Game of Thrones - Episode 9

[shadowkat]

At work today, I spoke with a co-worker who had just finished listening to all 26 CDs of Game of Thrones which he'd borrowed from the Library. But they didn't have the next books in the series and asked if I'd loan him Clash of Kings. I said - I have all the books, but haven't read the fourth one yet. I take breaks between them - they are incredibly Grim. He responded - "grim and violent." Yeah, that too. He's decided the hero is Ayra. He also likes Tyrion and Jon Snow.

Saw True Blood S3, second to last episode last night - the S3 finale is next week I think. Game of Thrones is better, or a least more enjoyable, but that's only because it's not a soap opera, and True Blood is such a soap opera. Soap Operas have multiple subplots that have nothing to do with one another. They might come together, but usually not. And without fail, there's at least two subplots that are incredibly dull. All are about romantic relationships or lack thereof. There's little plot outside of emotional arcs. And often you feel as if the writers are just throwing stuff at the screen to see what fits. It can be fun, because it is so unpredictable. I mean how can you predict a story where the plot is basically whatever the writer thinks is cool or which pairing turns the writer on at any given moment? Buffy at times felt like a soap opera - for some of the same reasons. It wasn't plotted out that far ahead of time and it was basically whatever fit the theme. I enjoy the art form for what it is, but it can drag at times - particularly when you are on a subplot that you don't care about - and you wish they'd get back to the one you do. (Example - last night? They were spending all this time on Jason and Crystal - who I find boring, and Jessica and Hoyt (who even more boring) and Arlene and Terry and the witch (which are just sort of silly) - when I wanted to go back to Sam, Tara, and Eric and King Russell. Game of Thrones in marked contrast was far more riveting, had better dialogue, and as a result more entertaining. (ie. My attention didn't wander and I didn't feel a need to fastforward because I was bored.) I won't state that Game is perfect, but it's problems are the same one's I had with the books. While other people are comparing it to other HBO series (which not even HBO does...because apples and oranges, folks, really. Fantasy isn't the same as heightened reality), I'm comparing it to the books and other fantasy genre television series that I've seen. It is actually much better than the books in some respects, or I'm enjoying a lot more. Also, I've not seen a Fantasy series that comes close to Game.

Just finished watching Game of Thrones. And, hee, certain scenes are unintentionally humorous if you have read Storm of Swords recently and know exactly what is going to happen. I was laughing my not-so-little ass off. This has been true about a lot of scenes, actually. It's sort of like watching Buffy for the fifteenth time and during the whole bit where Spike goes on about Angel being the slayer's lap dog in Surprise/Innocence, you find yourself giggling uncontrollably at the irony of it all. In some respects, being spoiled, makes certain scenes far more enjoyable.

Again, how they are interpreting the books, and what they leave in and leave out is fascinating to me. No worries, I'm not going to spoil you for anything that happens past Game outside of being really vague about it - like I am above.



* Ned Stark. According to an interview I read in TV Guide - via someone on my flist who provided a link - non-readers were shocked by the be-heading of Ned Stark. I wasn't in the books. It's foreshadowed fairly heavily actually. They also found it to be shocking...it is, to kill of a lead character, the character that many fans may have decided was the "hero" of the story. His death, if anything, should relieve fans who were concerned that this is going to be your typical hero's journey tale. It so isn't. Those guys keep getting killed off. George RR Martin doesn't subscribe to the whole honorable hero's quest motif that dwells in many a fantasy tale. It is still a difficult scene - because Martin chooses to show it to us, both here and in the books, through Ned Stark's daughter's eyes.

Interesting and somewhat ironic juxtaposition. The series begins with Ned Stark insisting that all his sons, including 10 year old Bran, watch unflinching, when he beheads a poor man who has fled the Night's Watch in terror of his life. The man confesses his sin and Ned beheads him, doesn't send him back, just kills him for the crime of Treason and he does it himself. The boys watch. And it is honorable, yet hard. A solider's duty.

Here, Ned confesses his treason - in hope that the Queen will send him to the Night's Watch, and Sansa and Ayra will be spared. It is against his better judgment. It is against his honor, but he does it - for his daughters for love. When push comes to shove, Ned Stark ironically, finally, ultimately, chooses love over honor, yet, he dies anyway - for he is right about Joffrey, there is no honor in the lad nor love for that matter. But according to Varys there isn't any in Stark's choice for King, Stannis, either. Hard men, solider's who live and die by swords.

*Aemon and Jon Snow - Ah, they used, word for word, one of my favorite scenes in the book. Was bit worried they'd leave it out. It's a deftly written scene and incredibly important. Because it echoes through the books.

In response to Jon Snow's statement that no one can possibly know what he is going through. Master Aemon tells Jon about how he had to watch from afar, and do nothing while his entire family was butchered. He had given up the throne to his brother, whose son Aerys inherited it, the Mad King. And watched as well - Jon's family and the other's killed his brother's sons, and his brother, and their children, small babies. He choose honor over love. Duty over love. He told Jon, every man has too. He said it was easy to choose these things when nothing was at stake - it was easy for Ned Stark to be honorable, to choose duty - when his children's lives weren't at stake, but when they are? And Jon assumes this, choosing honor is always the right thing to do. Master Aemon tells him that what he chooses, whatever it is - he, Jon, must learn to live with it. Either way. As Master Aemon has.

It's an ironic scene. Because Ned Stark and Twyin Lannister are in effect going through what they put the Tarragyrn's through years ago. Karma is circling around to bite them, where they least expect it.

What will Jon choose...to fight with Rob, or to stick to his duty, his choice?

*Catelynn - I loved Catelynn's scenes, far more here than in the books, they made me laugh. Although to be honest, I sort of forgot about them. So, they were new to me. Particularly her scene with her son after negotiating with Walder Frey. "You have to marry one of his daughters."

Rob: "Have you seen them...are they?"
Catelynn: "Uh, one is. Do you agree?"
Rob: Can I say no?
Catelynn: Not if you want to cross.

And of course they win against Jamie Lannister - although barely. They left a bunch of stuff out - some of it rather important. Wonder if they'll add it later? Jamie kills two sons of one of the Stark bannermen, the Bannerman wants Jamie's head or executed for it. Robb chooses not to behead Jamie, or execute him, because they can use him to bargain for Ned Stark and well the two daughters - Sansa and Ayra. But Karstark wants Jamie dead, vengeance for his sons - who Jamie killed honorably in battle. Robb wisely chooses not to kill Jamie, but this is a sticking point that causes a lot of problems later...so curious if they will add it later, it is sort of important. I suppose they could - they don't really talk about it in front of Jamie, they talk about it amongst themselves.

(You have to keep in mind - all information is passed by either raven or messenger boys, if either gets stopped, no one knows anything. At least not quickly.) Jamie actually slew his way up to Robb and Robb barely defeated him, if it weren't for a couple of men ahead of Robb - Robb would have been killed by Jamie. Hence the reason, Robb tells Jamie - he's not dumb enough to engage in armed combat with Jamie of all people, even a wounded and bloody Jamie. Unfortunately they didn't capture Jamie sooner - and pass the word down faster - it may have made a difference if they had. As it is - they appear to have done it at the same time that Joffrey chose to kill Ned Stark.

The Frey negotiation and what was decided during it? I rather enjoyed. Catelynn sells two of her children to Lord Frey to cross the Trident and fight Jamie. She chooses Honor and Duty over Love. She does the opposite of her husband. As does Robb. They figure it's not going to be a problem.

*Jamie - I loved this speech in the book and they do take it out word for word, letter for letter - I know I read it before I watched the episode, because I thought it took place in Clash of Kings, but apparently not. I can't remember most of Clash of Kings...except that it was long and had one too many battle scenes.

Jamie - I'd lay down my sword for you lady, but I've lost my sword. (It's buried in the skull of Lord Karstark's sons - I think)
Catelynn - I don't want your sword - I want my husband and my daughters.
Jamie - I'm afraid I've lost them too.

*Cersei - comes across far more sympathetically here than the books. I've decided it is deliberate. Cersei was a problem in the books, she was written a bit too one-dimensional villain. Here, they've changed her a bit. She admits to having a crush on Robert that isn't all that different from Sansa's early crush on Joffrey (which is dead now). Poor Sansa - unlike Ayra - she wasn't protected from seeing her father die brutally. She saw it up close and personal. No one protected her from it - although to be fair of Cersei- here, Cersei didn't appear to see it coming. She is obviously shocked and upset about it - and you see her arguing with her son after he commands it. It was not what she would have done. In the book - this isn't that clear. No, Cersei is a bit different here - which is a good thing. Very good thing. Huge improvement over the book.

*Ayra - I had forgotten that Ned Stark exchanged looks with Yoren (who looks a bit like Bronn and Jory and I got confused with them in the previous episodes) in the book. Anyhow, he manages to get Yoren to shield his daughter from his execution. (I think I did cry during the Ayra scene in the books, and I almost did here - even though spoiled, and even though I was annoyed by Ned. But his last two scenes are well played by Scean Bean, very well played and your heart does go out to him. He's so trapped. And he is actually right...Joffrey should not be King.)

*Varys - the Opening scene between Varys and Ned Stark is a work of beauty, both cinematography and dialogue wise. The use of light, how they used the torch flame, was brilliant. And I love Varys monologue - where he tells Ned Stark that he is an actor playing a role. His role is the whisperer - listening to secrets. He is supposed to be unscruplous. Without scruples. He is a good actor. But what does he want? Peace. And Ned Stark has gone out of his way to start a full-fledged War. The land was peaceful, more or less, before Ned and Catelynn started poking about. Their ill-advised quests to avenge Jon Arryn and Bran - have lead to the death of thousands.
Setting Ned free doesn't ensure peace. Varys manages to convince Ned to choose love over a solider's honor...but Varys underestimates Joffrey and has misjudged who has the power. Queen Cersei - really doesn't have much power, outside of her son...who is a sadistic creep.

*Tyrion - Ah, they chose to tell Tysha's story to both Bronn and Shae. He does tell both of them in the book. Here - they economically do it at the same time. Which is a good idea, actually. In the book - he tells Bronn while they are escaping from the Vale of Eryie, and Shae sometime later.
Here they combined the two scenes. Shae isn't at all what I had pictured - for some reason I thought she was blond and tiny, and sort of more like Roz. Here she's cleverer, harder, and more up-front with Tyrion. Making it clear - that she wants money. She also shows little sympathy for what happened with Tysha - stating somewhat bluntly - "you should have known she was a whore, a woman who is not a whore would not sleep with a man a mere two hours after she's almost been raped" (very true). Tyrion fascinates me - he's a subversion of the playful playboy that is so often in these stories.
The Playboy brother, who cracks wise, and can't fight - the fun Mercucio character. While his gruffer less pretty brother is a brilliant solider. Here, Martin does the opposite, the pretty boy, never sleeps with any woman but his sister, is celibate (as far as anyone else knows) and a brilliant fighter. While Tyrion - the not so pretty, dwarfish, brother, has the clever wit and shares the beds of well-paid whores. It's fantasy meet heighetened reality.

And it is funny in places. Tyrion is injured by being trampled by his own rag-tag crew of men. Men who want to kill each other as much as the enemy, and him for that matter. Actually he's probably in more danger of being killed by his own men than by the enemy.

His discussion with Tywin is interesting. Tywin states the Scouts were wrong - it is 2,000 men not 20,000 - the 17,000-18,000 are most likely with the kid fighting his son. I'm rather pleased that we didn't have to watch the battle - would have bored me. Battle scenes always bore me. Battle scenes and sex scenes.

*Bronn Forgotten how much I liked Bronn. Rather amusing straight man to Tyrion. Also interesting he's the one who found Shae. Shae and Bronn even look a bit a like. And the game they play is an interesting one - telling us quite a bit about Tyrion, and how out of his depth he is. He claims to be a good judge of character - yet he loses the game. He loses all the games.

*Dany - yes, we are still playing Conan the Barbarian. Although co-worker told me that when he read the books, he envisioned Attila the Hun, a Mongolian. Momoa looks more Persian to me.
I don't like the Dany scenes, I didn't like them that much in the book - thought they were silly and a bit over the top there too. Also cliche fantasy (which they are, as anyone who has read a shitload of pulp fantasy novels knows). But at least the character is growing on me. And I do rather like Ser Jorah, the prodigal/and estranged son of Lord Mormount, the Old Bear, who gives Ser Jorah sword to Jon Snow. (Again the parrallel structure - Mormount protecting and aiding and guiding/mentoring Jon Snow in the icy North, while his son protects and guides and mentors Dany in the hot South - both far from the War. I love the parallels in this story, how character's journey's reflect one another, like mirrors, and how they intertwine when you least expect it. Game is one of the best plotted books that I've read. Very tight plot structure to this novels.)

I don't trust the witch. I think she made his wound fester and wants to kill Khal. But I can't remember. I vaguely remember what happens in that arc exactly. Thought some of it happened a lot later, but apparently not.

Overall? Rather enjoyable. Liked it better than last week's actually. Last week's seemed a bit slow in places and not as well paced. Martin - I think - has a tendency to provide too much detail, although he admittedly left a lot out of last week's episode, so ...make of that what you will.

Two episodes left. Yes, they kill off the lead character, and we still have episodes left. It had to have shocked a few people - because Martin sets you up to believe that Ned will go to the Night's Watch and be reunited with Jon Snow - and you even start to look forward to it, hoping he takes Ayra with him - when wham - Joffrey has him killed instead. I think next to Cersei, Joffrey was the character I hated the most in the books. Everyone else is sort of fun, but Joffrey just was cringeworthy from beginning to end - although perfectly cast. This whole thing is perfectly cast.

Comments

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of things in the book which I think are deliberately vague to allow the reader to interpret. Either that or it didn't fully register for me. At any rate, I thought that it was ambiguous whether the witch made Drogo's wound fester. Drogo also didn't follow her instructions. So she may or may not have deliberately caused the infection. What comes next, however, seemed quite deliberate as I have a vague memory of her going off on Dany essentially going "What in the hell did you think?! That after you raped and murdered my village, I'm supposed to be 'grateful' that you adopted me like a pet?" (As is no doubt clear, that isn't dialog just how the scene sort of registered for me). Regardless of whether she meant the infection, she knew exactly what the blood magic would do and she did it deliberately... at least that's the way that I remember it, but I don't know whether that's accurate.

I actually have a difficult time buying that Cersei was really 'so hurt' by Robert. It doesn't fit all the other stuff we learn about it. It's more like she was 'so offended.' I tried to think of how she could have come to a point of not hating Robert, and honestly, I don't know that there was any way she wouldn't have ended up hating him. He was rude and didn't love her (and more importantly didn't fawn over her) and she hated that and hated him. She also (according to her chapters) had a raging crush on Rhaegar Tagareyen. I don't know whether they're now shifting that crush onto Robert, as that would really be the only way to have ever given Robert/Cersei a chance, because coarse Robert was never going to be anything but a step down in her eyes from the golden prince.

On the other hand, had Robert not been dismissive and neglectful of Cersei, had he fawned over her and told her how beautiful she was, I think she wouldn't have gone so quickly into hate. But she would've gotten there eventually, because she's pretty darn quick to go into contempt mode. So it seems to me either she would've hated Robert fore his being coarse and not constantly praising her, or she would've hated him for being obsequious and adoring. There's really no way to win with Cersei. One way or another, she's always going to wind up at 'contempt' for everyone else.

Joffrey is just a freaking sociopath. Cersei is self-centered and probably a narcissist, but she isn't actually and out and out sociopath (I don't think). Joffrey it an out and out sociopath. That backstory of how he was told that there was a pregnant cat in the kitchen and his deciding to go and cut the cat open -- ugh! SOCIOPATH (and such a contrast to poor little Tommen who just wanted to have kittens to play with).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Haven't read Feast of Crows yet...so didn't know about Cersei's crush on Rhaegar or about the cat bit. I sort of scanned bits of it - and read like the last fifteen pages or so, to see if Cersei gets it and how (because I hated her as much as I did Joffrey in the books).

Oddly here - in the TV series - she isn't bugging me that much. So far they are writing her far more sympathetic than Martin did in Game. Which doesn't take all that much, considering how shallowly she's written. I noticed there's a scene between her and Sansa in Clash of Kings - where she tells Sansa that wanting to be loved is a weakness you can't afford. You are better off not wanting it or caring. So clearly at some point she'd been hurt and went cold? (I was thumbing through Clash of Kings this morning before I loaned it to a co-worker who is eager to read the next installment. He, like you, is clearly enjoying the books far more than I did. It took me forever to read the three books I finished. And I can't say I loved them. There are portions that I rather liked - Ayra, Tyrion (here and there), Jamie and Brienne's chapters, and Samwell Tary. But most of it - felt like ploughing one's way through muck. The TV series is a lot more enjoyable - it's not as violent as the books are, not as gory, and not as grim. Which I'm sure will come as shock to anyone who has only seen the series and not read the novels. It's also a lot less sexist in some respects, and has a lot more wit in others. The Catelynn bits in Game..ponderous, here? Hilarious.)

Agreed on Joffrey. What an annoying character. Robert is as much to blame for that sadist as Cersei. I don't think Sociopath is the correct term. Not all sociopath's are sadists. Sadistic creep works for me. ;-)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I don't know if 'enjoy' is actually the right term. It's mostly some mix of determination to make it through the damn thing and morbid curiosity of what he's going to do to the small handful of characters I somewhat care about. I have this lurking suspicion that he's deliberately turning Tyrion and Arya into villains and doing it so slowly, and through such harsh methods that we sympathize with them. And I hope I'm wrong, so I keep reading.

I won't be picking up other Martin books. He's really just too dark and gory for my tastes. Good grief, Stephen King novels are less gory. And the sadism in the story is just off the charts. So 'like' is a bit strong.

I also find myself a bit curious about Martin's style. He has a decided tendency to place much of the action off screen (as it were). We're told 'such and such happened' for more than we actually see it happening (which I think factors into a lot of the fandom discussion where someone is saying "the show didn't highlight such and such the way I thought they would!" and my scratching my head going... but the book didn't highlight it either. You simply got the info second hand. We aren't given real-time accounts when they do all the crap to Robb or the horrible things that were done to people at Harrenhal, we have some character it's told to later. We don't 'see' those battles, we get some quick summation later. So a lot of what people are emphasizing in their own memories vary wildly. It's mostly 'what stuck out for you' in the midst of a bazillion words and backstories. I've never run across a book that had me having to turn pages back wondering, "Okay, what in the heck just happened? Did that actually happen?" So much stuff is really left to interpretation because you can't trust any of the narrators either. So I find Martin both interesting and perhaps... I don't know, perhaps a bit overrated. It's according to how much of the ambiguity is intended and how much is an offshoot of a style that takes huge chunks of the action and places it at a fair degree of distance. IT's either brilliant or odd.

And I'm not reading AFFC so much as jumping around it trying to gather the info I think I'll need to read the next book. I've grown rather impatient wandering around in the much so I just want to know strategic things at this point. I did suffer through some Cersei chapters though, and being in her head is insufferable. There really is not one good thing about her.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I have this lurking suspicion that he's deliberately turning Tyrion and Arya into villains and doing it so slowly, and through such harsh methods that we sympathize with them. And I hope I'm wrong, so I keep reading.

Eh. I don't think so. Haven't seen anything to date that fits that, and
the story is more about power and how people deal with it and assert it.
Bad characters often do heroic things (with the exception of several characters that I don't need to mention), and good characters do horrible things. It's actually well balanced. (shrugs). If anything they may become anti-heroes...which isn't quite the same thing. It's not a straight up fantasy with villains and heroes...not really. Granted Cersei and Joffrey are painted pretty darkly...

I also find myself a bit curious about Martin's style. He has a decided tendency to place much of the action off screen (as it were). We're told 'such and such happened' for more than we actually see it happening

I noticed that as well. Robb's romance is completely off-stage. As is well almost all the battles. We never see his fight with Jamie. I'm actually glad some of the stuff that happens after the Red Wedding is not shown and just talked about. Because it was gory enough as it was - that would give Caligula or Polanski's Macbeth a run for its money. Most gruesome thing I've read in quite a while (and I've read a lot of gruesome books in my lifetime). Keeping a lot of the Robb stuff off-stage backfires in a way, because I found it difficult to care what happened to Robb. We see almost all of it through Catelynn's eyes - and Catelynn much like Sansa is a fairly passive-aggressive character. I found her more interesting in Storm.

So I find Martin both interesting and perhaps... I don't know, perhaps a bit overrated. It's according to how much of the ambiguity is intended and how much is an offshoot of a style that takes huge chunks of the action and places it at a fair degree of distance. IT's either brilliant or odd.

As a critic of the form, I know he is stylistically and from a purely structural view a far better writer than most of the fantasy writers out there. Objectively? He's better than Kim Harrison, Jim Butcher, JK Rowling, etc...BUT, at the same time, I find him much harder to read and not quite as enjoyable. I admittedly love their characters more than his. I love some of the characters he creates, so complex and multi-dimensional, but...the narrative is distancing. And I know I'm going to be mostly frustrated with the direction he takes them. It does not pull at my emotions, outside of frustration and annoyance. I haven't really cried in the books, the closest I got was Ayra watching Ned get beheaded. And while I am admittedly curious about certain characters, enough to hunt for more on them here and there, I can't say I'm fannish. They aren't books I feel a desire to re-read - outside of comparing them to the tv series.

Is he over-rated? I don't know. But I think a lot of writers are over-rated. Personally, I think Dickens is overrated. ;-) Martin reminds me a lot of Dickens, the attention to detail, the varied character points of views, and the depiction of the physically weak becoming powerful - and the denouncement of class. I had troubles reading Dickens too.

That said? It's an oddly compelling story. I want to know what happens to these characters, how it is resolved, what the writer does with them. I'm still curious. So I'll buy and read Dance of Dragons along with everyone else. I think I'm more or less in the same situation you are.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

non-readers were shocked by the be-heading of Ned Stark.

I pretty much saw it coming, though I thought he'd make it to the season finale. I was halfway wondering if he'd use the opportunity to publicly declare Joffrey a bastard, but of course he wouldn't have been Ned Stark if he'd done that.

I'm rather pleased that we didn't have to watch the battle - would have bored me.

They're also spectacularly expensive, which I'm guessing is why they've left them out. Rome did the same thing, and that show revolved around some pretty famous battles. You see the characters prepare for battle, you hear some clashing of swords, maybe a closeup or two of people fighting in slo-mo, and then the aftermath.

Joffrey really needs to die, though. Not for what he did to Stark - I'm actually rather pleased with that, like you say, it's a pretty strong indication that it's not a typical hero's journey - but because spoiled teenage sociopaths always bug me in TV series. Connor in Angel, Silas in Weeds, Whatshisface in Nip/Tuck, Talyn in Farscape, etc etc etc - except Joffrey has a kingdom at his command. I really don't like that type of character, who does things just because he wants to act out and nobody cares about him and bla-de-bla-de-bla and can always be trusted to make the stupidest possible decisions. Which is a pity, because I'm pretty much loving the rest of the series.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

pretty much saw it coming, though I thought he'd make it to the season finale.

I wondered how they were going to do it. I thought they'd kill him in the finale, because that would be a great bookend to the first episode. But apparently they've decided to follow the book almost to the letter. He dies about fifty pages before the end of the first book. May be more than that.
He's really not the main character of Game, you just think he is. I had to bite my tongue when people kept saying Ned is obviously the hero of this tale and it's all going to be his story. Uh no. He's actually just one of the catalysts. Which is actually one of the things I liked about the books. It subverts the traditional fantasy view or Hollywood Hero's Journey take.

They're also spectacularly expensive, which I'm guessing is why they've left them out.

That makes sense. I know Whedon blew his entire S7 budget on the fight scene in Chosen. But, they are also to a degree left out in the books. We don't really see that many battles. A few in Clash, not that many in Game. We never see the Jamie/Robb battle. We do see more of the Tyrion battle though.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Joffrey really needs to die, though. Not for what he did to Stark - I'm actually rather pleased with that, like you say, it's a pretty strong indication that it's not a typical hero's journey - but because spoiled teenage sociopaths always bug me in TV series. Connor in Angel, Silas in Weeds, Whatshisface in Nip/Tuck, Talyn in Farscape, etc etc etc - except Joffrey has a kingdom at his command. I really don't like that type of character, who does things just because he wants to act out and nobody cares about him and bla-de-bla-de-bla and can always be trusted to make the stupidest possible decisions. Which is a pity, because I'm pretty much loving the rest of the series.

Co-worker: Joffrey must die!
Me:uh...well, not to spoil you...but you will have to put up with him for a while and if you think he's annoying and bad now? He just gets worse.
Co-worker: ARRRGH!!!

The Good news? He's never a major character like Connor and we don't really see that much of him. Just here and there. The focus is more on well everyone else. Joffrey is more of a catalyst character...he motivates other characters into action.

Also Martin never attempts to redeem him - like Connor, Silas, or Whatshisface in Nip/Tuck (I've drawn a blank too - but I know exactly who you are talking about - I call facelift boy), or Talyn in Farscape. Nor does he ever take center stage. Which doesn't make him necessarily less hateful, just a little less grating because you don't see that much of him. I think you see about as much of him as you do here. And they cut out a lot - there was a lot more Joffrey in the book - a lot more. He's also a lot nastier. In the TV series - he's actually not that bad so far.

But you are correct...it is an annoying and bordering on cliche trope which I wish writers would stop using. The poor neglected sadistic kid that you want to strangle.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Sigh. Oh well. There's plenty of good characters as well.

[shapinglight]

I rather enjoyed Hoyt and Jessica on True Blood, but agree that Jason and Crystal were very boring. Such a pity. I really enjoyed Jason's storyline in season 2. As for the unconnected soapy plotlines, I think this the first time there hasn't been an overall plot for TB that included everyone. Both the serial killer and Marianne plots worked in that regard, especially the Marianne one. It's a pity, because I think the scattershot effect weakened the season enormously.

Re: GoT, love it to bits (or mostly), but was not shocked by Ned's death. I was expecting it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed - the first two seasons of True Blood hooked their plot-lines together more. This one felt a bit more like a traditional soap opera structure. Plot threads dangling all over the place. Which makes the story feel a bit jarring in places.

Re: GoT, love it to bits (or mostly), but was not shocked by Ned's death. I was expecting it.

It's interesting no one on my flist was shocked by his death, co-worker was and other people listed by TV guide were...Not sure why? I thought it was fairly clear. It's admittedly clearer here than in the novel.

[shapinglight]

Plot threads dangling all over the place. Which makes the story feel a bit jarring in places.

I suppose the show is just following the books, which I haven't read, but gather from what people say develope more and more plots as they go along. That said, some of these things don't come from the books at all, including anything involving Jessica because she doesn't exist in the books, and anything involving Lafayette, who dies in book 1. I don't know about Sam's storyline. I really didn't like it in season 3. Tommy bored me.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't know about Sam's storyline. I really didn't like it in season 3. Tommy bored me.

Sam has almost no story in the books. And sort of disappears from them. The books are first person close narratives - so if it isn't directly related to whatever Sookie is doing it doesn't exist. Tara doesn't exist in the books at all - Sookie has a friend, but she's white, and I think called Tara and runs a clothing boutigue and pops up occassionally to discuss boys with Sookie and help her pick clothes.
Hadley is dead in the books. The King Russell/Eric/Pam storyline is non-existent.
So is the werewolf storyline. Debbie whatshername is actually a more important character in the books and the books focus a lot more on Alicide and a lot less on Eric at this point. The characters in Hotshot - very different. The head guy in Hotshot, Crystal's dad, flirts with Sookie and is a nice guy in the books.

Actually - they went away from the plot of the books entirely after S1. The series has about 5%-15% of the books in it.

The books aren't great. So it's no big loss. But fans of the books probably hate the series.

[shapinglight]

The books aren't great. So it's no big loss. But fans of the books probably hate the series

Yes, I have that impression. There are also a lot of pissed off Sookie/Eric 'shippers who must realise now they're not going to get what they want, since Alan Ball is on record as saying that Sookie/Bill is destined, or some such, because of Anna Paquin and Steven Moyer being an RL couple.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

In the books, Bill sort of disappears after about the fourth book. Sookie basically jumps from one guy to the next in the books - first it is Bill, then Alcide, then a WereTiger (who she meets during a Were negotiation - don't ask), then Eric apparently - I gave up during the whole WereTiger bit.

So fans of the books (I'm not one, the books are well not worth your time and that's putting it nicely), most likely hate the tv series.

I'm not so sure I'd believe Alan Ball though. For a couple of reasons - married tv actors have a nasty habit of breaking up and getting divorced...which means you have to find a way to keep the peace. Although on screen - they have a lot more chemistry after they've broken up, when they are lovey-dovey in real life they are boring on screen for some reason. Also, soap opera. People have to break up on soap operas - because that's your plot, being split apart, brought together, split apart. Until the writer gets bored and writes you out completely or puts you with someone else.


Ball doesn't really appear all that interested in Bill or Sookie. He appears to be more interested in Eric, Pam, Sam, Tara, Jessica, LaFayette, and Jason - possibly because he can do more with them.

[shapinglight]

Could be, though every pronouncement he makes about Bill and Sookie does seem to be very positive, and I note that he didn't have Bill rape Sookie in season 3, which is something that I understand happens in the books - presumably because he isn't as clueless as Joss and knows a couple can't come back from that.

They're not interesting, though. Bill is far more interesting when he's interacting with other characters. I like him being a rubbish dad to Jessica best.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Actually his rape of her in the books isn't all that different from in the series, the only difference is that they are in the back of a huge van in the tv series, and the trunk (boot) of a car in the book.
Also it's more sexual...so I guess that's a big difference. Ball has avoided doing sexual violence or breaking the vampire metaphor to do it, but Ball isn't obsessed with the victimized female trope or interested in sexual violence against women. Men, yes, women, no. Totally different focus. (It's probably worth remembering that Ball is homosexual like RT Davies and Ryan Murphy - so the emphasis is bound to be different, he doesn't have the same hang-ups and/or interests/fetishes that Whedon or for that matter Charlain Harris has regarding sex..)

They're not interesting, though. Bill is far more interesting when he's interacting with other characters. I like him being a rubbish dad to Jessica best.

No, they're really not. Weren't in the books either - which is why I think Harris dropped the relationship fast. Agreed - Bill is more interesting with everyone else, I actually like his banter with Eric more. Sookie - same deal. My attention wanders during the Bill-Sookie scenes, which are repetitive, whiny, and beyond dull.

Ball really doesn't focus on them all that much though. We actually spend more time on Tara, Eric, Sam, LayFayette, and Jason than Sookie. Which is why I prefer the tv series to the books.

[shapinglight]

Ball really doesn't focus on them all that much though. We actually spend more time on Tara, Eric, Sam, LayFayette, and Jason than Sookie. Which is why I prefer the tv series to the books

Well, I'm fine with that, except for Sam's story, which has got really boring. I don't like Tommy at all, and don't really get the point of 'dark Sam' from one of the later eps of season 3.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well, Tommy took off in the last episode I watched. And Sam and Tara got it on.
There have been hints of a dark past for Sam for quite some time. Although agree - it was a bit abrupt and jarring, how they suddenly introduced it - almost out of nowhere. They are actually doing a better job with the vampires' backstories than the non-vampires.

It's hard to take the story too seriously, it's so over-the-top. Almost as if they are deliberately satirizing the genre.
Vamp Diaries oddly takes itself more seriously. LOL!

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I'm really impressed with what GoT has done with Cersei, it doesn't make up for all the gratuitous female nudity, or the absolute nothing they did with Drogo, but Cersei has been a pleasant surprise. The doubling of her with Sansa, the way all her manipulations are coming out of life and death stakes for Cersei and her children - she's still a villain but she's one with reasons which is the best kind. I actually felt bad for her when Joffery pulled his stunt, it just demonstrates that for all she's done she's still subject to the whims of a foolish king - and as you say, she and Varys are the only ones with the plan that doesn't lead to all out war.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed, Cersei is a nice surprise.

I also felt bad for her when Joffrey decided to kill Ned. In the book - I remember hating her at that point. So it is quite different. Gives me hope that they'll continue to make her more complex than Martin did. I think Martin regretted the direction he took her in and is now stuck with it in the novels.
I remember reading that he wished he could change a few things - a few things that gave him major writer's block and made it hard to complete Dance of Dragons.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I am seriously loving GoT, particularly when they linger with my favorite characters!
Speaking as a non-reader of GoT, I wasn't at all surprised that Ned finally managed to get himself killed (he has been very close to death several times, and he had always brought it on himself). Particularly when you do compare it to that beheading scene in the first episodes: sure Joffrey is dreadful, but he isn't wrong. Ned cut off the head of an innocent man calling him a traitor (Ned didn't even have a false confession to act on, the poor guy was totally telling the truth), and what goes around comes around.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Particularly when you do compare it to that beheading scene in the first episodes: sure Joffrey is dreadful, but he isn't wrong. Ned cut off the head of an innocent man calling him a traitor (Ned didn't even have a false confession to act on, the poor guy was totally telling the truth), and what goes around comes around.

Oh, so agree. I felt sorry for his children, not him. And I totally agreed with Varys.

One of the things I like about this story is how the whole idea of "honor" is twisted and subverted. Aemon's speech about honor to Jon Snow is rather interesting, as is Varys speech to Ned Stark. More or less stating - sure, you have stuck stubbornly to your code of "honor" but look where it has led you and us.

Stannis is no better than Joffrey. No more merciful, we're told. Another brutal solider, who is ruthless and better in Battle, another Tywin Lannister.

And Ned kills the man at the beginning for merely running away from the Night's Watch because he was afraid? Showing no mercy for that man. When what that man did was no where near as bad as what Ned planned to do.

Ned's end is truly a karmic one. Live by the sword, die by the sword. But I give Scean Bean kudos for making him sympathetic. (I adore Scean Bean.)

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Yeah I think the people who were surprised about Ned's death thought that a lead character AND a big star like Sean Bean couldn't just be killed off (normally it is the actors you've never heard of who die on TV).

Evidently dying in GoT wasn't enough... the poor guy got stabbed in the arm (he is fine now) outside of a pub yesterday (in real life).

I had a shock the other night: while recording the Tony Awards I realized my DVR was 97% full! ACK!
So I watched a few things, and weeded out a few things, and got it down to 18% today (I'll be away from home for a day and a half and I certainly don't want to miss out on anything I want recorded!). I'll be in Iowa City to see that production of Sondheim's 'Company' with Stephen Colbert & NPH.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I had a shock the other night: while recording the Tony Awards I realized my DVR was 97% full! ACK!

Hee. Welcome to DVR's. This happens to me all the time. I have a nasty habit of taping shows that I think I'll love or want to see but am not in the mood for or don't have time to watch...until it gets to the point that I have about ten episodes and think, ACK, ACK, no time and off it goes. This happened with Fringe, Sanctuary, Eureka, Burn Notice, Royal Pains, Desperate Housewives, The Killing, Breaking Bad..

Well that and the fact that I watch and like too many types of tv shows. It's a very good thing I hate police procedurals and reality shows...

I'll be in Iowa City to see that production of Sondheim's 'Company' with Stephen Colbert & NPH.

Curious to see what you think of the musical. I tried watching an earlier revival done a few years back on PBS, could not make it through it.

This one, does admittedly have a tempting cast - besides the aforementioned NPH and Colbert, we have:

Aniki Noni-Ross- from No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency, Tony Award Winning Bway actress, and The Good Wife

Martha Plimpton - songtress, Raising Hope, many films, The Good Wife

Joanna Gleason - Tony award winning actress, tv actress, film

Jon Cryer - Pretty in Pink, Two and a Half Men,

Patti Lupone - Life Goes On, Evita

Christina Hendricks - Mad Men

And I think Brian Stokes Mitchell or another lead Broadway actor.

If it weren't for how much I hate that musical, I'd go see it. Great cast.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

You left out Christina Hendrick's credit for 'Firefly'!

Yeah, it is a stellar cast, and I heard the music back in the 1970s and loved it (I've never seen the show).... I figured even if I don't like the show, I'll still love the performances. I'll be seeing it in about 3 more hours.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I was unspoiled, but I saw Ned's death coming. You can't confess publicly to Treason - and expect to live. Stalinesque show trials aren't really in line with the old Heroic Fantasy Tropes, but my sense of this show is that it's a specific subversion/refutation of those tropes.

It's kind of a Heroic/Fantasy exposed to gritty reality. In gangster films, guys like Ned Stark get whacked.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

That's a fair assessment of both the books and the tv series. It truly is the Sopranos in Middle Earth, without the nice hobbits and elves. And it does have more in common with noir gangster films than it does Lord of the Rings, oddly enough.

The problem I've always had with most fantasy novels is it insists on taking place in Medieval times, but romanticizes the period, everything is clean, people are nice, there's these lovely balls...when the reality was far more grim and gritty.