Jump to content

Extended Trailer Screened to Critics


Westeros

Recommended Posts

But that's not my real beef. My real beef is the contrast they seem to be drawing between Ned leaving for honor and Cat asking him to stay for love, and I think that's a one-sided and stereotypical view of her character. Initially she's the one seeing the potential for honor and political ambition in the Hand position, and Ned's the one who just wants to stay home. I hope we get to see some of that.

I think you and Lady Blackfish are right that it would be nice to see Catelyn changing her mind after Bran's fall. OTOH, while I understand why you raise the question, my overall impression is that since we really haven't seen enough to know what actually happens, you could easily have no beef here.

My point is Catelyn wasn't weepy about it.

That's impossible to say for sure. Catelyn does cry. At Bran's bedside she breaks down when the direwolves start howling. That breadown is a lot worse than the tears she spills when she talks to Ned. Whether she cries or not, it shouldn't change your perception of Catelyn since we all agree that it was a very exceptional time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, Padraig, Catelyn does cry. But to portray the character accurately they need to show her only breaking down in (as you say) exceptional circumstances. In the books, before we see her break-down, we're introduced to her as someone who is capable of holding it together in the face of terrible news. I'm hoping we see that side of her as part of the all-important first few impressions. The clips and comments are making me worry a little that she'll be introduced to us as someone who is generally prone to weepiness.

Like you say, though, we haven't seen very much and there may be no beef, ultimately.

The other character I'm now a little worried about is Sean Bean's Ned. They seem to be playing down his softer, more melancholy and introspective side, and playing up the more common action-hero traits.

Changes to the books are inevitable but I hope the changes don't all ditch the less-conventional aspects of the books in favor of more stereotypical interpretations.

Just so no one thinks I'm a total wet-blanket, I'm thrilled with what I've seen and heard so far of Littlefinger (and I think Carcetti from The Wire was brilliant casting), Maisie as Arya, Sophie as Sansa, Emilia as Daenerys, and of course Peter Dinklage as Tyrion. Also the sets seem fantastic, but I think that goes without saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other character I'm now a little worried about is Sean Bean's Ned. They seem to be playing down his softer, more melancholy and introspective side, and playing up the more common action-hero traits.

While they are doing the latter, except for those scenes with Jaime, a very melancholy air seems to hang over him (IMO). From talking to Gendry to Robert to even Cersei. I really thought he looked haunted.

So i'd be less worried about him than Catelyn (who I do agree is a trickier character).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The clips and comments are making me worry a little that she'll be introduced to us as someone who is generally prone to weepiness.

I don't have as much of a problem with the crying itself in this case (Catelyn never struck me as a person who hates crying, just someone who will put it off if she has to), I just don't much like the lines, like her spiel about how honorable men put external concerns above family. That seems like an over-generalization of some of Cat's qualities based on little more than stereotype. When Cat has her "I don't understand men" moments it's not about honor and duty and the call of the outside world in general as vs the domestic and familial. It's specifically about war and violence, the machismo-glorifying culture. But this line makes it seem like she's bitterly resented Ned's duties and code of honor her whole adult life, because it repeatedly disrupts her happy little home. That's not Cat, duty and honor are very important to her, irrespective of the house she married into. I think showing her conflicted about which matters more (which is a central internal conflict of the character anyway, and I do hope that HBO understands that Catelyn is a character defined by internal conflict) would've been more appropriate than having her almost ready to pounce with this lament, and could deliver drama just as easily. (And I really think Cat's identity as a mother would cause her to break form way before her identity as a wife ever would. It would have been just as easy and still as emotional to have her ask Ned to say on Bran's behalf instead of her own. They could've even shown that the character really means "Please stay for me" through body language, but you could then contrast that with her words, and that too would be informative about the character.)

On point of Ned, Benioff and Weiss seem to be selling him foremost as a Warrior. Sure, Ned fought in wars, sure, it was a big part of his life, but Martin never played it for badass factor, and while he knew how to fight, he was never foremost a warrior. It might be too early to say, but so far I'm not really liking how the dynamic between Mr and Mrs Stark is shaping up. In the books, Cat was able to admire Ned because when he could, he would actually use peaceful means (there was some line in ACOK where Catelyn thinks back on one of Ned's victories, all the more victorious because no blood was shed). That's their common ground, their generally compatible ethics. Playing up Ned as a big badass warrior makes that kind of characterization harder to pull off sincerely, IMO, and makes their dynamic more asymmetrical, not to mention more stereotypical.

Which brings me to another line we saw in that scene, where Catelyn includes in her spiel the fact that a previous time Ned went off to war, he brought home a bastard. Catelyn's obviously resentful about Jon, but actually she doesn't begrudge Ned the sex or the siring of the child in itself, merely bringing him home to live in Winterfell. This is important because it takes her resentment out of the realm of a silently suffering housewife and focuses it upon political, dynastic concerns: she is threatened by the competition Jon poses to her children's inheritance (this is much more appropriate for an aristocratic noblewoman, which is how HBO ought to be seeing Cat's character foremost IMO). All that is in Catelyn's monologue, however, and it would seem like they're using this scene to explicitize that tension. Good idea in theory, but they lose something if they don't find a way to make the distinction that Martin did in the original story. If they don't, then viewers will naturally gravitate toward a more typical wife and mother interpretation of Catelyn, aided by the changes in Ned's character.

I sure can't wait to see Cat's scenes without Ned, as I'm starting to dread the ones with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this line makes it seem like she's bitterly resented Ned's duties and code of honor her whole adult life, because it repeatedly disrupts her happy little home.

Yes. Rather than it been brought about by Bran's fall. Which it could easily be since we haven't seen all the conversations. So we go round and round again. :)

On point of Ned, Benioff and Weiss seem to be selling him foremost as a Warrior.

I don't see that to be honest. Except for the scenes with Jaime he still seems to be mainly a man resigned to dealing with the cesspit that is KL.

Good idea in theory, but they lose something if they don't find a way to make the distinction that Martin did in the original story.

They are going to have to reveal that people don't know who Jon's mother is. Maybe a Robert, Ned chat? Or maybe through Jon himself (talking to Robb?) That might give them a chance to explain how the uncertainty played into Cat's fears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much in LB's camp here. I don't really like the warrior approach on Ned (although I yesterday realized that people like Theon seemed to fear him also somewhat on the battlefield - when Theon remembers that Ned would have slain his brothers had he encountered them on the battlefield - but that could have been a reference to his resolve rather than to his actual prowess on the battlefield) - Ned being a bad ass swordsman feels as wrong to me as if Stannis or Tywin would be known also for these things. GRRM made a point by introducing these characters as rulers and commanders, not rulers-and-henchmen, who are also doing their dirty work themselves. and I'd really like to see Cat as the part in the couple who is more political savvy, and who is also (somewhat) more ambitious. Catelyn practically jumped on the opportunity to see her husband become the Hand of the King - apparently she also longed to live down in the South, at court - and even more so to the chance of Sansa becoming Queen of Westeros, and their grandson the next King.

Being forced to remain at Winterfell and to be parted from dealt her a severe blow - apparently she really did not think this through first as there was no realistic chance that she would end up going to KL with Ned as the latter had no younger brother he could put in charge of Winterfell and the North in his absence. But this was overcome swiftly enough - she still did not want to lose Bran, but knew very much that to rise on the political field Ned had to accept Robert's offer.

Later on, though, after Bran's fall, she really seems to be in some kind of mad shock. Then her begging Ned to stay is entirely in character. I can see her doing this, as she also abandoned all her duties as Lady of Winterfell and forced Robb to begin being the Lord of Winterfell simply because his mother did not refuse to leave Bran's sickbed. Politics and real life were of no concern to her then, nor did she care about her appearance - both physically and mentally. Obviously she did not give a damn about appearing to be strong, dutiful, or even a loving mother to Robb.

But I'd really hate it if Cat would end up giving even only the slightest impression that she was mainly a mother and a house-wife. She is the force behind her son, and until the very end of her son's doomed campaign, and she always is the main political power and the foremost advisor to Robb. But I have the feeling that this could change somewhat in the series. Robb and Jon really are 14-year-old-boys in the series. I'm not sure that 17-year-olds would do and interact like they do, especially in AGoT. Robb really is a boy who is forced to bear to much responsibility too soon. That is practically his whole story, and it was inevitable that he would crush or make mistakes sooner or later. But I'm not sure that this is going to work with a character who is already pretty much an adult, and should have been prepared properly to take over as Lord if his father died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont share this affliction towards Eddard Stark fighting prowess.

In fact im glad they're making it more visible and im sure it wont be even that prominent when we see Eddard in lots of ordinary moments besides.

Its not like his fighting and waring isnt well documented. Not only during the war but after too when the Ironborn rebellion was crushed by direct assault on their islands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned was a competent swordsman, not a great one. That's the issue people have, the fact that Ned is being played up as a great swordsman. He isn't in the books, and making him one in the series seems a bit of a sop towards lowest-common-denominator genre expectations which GRRM carefully avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned was a competent swordsman, not a great one. That's the issue people have, the fact that Ned is being played up as a great swordsman. He isn't in the books, and making him one in the series seems a bit of a sop towards lowest-common-denominator genre expectations which GRRM carefully avoided.

At this point it's only speculation, but I really fear, that the duel between Eddard (now a formidable swordsman) and Jaime (presented as an arrogant* villain) could end not by the latter overpowering the former but by some sort of trickery or unfair element - like a Lannister guard shoving his spear into Stark's leg from behind. THAT would really annoy me.

*: Some might say that Jaime Lannister is arrogant, which is true, generally speaking. But he is also the greatest knight in Westeros and wouldn't have to fear mediocre fighters opponents like Eddard Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that to be honest. Except for the scenes with Jaime he still seems to be mainly a man resigned to dealing with the cesspit that is KL.

I'm recalling the Access Hollywood interview where they go on about how Sean Bean is great for the part because he feels like a warrior, a figure we haven't seen for years and years because we don't live in a warrior culture any more. YMMV, but A] I would never describe the Ned in the books as that kind of back-when-men-were-men kind of warrior, I never got the impression that he had a warrior mentality ala Jaime, even though he had competency, and B] I would think mentioning Ned's principles, his strong convictions and idealism, is a much bigger priority to both cast by and to sell the character with if they were trying to reflect the character that is in the books. The characters all have many sides to them, but not all the characters' sides are their most prominent. Maybe B&W are playing up this one thing simply for promotional purposes rather than as a proportionate reflection of what is in their show, but I doubt it, as that would be a bit of a bait and switch, it seems to me.

They are going to have to reveal that people don't know who Jon's mother is. Maybe a Robert, Ned chat? Or maybe through Jon himself (talking to Robb?) That might give them a chance to explain how the uncertainty played into Cat's fears.

And that would somehow be easier than having Cat herself indicate it in her own scenes? I don't see why they'd take that approach at all if they were going to include it in the first place.

and I'd really like to see Cat as the part in the couple who is more political savvy, and who is also (somewhat) more ambitious.

To riff off of the new update Ran just posted to the site, I would much rather audiences hate Cat for being a Lady Macbeth than pity her for being a benign Molly Weasley. I'll save this spiel for my post in the appropriate thread, but if HBO finds Catelyn Tully Stark's complexity too difficult to sell then they really need to look around at the characters, female and otherwise, that are cutting it on today's television landscape, because their fears would frankly be very difficult to understand.

Robb and Jon really are 14-year-old-boys in the series. I'm not sure that 17-year-olds would do and interact like they do, especially in AGoT. Robb really is a boy who is forced to bear to much responsibility too soon. That is practically his whole story

And the character may be 17, but the actor is, what, 25? It's going to be a lot harder right off the bat to show that Robb's youth and political inexperience is the weak point, because of the aging up of the cast. They should be jumping at the early chances to cement Cat's political acumen and ambitions, otherwise the dynamic will be off. So mark me down as dreading Cat and Robb's scenes too, ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned was a competent swordsman, not a great one. That's the issue people have, the fact that Ned is being played up as a great swordsman. He isn't in the books, and making him one in the series seems a bit of a sop towards lowest-common-denominator genre expectations which GRRM carefully avoided.

Yeah but thats probably just an overreaction to very few very short clips.

Also, Eddard Stark is very good to actually great swordsman/fighter - according to the list of battles and fights he went thruogh, and thats just fact, like the one that he no less took down, or survived, Arthur Dayne himself and two other Kingsguard who can be regarded only as great fighters.

In my book that puts him with the greats any day. Just by naked facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point it's only speculation, but I really fear, that the duel between Eddard (now a formidable swordsman) and Jaime (presented as an arrogant* villain) could end not by the latter overpowering the former but by some sort of trickery or unfair element - like a Lannister guard shoving his spear into Stark's leg from behind.

I would be surprised at this. I think Jaime would be more disgusted than Ned at such trickery. Jaime has one thing going for him and that is his martial ability. He would probably kill a guard who interfered.

I'm recalling the Access Hollywood interview where they go on about how Sean Bean is great for the part because he feels like a warrior, a figure we haven't seen for years and years because we don't live in a warrior culture any more.

But Bean himself has talked about the character's integrity and honour. Whatever about playing up Ned's fighting ability in the show (and nobody is saying they are not), nobody should be surprised that they are playing it up in interviews. Although I interpreted that interview to mean that Bean looks like he fits the age. Not just because he is a warrior but because he is a leader/general etc. So its not bait and switch. Been a great warrior is now part of who he is but all the other scenes have portrayed him as described in the books.

And that would somehow be easier than having Cat herself indicate it in her own scenes?

Yes. It would. They couldn't have Catelyn bring it up. 17 years later and Cat finally asks Ned who is the mother of Jon? And I can't see her bring it up with somebody else. That would be another change to her character.

And the character may be 17, but the actor is, what, 25?

Does the actor's real age matter? He should still be very inexperienced at 17. Especially given his first real challenge involves war, not more normal pursuits.

ike the one that he no less took down, or survived, Arthur Dayne himself and two other Kingsguard who can be regarded only as great fighters.

We don't know enough about how that happened. Except that he lost 5 good men doing it. And was lucky to survive. We don't really know anyone he himself has beaten in a fight really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the fact is that George has explicitly said he was a competent swordsman. The brilliant swordsman of the Stark brothers was Brandon. Ned's talents lay in commanding armies.

Remember, it was seven people against three Kingsguard. Not Ned Stark vs. three Kingsguard. And Ned only survived because of Howland Reed, as we're told "by naked facts". It's explicitly noted that it's rumor that Ned killed Ser Arthur in single combat. It's clear that Ned did no such thing, since someone else getting into a fight on your side is not single combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody should be surprised that they are playing it up in interviews.

What has surprise to do with liking it? I'm not really surprised that HBO is probably going to show more naked women than naked men on screen, doesn't mean I have to like it.

Although I interpreted that interview to mean that Bean looks like he fits the age. Not just because he is a warrior but because he is a leader/general etc.

Ned's being a martial leader or general has very little to do with his plotline. The only thing that really matters about his past is Lyanna. As I said, just because facets are there in a character doesn't mean that all facets are of the same proportion. I am perplexed at what your point is here, admittedly. I believe they are playing up Ned's warrior facets greater than what they were in the books, and that I don't care for it. Are you saying that you are fine with it? Ought that make me fine with it? Is your point that I shouldn't be unhappy with it?

Yes. It would. They couldn't have Catelyn bring it up. 17 years later and Cat finally asks Ned who is the mother of Jon? And I can't see her bring it up with somebody else. That would be another change to her character.

Of course she wouldn't ask who the mother of Jon is. In the book, she doesn't ask in that scene who Jon's mother is. But she makes it clear that Jon can't stay in her house with Ned gone. Not where he could stay close to the seat of power and day by day look more and more like Ned's true heir. That Ned fathered him, fine, he didn't owe her anything at that point in their marriage, but then it's his responsibility to find Jon a position that didn't threaten her own children's rights, not hers. It's an easily doable conversation.

Does the actor's real age matter?

If it's easy to see Robb as a fully adult person who ought to not need his mother to tell him what to do, then obviously it's going to be harder to immediately grasp his inexperience. It's not impossible, but then I didn't say impossible. I said that they have to account for that when they make their other decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has surprise to do with liking it? I'm not really surprised that HBO is probably going to show more naked women than naked men on screen, doesn't mean I have to like it.

I was more thinking that it doesn't matter what they say in interviews if we know that Ned is more nuanced than that. We have seen plenty of scenes of Ned after all and I thought he was fine in them (except for the Jaime scenes).

I believe they are playing up Ned's warrior facets greater than what they were in the books, and that I don't care for it.

Yes and I agreed that they were. My initial query was in relation to you saying that Ned was been sold as foremost a warrior. Reflecting on that, you said that "Benioff and Weiss seem to be selling him" so. But given your last comment, you may have meant in those interviews? Rather than in the TV show itself (where I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary)?

But she makes it clear that Jon can't stay in her house with Ned gone.

They can still do that.

As for Robb. Well, if they leave 16 as the time a boy becomes an adult (rather than change it to 18) then you may be right. But Robb's story depends on him been fundamentally inexperienced. I can't see them changing that too much or he appears stupid. That wouldn't help the story.

OTOH, given your fears regarding Cat v Ned have come through, I could see why you'd now start to worry about Robb v Cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually the scale goes:

Good - Very good - Great - Brilliant - Arthur Dayne - (smiling knight!)

Eddard was by all accounts very good, (as in not even the purely great swordsman would be thrilled to fight against him) with additional boost from direct experiences to sometimes great. (yes, numbers in ToJ are very well known to me, thank you)

If he exhibits some warrior attitude in the series then he is welcomed to it by all means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Ned was not feared as a warrior in the Gregor Clegane sense. He was a warrior in the great leader of men and great commander in the field sense, and hence he was most certainly feared. Kind of like how people feared Stannis, and feared Tywin, neither of whom are considered great warriors, but nevertheless greatly feared.

I don't think there is any question Theon fear him, far more than he feared Robb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have exactly two accounts of Ned fighting. We see him fight against men specifically ordered not to harm him, his horse is cut out from him after he kills one or two guys who are on foot (and, again, not really fighting back) ... and Sansa recalls Bronze Yohn Royce defeating him and Ser Rodrik at the same time.

And then there's a rumor, a rumor that Ned reveals is specifically false, that he killed Arthur Dayne in single combat. He did not. It's not even clear he actually killed him.

If you want to call that "very good", then sure, he was "very good". About as "very good" as Boros Blount or Meryn Trant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First i never said he killed Arthur Dayne in purely single combat.

I only mentioned that as one of his, probably the greatest, trials in fighting.

I thought it not necessary to number all the battles of war and later that he went into since i presume they are all known, even if no detailed descriptions exist in the books, for many.

Eddard Stark was a guy that would sometimes go off and stomp the shit out of Ironborn, directly on their islands, like it isnt even a question. Was it him and Selmy first through the breach?

I wouldnt fight him!

He has that big ass valyrian sword and shit. man.

:edit:

ha! Jaime didnt want to fight him and he is one from great to brilliant tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddard Stark was a guy that would sometimes go off and stomp the shit out of Ironborn, directly on their islands, like it isnt even a question. Was it him and Selmy first through the breach?

Huh? "Sometimes"? We know he went once, after Balon openly rebelled, because he had to in order to restore the peace. And I thought Thoros of Myr was first through the breach?

No doubt none of us would fight Ned, just as none of us would want to play the 200th best basketball player in the NBA and expect to come out looking very good. They're still #200. (No, I'm not saying Ned was #200 on the list of Westerosi fighters, it's just for illustrative purposes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...