Jump to content

A Notable Casting


Westeros

Recommended Posts

Well a lot of my thinking is based on the news that has leaked so far. They could just be introducing characters to set up there main actions later on, true, but I can't help but wonder if they really are going to accerlerate and finish certain storylines. I mean to date the characters leaked that we weren't expecting this year include three eyed raven, Hizaq (sp?), lords of the vale, plus we know Brienne stuff seems to be moved up. Its hard not to start jumping to the conclusion that stuff he being moved up.

Why would we not expect those characters this season? I did.

I wouldn't call it accelerated as much as "switched around"

If they're never going to delve into the past, what was the point of bringing Jon's parentage up in the first place?

Why make Ned's last words to Jon, "Some day I'll tell you about your mother", if they're never going to explain it's significance?

They aren't going to film flashbacks of events like ToJ, House of Undying stuff etc. People might talk about the past like Bran and Jojen or Catelyn.

The books don't make it a big deal, that is the genius of it, the show doesn't either.

I would argue that the show puts too much emphasis on it without even trying to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're never going to delve into the past, what was the point of bringing Jon's parentage up in the first place?

Why make Ned's last words to Jon, "Some day I'll tell you about your mother", if they're never going to explain it's significance?

DnD saying they won't go into the past as in show past events on screen in flashbacks, hence no ToJ.

The show has mentioned past events on a few occasions, but they seem to have little importance in the show, or at least less importance in the show than the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't going to film flashbacks of events like ToJ, House of Undying stuff etc. People might talk about the past like Bran and Jojen or Catelyn.

The books don't make it a big deal, that is the genius of it, the show doesn't either.

I would argue that the show puts too much emphasis on it without even trying to.

I feel like the books are often reminding us about certain past events, and put a decent amount of emphasis on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DnD saying they won't go into the past as in show past events on screen in flashbacks, hence no ToJ.

The show has mentioned past events on a few occasions, but they seem to have little importance in the show, or at least less importance in the show than the books.

This is a deliberate (and I think mistaken move on D+D's) part. They've said they don't want very much backstory in the early seasons, instead loading it all into the seasons when it's actually relevant. Which to me risks taking away a lot of the surprise from things. "What's this? We're suddenly getting loads of information about Lyanna and Rhaegar, and we're starting to ask who Jon's parents are again?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a deliberate (and I think mistaken move on D+D's) part. They've said they don't want very much backstory in the early seasons, instead loading it all into the seasons when it's actually relevant. Which to me risks taking away a lot of the surprise from things. "What's this? We're suddenly getting loads of information about Lyanna and Rhaegar, and we're starting to ask who Jon's parents are again?"

Backstory works a lot better in books than TV. Its just a feature of the medium. So I don't think D&D made a mistake by accepting that and not trying find a complicated way to make it work.

While Jon's parentage story is harder to guess in the show (probably), when it does eventually emerge again, if viewers relook at the first couple of episodes then they will see that it was clearly signposted then. In fact, weirdly, then those episodes were originally shown, people here thought the show made too big a point about Jon.

Although, some of the Unsullied have picked up on the Jon theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backstory works a lot better in books than TV. Its just a feature of the medium. So I don't think D&D made a mistake by accepting that and not trying find a complicated way to make it work.

While Jon's parentage story is harder to guess in the show (probably), when it does eventually emerge again, if viewers relook at the first couple of episodes then they will see that it was clearly signposted then. In fact, weirdly, then those episodes were originally shown, people here thought the show made too big a point about Jon.

Although, some of the Unsullied have picked up on the Jon theories.

I'm not entirely convinced the Unsullied R+L=J theories are legit. There simply hasn't been enough information for anyone to come up with that theory and to get major traction with others.

And I disagree that hints couldn't have been dropped earlier. Firstly, they could in fact have had flashbacks to the rebellion. That would have made the information less expositional and more exciting. It would have stuck in people's minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect D+D's aversion to flashbacks and all, but it feels a bit like they're imposing a storytelling handicap on themselves by doing that. So many series make use of the flashback mechanism (Homeland, Lost, I've noticed Breaking Bad use it occasionally), and it feels like Game of Thrones needs it most of all. So much richness and depth is lost if they don't delve into the backstory.



Just hope they find some equally effective method. You get much more of a sense of there being a powerful overall story arc in the books, which the series is lacking currently due to the absence of Tower of Joy, House of the Undying etc sequences.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely convinced the Unsullied R+L=J theories are legit. There simply hasn't been enough information for anyone to come up with that theory and to get major traction with others.

Firstly, they could in fact have had flashbacks to the rebellion. That would have made the information less expositional and more exciting. It would have stuck in people's minds.

They could have had flashbacks. But I think you can make a reasonable argument that they were better without it. Yes, other shows have done it but they probably didn't want to be another "flashback" show. Also, the shows that do have flashbacks only go back a few years, GoT would require flashbacks of over 17 years. It would have been very difficult to use the same actors and they would have had to cast another wave of new characters on top of what they already had. Also, it probably would have made R+L=J blindlingly obvious because it is difficult to be subtle about that.

I don't want to say anything definitive here. Maybe it could have worked but I have serious reservations about it.

As for R+L=J. If a viewer is very clued into how fiction works, then I think you could figure out that theory. (Character introduced with mysterious parents? Its a trope!). It only requires one person to figure it out because once that person states it, it works so well plotwise that people will instantly be drawn to it. As I said before, people did originally think that D&D were too obvious over the first couple of episodes.

And I don't think they will ever find an equally effective method to what GRRM did in the books to explain the history. Its going to be one of those things where if the history appeals to you, read the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely convinced the Unsullied R+L=J theories are legit. There simply hasn't been enough information for anyone to come up with that theory and to get major traction with others.

And I disagree that hints couldn't have been dropped earlier. Firstly, they could in fact have had flashbacks to the rebellion. That would have made the information less expositional and more exciting. It would have stuck in people's minds.

The "Unsullied" are basically anything but, as this point (as long as you're referring to the various posters over at TWoP, that is).

In any case, flashbacks simply wouldn't be a logical choice for this show. Think of how much is already happening during the course of an average season. You throw flashbacks and a multitude of dream sequences into that equation (especially early on), and you're almost guaranteeing to make this show nigh indecipherable to non-readers (i.e. the majority of the audience). Giving Bran the 'responsibility' of bearing the brunt of this exploration into and exposition about the past makes sense, especially considering that he is the main character with the least amount of book material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by "it" I meant the books don't put a big deal on who Jon Snow's mother is.

Oh I see. The references and little hints to it throughout the series thus far surely would leave one to believe that it will soon become more of a big deal in one way or another.

This is a deliberate (and I think mistaken move on D+D's) part. They've said they don't want very much backstory in the early seasons, instead loading it all into the seasons when it's actually relevant. Which to me risks taking away a lot of the surprise from things. "What's this? We're suddenly getting loads of information about Lyanna and Rhaegar, and we're starting to ask who Jon's parents are again?"

I agree. Plus, when you have such memorable scenes like ToJ that would surely stand out in a viewer's mind, it would be great to feel that connection back from the first season when something is revealed seasons later. Like Oh! That all makes sense now! Like coming full circle.

I respect D+D's aversion to flashbacks and all, but it feels a bit like they're imposing a storytelling handicap on themselves by doing that. So many series make use of the flashback mechanism (Homeland, Lost, I've noticed Breaking Bad use it occasionally), and it feels like Game of Thrones needs it most of all. So much richness and depth is lost if they don't delve into the backstory.

Just hope they find some equally effective method. You get much more of a sense of there being a powerful overall story arc in the books, which the series is lacking currently due to the absence of Tower of Joy, House of the Undying etc sequences.

I agree with this ^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a deliberate (and I think mistaken move on D+D's) part. They've said they don't want very much backstory in the early seasons, instead loading it all into the seasons when it's actually relevant. Which to me risks taking away a lot of the surprise from things. "What's this? We're suddenly getting loads of information about Lyanna and Rhaegar, and we're starting to ask who Jon's parents are again?"

The major thing we don't yet have in the show is the ToJ and the repeated "Promise me, Ned" thoughts in Eddard's head. We can still get the Knight of the Laughing Tree from the Reeds relatively when it should be.

Honestly I love the ToJ scene so much I think with some clever shooting they could pull it off in a Bran vision, but that requires getting Sean Bean back because casting a young Ned would just be seriously confusing and even in my own head Ned = Sean. I don't think shooting all of those things in a shorter period of time is all that bad, and certainly better than never touching on it at all. Having the ToJ be in S1E5 or whatever and then having the next clue in S4/5 is so far apart that it runs the risk of being too disjointed to put together. We don't really need the Dragon has three heads stuff, although that would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Unsullied" are basically anything but, as this point (as long as you're referring to the various posters over at TWoP, that is).

In any case, flashbacks simply wouldn't be a logical choice for this show. Think of how much is already happening during the course of an average season. You throw flashbacks and a multitude of dream sequences into that equation (especially early on), and you're almost guaranteeing to make this show nigh indecipherable to non-readers (i.e. the majority of the audience). Giving Bran the 'responsibility' of bearing the brunt of this exploration into and exposition about the past makes sense, especially considering that he is the main character with the least amount of book material.

Well the Unsullied's what we call them so... :P

In any case, the only reason the show doesn't currently have the time for flashbacks is because it was designed without flashbacks in mind. Had it been designed with them in mind we probably would have got them instead of a lot of the invented "two people in a room talking" scenes. So it's kind of a moot point to say there's no time for them. That's only the case because D+D didn't make time for them. Now of course, at this point in the shows life we can't introduce them randomly and it makes sense to give all the flashbacks to Bran via the Weirnet.

In any case I think that flashbacks would make the show easier to understand. People are better at understanding things they've been shown than told, so they could have been a useful tool for explaining the back story. The big problem with flashbacks would have been the cast, but providing the flashbacks were used conservatively, were necessary - only a few actors aside from extras would be necessary. Aerys, Brandon (who were already cast and filmed anyway), young Ned and Jaime would be the essentials imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ protar



I don't necessarily think time is the issue, and it is definitely not the reason D&D decided against using flashbacks in the first place (since we know they shot some flashback sequences, and that they came in short on almost all of their episodes during the first season). I'd imagine it has a lot more to do with narrative clarity. This show follows so many characters, in so many different locations, and each of which is mostly its own story line among the multitude of other plot threads. Adding flashbacks into that equation could tip the scales towards complicating the show too much. This must have been a major concern early on, and I'm sure factored more into their decision than the screen time they would eat up. The logistical issues with the actors (and the budget) is also one that would have been a pretty big concern, as you mentioned yourself. Martin has said that there will be no need for a book about Robert's Rebellion by the time A Song of Ice & Fire is completed, so I have to assume that these events and characters from the past will play an important role in the future of both the book series and the television show. Choosing Bran to be the conduit through which the past is explored works perfectly, because it allows them to show these events at a time when they may be more relevant to what's happening within the narrative, and because Bran simply doesn't have the material that nearly every other main character in this series does going forward (but, fortuitously, has the ability to see the past among other talents). The only thing I think that has truly been missed was the Tower of Joy. I can't recall any other past event that I feel needed to be in the show, at this point, that hasn't already been alluded to or discussed in 'real time'.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even the ToJ scene, is it needed? It only works so well if you are familiar with the legends of the KG and it would take a lot of exposition to get us to know Arthur Dayne etc. The ToJ works brilliantly in the books but is not particularly suited for TV. History in Westeros is a great extra layer in aSoIaF but only a very small part of that is required in the TV series. I'd love if that wasn't true but I think it is. Bran might help us learn some more history but I don't expect a lot of scenes with him regaling us about the history of Westeros.



The other part of the ToJ scene would make Jon's identify way too obvious, so it could never be shown (although they could get away with a faceless "Promise Me" I suppose).






In any case, the only reason the show doesn't currently have the time for flashbacks is because it was designed without flashbacks in mind. Had it been designed with them in mind we probably would have got them instead of a lot of the invented "two people in a room talking" scenes.




A lot of great scenes involve 2 people in a room talking though. :) D&D certainly seriously considered having flashbacks but they choose not to for a number of reasons.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree a lot of the best scenes involve two people in a room talking, and it can be an effective way to deliver backstory. Jon and Maester Aemon scenes in season 1 for example - I loved Aemon's speech to Jon about duty, not just cause they slipped in some backstory regarding the murder of Rhaegar's children.



And of course, the Jaime-Brienne scene in season 3 was brilliant. Only trouble is how well the audience retains important information when it's being delivered to them through dialogue rather then backstory.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...