Jump to content

[Book Spoilers] EP 209 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have recently been rewatching Band of Brothers and The Pacific and it was upsetting. They were so great that they consistently put Blackwater to shame. There is obviously a huge difference in budgets, but why so?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently watching The Pacific and the first six episodes at least have definitely NOT put Blackwater to shame. I can barely keep the characters apart, the only two I know by name so far is that Leckie guy and Basilone, and him only because he got the MoH. (I have to admit though the two chicks from episode two are a match for anything GOT has come up with ^ ^)

Also, keep in mind that there are still tons of WW II surplus and war materiel (rifles, uniforms, cars, tanks, planes ...) around they could use for the show, that is a LOT cheaper than a show like GOT where EVERYTHING from the shoelaces upwards has to be specially designed and made. Plus, it is all either jungle, indoor studio or ordinary city streets cleared of modern signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding was HBO signed GoT for three seasons based off the pilot episode. So the budget was set in writing before any ratings were accumulated other than test screenings and such. So the deal is the deal if you know what I'm saying but future seasons will depend on the ratings heavily. I think HBO knows they have a show that is tuff to watch only once so there ON Demand is blowing up the replays and they know it. Its probably working wonders for bringing along HBOGo as well.

No. They greenlit season 2 after the pilot aired, then greenlit season 3 after several of this season's episodes aired. HBO has never, to my knowledge greenlit 2 seasons at once of any show, and likely never will. Season 2 also got an increased budget based off of the success of season 1... which has payed off in spades; seasons 2's lowest-rated episode had more viewers than the highest-rate episode from season 1. Taken as an average of each week, season 2 has seen an increase of over 1.2 million viewers over the 1st season, which was already considered a big success.

Edited by J_Crews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to know I guess my friend didn't know what he was talking about when he told me that then. I did read somewhere that it was doing better than Sopranos which is impressive.

It's averaging more viewers than The Sopranos did in their 1st season when looking at it by averages. Later seasons blew GoT's numbers out of the water, though (first run live-airing ratings, that is), but that's to be expected. A mob show will always draw a more diverse audience than the fantasy genre. When you factor in GoT's numbers from HBOGo, On Demand, and repeat airings our numbers look closer to Sopranos-esque ratings... but there was no such thing as HBOGo back then and On Demand was very new and not at all in widespread use. Therefore, it's difficult to make such a comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOT's ratings are excellent, we don't need to worry (yet). It is doing better than Boardwalk Empire, which is is equally expensive. True Blood does much better, and is cheaper, but that show is a weird spike in their ratings. HBO does not carry about initial viewings like normal networks because they do not pay for their shows with ads. Whether you watched the show at Sunday, 9pm or Tuesday 4am (on HBO Go), you are paying for an HBO subscription, which is how they make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something?

Shae is Lorathi?

So is Jaqen.... ? (Which I think we don't know for sure...being who he is).

I am guessing no connection between them... and in the book seems no way Shae could be a FM, knowing what happens to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Berric and Lady Stoneheart are abominations not unlike a Wight. The "right gun" is Dany's Dragons. Get right with that. The good magic comes from The Children of the Forest. I'll take Bran's magic and Dany's magic over shadow craft anyday. Know that. Conjuring up shadow beasts and using dweomers to shapeshift and make faux lightbringers are weak parlor tricks compared to Dragon fire.

The magic that allows you to dominate another persons mind?

Or the magic that allows you to burn a child to death with its breathe?

There is no "good" magic, just as there is no "bad" magic. It is all in how it is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And not in mine, or most people. Most people see the Red Wedding Alliance and Ramsay Snow as evil, the exact same people Stannis is fighting. GRRM called Stannis 'perhaps the only true hero of the series.' So we have strong reasons to believe Stannis is a grey character whereas you only have 'hurr I don't like him' going for you.

So... Assassinating your own brother via some shadow monster to avoid blood shed is not evil, but assassinating a leader of a rival house via deception to avoid blood shed is evil? If Stannis's actions can be justified by "choosing the lesser evil", that same reasoning should apply to Tywin's actions too, right?

You can label me a troll, too, because I find these excuses for Stannis's actions almost appalling. I seriously don't mean that as a personal offence, I was just... well, surprised. I can see necessity of his actions and yes, they can be defended from the pragmatical point of view. Killing Renly DID prevent blood shed between Baratheon bannermen although I simply cannot believe anybody would do such a deed just because of the "duty" or just to save his soldiers. Actually latter is implausible also because Stannis felt no qualms during the Blackwater when he sent his troops to die (and win, yes, but he was prepared in "thousands" dying in the process).

However, morally I cannot help but seeing his deed not only disgusting but also cowardly. Even if one considers Renly as an usurper, sending a shadow monster to kill him in secret is a dishonourable way to get rid of usurper. People who break the rules should be executed, not assassinated in the dark. That is not justice, that is cowardice. Practical, maybe, but also dishonourable and dishonest.

Many here say that Stannis would be a good king but I don't really see it. This is not because he has burned people alive or because he assassinated his brother (or at least turned the blind eye when Melisandre did it). A man could be a good king even though he has done such things - a good king is not necessarily a good man. But there are other qualities in Stannis that do make me doubt his ability to be a good king and a leader. He's seemingly rather uncharismatic and not well liked. There must be a reason why is is not liked and not only do I think that reason might hinder his abolity to be a good king, also the mere fact that ruling effectively when your administrative layer (= lords who implement kings commands) dislikes you, is very, very difficult. It is even more difficult when a man is seemingly obsessed with duty and does not make compromises.

No, I cannot see Stannis as a good king. People who place duty above everything and see world white and black are not usually good rulers. They are tyrants. Maybe, MAYBE, if Stannis got very good advisers who could influence him, his rule could be ok, but if he would take the sole command - well, I doubt I would want to live in his kingdom. I'm sure that Stannis means well but as they say, road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

(I do point out, however, that my impressions of Stannis's character and personal traits concerns HBO Stannis ONLY.)

P.S. One more thing... Even though I do think that Stannis would not be a good king, I do like the character and don't consider him to be evil. I don't like some things he has done, namely killing his brother and how it was done, but I do find him interesting and in many ways symphatetic, also. So this is not "I just don't like Stannis" rant by any means.

Edited by Arawni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. Not being the lord of Storm's end or a pleasant guy doesn't change the fact that as Ned says he is Robert's one true heir. And therefore, Robert dying makes him King.

I am somewhat ambivalent about this. Technically this is true but on the other hand, Robert was usurper. His kingly line is not established and so even though Stannis is Robert's true heir, I don't complitely accept him as rightful king. From my point of view you need to have an established roayl line for that but there's none at the moment. Well, technically there's Dany but her father lost the throne so I don't see her as a rightful heir, either.

Also, I do think that to be a king one needs to be RECOGNIZED as a king. It's not enough that one calls himself a king. If so any village idiot could be a king. At the moment Stannis is definitely not recognized as a king by most of the Westeros and so I don't personally consider him being one. And because of this I didn't even consider Renly to be usurper, just another claimant to the throne.

But, as said, my personal opinion only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can do is laugh hysterically at many of these posts. Where are all teh people going nuts over the changes from the book in this episode? Oh yeah that's because the man himself wrote it. All this gushing over this episode, "that's how you make an adaption" blah blah blah. If anyone other than GRRm wrote this episode, and I mean word for word the exact same episode, this thread would be full of these posts: "this is an abomination" "thanks for ruining my favorite book" "No san/san kiss/song?" "Tyrion still has a nose?" "this writer just doesn't get ___'s character and motivation" "why add bronn/hound scene, does nothing" "why can;t they make me feel the same thing on a tv show that I did when I read the books" etc... You know it's true, there is no way everyione would be gushing like schoolgirls if GRRM didn't write this episode.

FWIW, I loved the episode rated it a 9, but I have loved almost all of the episodes. I loved the books as well. I just find the comments about this episode so hypocritical and hilarious. My 2 cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... Assassinating your own brother via some shadow monster to avoid blood shed is not evil, but assassinating a leader of a rival house via deception to avoid blood shed is evil? If Stannis's actions can be justified by "choosing the lesser evil", that same reasoning should apply to Tywin's actions too, right?

The Red Wedding did not prevent the shedding of blood. Robb's entire camp got butchered, hundreds, if not thousands of people died.

You can label me a troll, too, because I find these excuses for Stannis's actions almost appalling. I seriously don't mean that as a personal offence, I was just... well, surprised. I can see necessity of his actions and yes, they can be defended from the pragmatical point of view. Killing Renly DID prevent blood shed between Baratheon bannermen although I simply cannot believe anybody would do such a deed just because of the "duty" or just to save his soldiers. Actually latter is implausible also because Stannis felt no qualms during the Blackwater when he sent his troops to die (and win, yes, but he was prepared in "thousands" dying in the process).

Who do you think he did for then?

However, morally I cannot help but seeing his deed not only disgusting but also cowardly. Even if one considers Renly as an usurper, sending a shadow monster to kill him in secret is a dishonourable way to get rid of usurper. People who break the rules should be executed, not assassinated in the dark. That is not justice, that is cowardice. Practical, maybe, but also dishonourable and dishonest.

And I'm sure Stannis would have preferred to do it that way, just as he would have preferred to hang Renly's lords for betraying him. But certain things need to be done or Joffrey reigns forever.

Many here say that Stannis would be a good king but I don't really see it. This is not because he has burned people alive or because he assassinated his brother (or at least turned the blind eye when Melisandre did it). A man could be a good king even though he has done such things - a good king is not necessarily a good man. But there are other qualities in Stannis that do make me doubt his ability to be a good king and a leader. He's seemingly rather uncharismatic and not well liked. There must be a reason why is is not liked and not only do I think that reason might hinder his abolity to be a good king, also the mere fact that ruling effectively when your administrative layer (= lords who implement kings commands) dislikes you, is very, very difficult. It is even more difficult when a man is seemingly obsessed with duty and does not make compromises.

In a more perfect world, I'd agree. But this is Robert's kingdom. It's filled with people that need to be forcibly removed. Installing Robert 2.0 or Aerys 2.0 on the Iron Throne or have Robb win the war then say screw and go back to Winterfell in the throne doews nothing to aid the realm.

I am somewhat ambivalent about this. Technically this is true but on the other hand, Robert was usurper. His kingly line is not established and so even though Stannis is Robert's true heir, I don't complitely accept him as rightful king. From my point of view you need to have an established roayl line for that but there's none at the moment. Well, technically there's Dany but her father lost the throne so I don't see her as a rightful heir, either.

Also, I do think that to be a king one needs to be RECOGNIZED as a king. It's not enough that one calls himself a king. If so any village idiot could be a king. At the moment Stannis is definitely not recognized as a king by most of the Westeros and so I don't personally consider him being one. And because of this I didn't even consider Renly to be usurper, just another claimant to the throne.

But, as said, my personal opinion only.

What do you mean his kingly line is not established? All the lords of the seven kingdoms have sworn fealty to him and he's been sworn in by the High Septon as far I know. There's a reason why everyone calling himself king of the seven kingdoms in westeros put Baratheon behind his name. King Robert became King by right of conquest, the crown passes to the next of his line, Joffrey thought it was him, Stannis knew it was him, Renly knew it wasn't him, he went to war to make hmself king by right of conquest, to do that he needsto prevail over Stannis and Joffrey, he didn't, Stannis killed him.

I dunno what is so complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOT's ratings are excellent, we don't need to worry (yet). It is doing better than Boardwalk Empire, which is is equally expensive. True Blood does much better, and is cheaper, but that show is a weird spike in their ratings. HBO does not carry about initial viewings like normal networks because they do not pay for their shows with ads. Whether you watched the show at Sunday, 9pm or Tuesday 4am (on HBO Go), you are paying for an HBO subscription, which is how they make money.

Exactly. Also, granted it's on Showtime and they have fewer subscribers than HBO (but they are their closest competitor), but The Borgias is considered a hit over there with less than a seventh of GoT's average viewership, and it is not cheap to make either, being a period-drama versus something like Weeds.

... but on the other hand, Robert was usurper. His kingly line is not established and so even though Stannis is Robert's true heir, I don't complitely accept him as rightful king...

After well over a decade of no Targs in Westeros, their claim is practically non-existent. They've effectively lost the right to the kingship.

Richard the Lionheart remained King of England when he disappeared on his Middle East adventures only because he left his irascible mother Eleanor of Acquitaine, and, even more importantly, William Marshall (largely considered the greatest knight in history and so influential that, after he was gone, his name became the official title of his successors -- Lord Marshal of England) in charge of things. Otherwise, some enterprising distant cousin with powerful friends would've taken his throne.

If Dany reclaims Westeros, it'll be as a conqueror. None of that will matter if she wins, though. Just like after Robert's Rebellion, she'll be touted as the "rightful" ruler if she's victorious (but the same people who say that would not be so nice if she was beaten).

We sometimes forget that Robert didn't seize his throne. Not technically. Gaining power wasn't the reason for the rebellion. They rebelled to oust a mad tyrant who had killed both Ned's father and brother and whose son (in their view, at least) had kidnapped Robert's betrothed. Lord Arryn called-up his banners because King Aerys demanded he send him Ned and Robert's heads; they were his wards and surrogate sons, and so he defied his king and rebelled rather than see them dead.

Robert was crowned only after they'd won and there was no sitting king, because his claim was better than anyone else's, his grandmother having been one of the daughters of King Aegon V -- thus he had royal blood through the female line.

Edited by J_Crews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have recently been rewatching Band of Brothers and The Pacific and it was upsetting. They were so great that they consistently put Blackwater to shame. There is obviously a huge difference in budgets, but why so?!

I'm sorry you were upset. I read the bob book and still couldnt tell the men apart in the series. perhaps you shouldnt watch if you are upset. too bad the bob battles lacked water, boats, and wildfire with huge realistic explosions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After well over a decade of no Targs in Westeros, their claim is practically non-existent. They've effectively lost the right to the kingship.

really? after ruling for 300 years? Well, crackclaw can be counted on and the lannisters are hashing it so badly - and robert was an indifferent king. I can see westerosians going right back to targs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dany reclaims Westeros, it'll be as a conqueror. None of that will matter if she wins, though. Just like after Robert's Rebellion, she'll be touted as the "rightful" ruler if she's victorious (but the same people who say that would not be so nice if she was beaten).

We sometimes forget that Robert didn't seize his throne. Not technically.

Robert was crowned only after they'd won and there was no sitting king, because his claim was better than anyone else's, his grandmother having been one of the daughters of King Aegon V -- thus he had royal blood through the female line.

there was no sitting king bc lannisters killed him and his grandchildren - except the child that Robert killed - the others had to run away. robert was certainly thinking of being re-usurped - suspecting a targ return - and if L+R+J is accurate that explains the incredibly confidential and difficult secret Lyanna wanted him to keep.

Eddard could also have grabbed it - if Jaime had been older and wiser he might have kept it. Pycelle was in on the lannister plot s well - too bad no one told jaime.

Robert's claim was that he reached the throne that Eddard was holding for him - the king was dead and his heir was dead and everyone else had run or been killed.

We have been told the female line targ relationship was an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really? after ruling for 300 years? Well, crackclaw can be counted on and the lannisters are hashing it so badly - and robert was an indifferent king. I can see westerosians going right back to targs.

there was no sitting king bc lannisters killed him and his grandchildren - except the child that Robert killed - the others had to run away. robert was certainly thinking of being re-usurped - suspecting a targ return - and if L+R+J is accurate that explains the incredibly confidential and difficult secret Lyanna wanted him to keep.

Eddard could also have grabbed it - if Jaime had been older and wiser he might have kept it. Pycelle was in on the lannister plot s well - too bad no one told jaime.

Robert's claim was that he reached the throne that Eddard was holding for him - the king was dead and his heir was dead and everyone else had run or been killed.

We have been told the female line targ relationship was an excuse.

You're correct on all points, but it changes nothing. My point was that, after such a long time has passed, it's hardly accurate to think of Robert as a usurper. He's been king for nearly 2 decades; there are children who have been born and are nearing adulthood who only know the Targs from stories. The point also remains that Robert didn't rebel in order to usurp power; that was a by-product. Yes, the fact his grandmother was a Targ was used as an excuse to legitimize his crown, but that doesn't change the fact that the rebellion occurred for other reasons, not with the express goal of putting Robert on the throne. That was decided after. That whole idea was, essentially, a fantasy cooked-up in Viserys' head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something?

Shae is Lorathi?

So is Jaqen.... ? (Which I think we don't know for sure...being who he is).

I am guessing no connection between them... and in the book seems no way Shae could be a FM, knowing what happens to her.

I am pretty sure they only made both of them "Lorathi" because that is a handy way of explaining their German accents.

Or maybe i should say that was the reason they made Shae Lorathi too, Jaquen was from Lorath even in the books.

All I can do is laugh hysterically at many of these posts. Where are all teh people going nuts over the changes from the book in this episode? Oh yeah that's because the man himself wrote it. All this gushing over this episode, "that's how you make an adaption" blah blah blah. If anyone other than GRRm wrote this episode, and I mean word for word the exact same episode, this thread would be full of these posts: "this is an abomination" "thanks for ruining my favorite book" "No san/san kiss/song?" "Tyrion still has a nose?" "this writer just doesn't get ___'s character and motivation" "why add bronn/hound scene, does nothing" "why can;t they make me feel the same thing on a tv show that I did when I read the books" etc... You know it's true, there is no way everyione would be gushing like schoolgirls if GRRM didn't write this episode.

FWIW, I loved the episode rated it a 9, but I have loved almost all of the episodes. I loved the books as well. I just find the comments about this episode so hypocritical and hilarious. My 2 cents

That is simply not true. Pretty much everyone was impressed by last season´s "Baelor" episode, or by the "What is dead may never die" one this season. Neither of them was written by Martin. Also, people, even outspoken book purists (like me) have often had loud praise for quite a few deviations from the book. It is the BAD, STUPID AND UTTERLY NEEDLESS changes that we are upset about.

"HURR DURR you all think I am only a lowly Hollywood writer, but now I´m gonna show you I am an ARTIST too, like Martin! Just following the books is BENEATH me!!! Hold my beer and watch me making a CHANGE just to prove this!!!"

I wasn´t too blown away by Martin´s Bronn/Hound scene either, I still don´t know what that was really about. I guess he wrote it so Tyrion´s assassination wouldn´t totally come out of the blue for the viewers. There needed to be some sign of what Cersei was REALLY like, that she first planned to get rid of Tyrion´s strong right arm so she would have more control over him by having the Hound execute him in a "brawl".

PS regarding the SanSan scene: I am a huge Sandor fan (SanSan not so much) and I am really glad they did the scene in that way. with the lack of attention and screentime Sandor has been getting in the show there would have been no way to do a 1:1 book scene. Almost no previous interaction, no Sansa POV ... it would just have totally freaked out the viewers and branded Sandor as a crazy would be rapist. I can just hear the comments from non-bookreaders "I guess the only reason he didn´t rape her was because he heard footsteps outside" or some such nonsense.

I´m glad one of my favourite characters wasn´t ruined that way-

Edited by BlackTalon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...