a small movie inside the movie - which is ludicrous.

Indeed, all you really need is a few short scenes that strengthen tyrions verbal testimony.

Which means you have Dinklage acting out that terrible trauma and visual representation of how terrible it really was and his fathers cruelty.

The budget is limited. Why are we going to cast Oswell Whent when we haven't cast Arys Oakenhart? Why it's most important seeing Elia than seeing Maege Mormont?

Who the hell is maege mormont?

Actually I think it would be interesting to see just the throne room scene through Ned's eyes in S1, and then revisit the backstory with Jaime later on. It really worked well that way in the books, and the juxtaposition of the different pov's was one of the most important moments of S3 character redemption for Jaime, I thought. And from the way they seem to be bigging up the Jaime vs. Eddard as arch badass nemesesesesses (sp?) its probably a sure thing they are going to do the whole S1 throne room showdown flashback. That scene sort of looses its impact if everyone is sympathetic with Jaime for having just disposed of a homicidal lunatic.

Thats right, and i have agreed with such a way of showing that particular memory even if some weird random poster isnt capable of understanding what i write.

He may have wanted us to hear things filtered through the biases of a certain character (Robert's hatred of Rhaegar), or to only have some of the facts of the situation revealed now because he's saving a big reveal for later (Gregor's atrocities). And we can't know exactly how much of the truth of a particular story we should be privy too at what point in the story.

As i said before, nothing in Tower of joy scene shows anything contrary to how Robert saw Rhaegarrs kidnapping of Lyanna so you can have both his perspective and ToJ.

As to Gregor i could accept that having him fully admit Elieas rape and murder in the duel with red Viper could have a bit more impact if it wasnt shown clearly before, Overall those that were close to the action accept it as truth. They know it happened like that. Only the "public" isnt aware of the details.

Eddard, Tywin, Jaime and Varys know from the top of my head. Robert knew even if he shut his eyes and ears to it.

Dorne knows.

If it's done right, sure. You can hint at a lot and do it in a way that's poetic and beautiful and true to the material. There's plenty of films that deal with people dealing with traumas or tragedies in their past that never once succumb to the shorthand that is the flashback.

Flashbacks can be shorthands only if you make them as such. In this case they are extensions and visual representations of memories important characters have essential to their motivations, relations and the plot.

And in some sense, there's the question of just how much more obvious will the dangling plot thread of Jon's parentage be to viewers, seeing those flashbacks on screen.

Not at all, or not any more then it is for those who have read the books.

When we read the books, with their many plot strands and so on spaced out over what may be weeks of reading, it's not a surprise many people miss them... But will viewers miss the implications of such scenes? Probably not. And for what pay off? They'll still have to wait before the show eventually confirms or denies their speculations.

Thats not true at all. There is nothing in those past events that clearly reveal those secrets.

Having mysterious events given to audience is one of the best way to keep them coming back for more.

Basics of tv and film-making. One on one.

So it may make senes from the producers' perspective to actually cut down on references to past events.

In lieu of previous faulty logic and in general - it doesnt make any sense at all.

Not to make those past events disappear, but to try and make them somewhat more mysterious in the context of the TV show, if it turns out that the move to television makes the insights as written by GRRM for a novel too obvious on the screen.

I dont see how that can happen if they keep to the books and dont intentionally spill the beans by inventing things that arent there.

If you couldn't agree are flashback needed or not, try imagine or write monologue or dialogue about Targaryen matters. You know, talk about Big Rebellion Question.

Why if they would do that then they'll have to admit they are wrong, which simply cannot happen.

So i very much doubt any will even try, citing "belief" in writers, producers and director to know their job instead.

[Gertrude]

First, its not essential. I said that short list is some flashbacks i would like to see (or that i consider important) because they would serve very well to explain present a future events, provide motivation and characterization for different character and relations between them.

Actually, you didn't say it was a preference. You said need.

Now, to prevent imaginations running wild again ill be clear.

There needs to be only several flashbacks that explain a few crucial events from the past because not having them will leave the audience confused and the story nonsensical, full of plot holes.

You can see how I was confused, perhaps? I get where you are coming from, but I still don't agree.

And btw, you lost a huge amount of credibility in my eyes with one simple statement.

Who the hell is maege mormont?

I can't trust that you have a good grasp on the details and subtleties of the series if you truly don't know who Maege is.

[The SmilingKnight]

But i didnt say all of them are absolutely essential.

What i meant is that there needs to be such "flashbacks" in general. Then i numbered several that i think would work very well and wouldnt require much time or money to film.

But i can see how that sentence might confuse people.

That line about Maege was meant to function as a sarcastic juxtaposition that points out relative unimportance of MM to the greater story and emphasize the important part Elia had in it by contrast.

And no, this does not mean Elia went around making things happen, taking actions and whatever else anyone could misunderstand about it.