![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSo, finally got around to watching all of last week's Game of Thrones. Decided that it is best to keep three things in mind while watching this series, okay four:
1. Outside of the Dany scenes, shot in the desert, everything is filmed quite dark, so it pays to watch the series at night with the lights off.
2. Watch it early in the evening not late at night and not after an intensive mind-numbing day at work, or a stressful one for that matter, you are likely to fall asleep. Light and frothy cotton candy tv, it's not. It has a lot of characters to follow and track, which can be head-ache inducing if you have a difficult and mentally exhausting job which requires a lot of tracking of information.
3. At this point, any and all comparisons to the books upon which it is based are sort of futile. Somewhere around the tail-end of S3, the television writers decided to skew left, while the books skewed right. It's actually better if you haven't read them or forgot most of it.
4. Frigging violent series written mainly by heterosexual and somewhat war obsessed men. It's going to be grim and violent. And in this case even more than the books were, because hello, visual. This is not a fun fantasy series with unicorns and fairies or quippy jokes.
That said? I came to the realization while watching it, and reading comments elsewhere about it, that the characters I like in the tv series aren't necessarily the same one's I liked in the books. For example? My favorite characters in the books were Jamie, Ayra, Tyrion, and Samwell. I think that was it. Sansa was beginning to grow on me. As was Dany. But barely. In the television series - my favorite characters are Tyrion, Dany, Brienne, Samwell, Ayra, the Hound, Bronn,
the two younger guys - Daario and Dany's advisor who was also on Downton Abbey, and the Onion King (he's interesting here - not so much in the books.).
I find Jamie interesting in the tv series, but not quite as likeable - he's darker and nastier here. It's subtle, but I picked up on it. Not everyone did. We read and watch and think very differently - so not all that surprising. Why folks can't wrap their minds around that continues to bewilder me.
* The recasting of Daario (I think that's his name, no clue, too many frigging characters, I can barely remember the names of my co-workers and the people at my church as it is) was inspired. I rather like the actor and he's hilarious. Casting really is everything. He's more likable here than in the books.
Loved the Dany scenes in this episode. Co-worker was right - it gets better once we get away from Cersei, the Boltons and Stannis.
* I'll give Lena Headly credit for making Cersei somewhat sympathetic here. Apparently they had troubles filming that controversial rape scene - because Jack Gleeson kept making faces and cracking everyone up. I do however find it disturbing that the director/writer and actor didn't view it as an obvious rape scene. Ah, sorry to break this to you - but it is a rape scene. Nothing was ambiguous about it.
That one I can't wrap my mind around. Maybe Cersei's "no, no, no" was in reality, Lena Headley going "no, stop" making me laugh Jack, "stop, no" can't stop laughing...?
Well the scene did not succeed in making Cersei more sympathetic. Felt gratutituous to me. I didn't see the point of it. It doesn't tell me anything new about either character - except they are at odds, which I sort of already knew. In an already violent story, why add more? Seems like overkill. Plus a really nifty way of pissing off more viewers - considering the ratings already dropped, kudos.
* Loved the Tyrion scenes. That actor, Peter Dinklage, is actually more attractive and more charismatic than the Nick C-W, who plays Jamie. I'm actually considering watching X-Men Days of Future Past - just for Peter Dinklage. Tyrion self-lessly tries to convince Podric to leave him. I also like his response to Podric's question, did he do it.
Tyrion: Gods no. Although the world is admittedly better off without Joffrey in it. I had nothing to do with his untimely demise. And if I had, I'd like to think I'd plan it in such a way that I'm not caught gawking at him like a fool.
He figures out that it wasn't Sansa or for that matter Cersei - since Cersei loved her children. And he apparently has no character witnesses - they won't allow Bronn near him. And the other witness they are calling against him. With Oberyn serving as a judge. He's wondering if it was his father - who stands to gain a lot by Joffrey's death. (I'm pretty sure it was the Queen of Thorns. But can't remember exactly. I do remember the reveal on who set up the assassination attempt on Bran and framed Tyrion for it - but the tv series has played that slightly differently, so that reveal probably won't happen?)
And asks for his brother. The Jamie/Tyrion relationship is amongst my favorites in the series to date.
*Ayra and the Hound (did this happen in the books? Can't remember.) They have an interesting relationship. And appear to be bonding on some level. Both are bitter, in different ways. He's yet another violent teacher.
Overall better in the second half. Still meandered a bit. Kept wanting to tell the writers to get on with it. Felt the same way reading the books. They need to tighten things up a bit.
Also saw Nashville on the On Record - which was a concert episode, where the actors discussed performing the songs with the songwriters. Was rather interesting and the songs were great. Learned during it that the actors playing Gunnar and Scarlet are British and use American accents in the show. Which heightened my respect for both.
On the fence about continuing with Arrow, The Tomorrow People and
Resurrection [ETA: Gave up on Resurrection, my attention kept wandering during it. It's hard to care about anyone. Everyone walks around as if they are really stoned. No emoting. Just a bewildered stoned look. The zombies on the Walking Dead have more animation.] - no one appears to be watching them on flist, not that that would influence me. Also wondering about Turn [ETA: not a good sign when you can't follow the pilot or care.] and The 100 [ETA: so far so good...and it hits my story kinks really hard.] - has anybody watched these? Are they worth watching? Should I just delete? My DVR is getting full of unwatched tv shows that I have no time for, but want to try. It's pathetic. Currently recording 28. Granted several of them aren't on at the moment...so there is that.
1. Outside of the Dany scenes, shot in the desert, everything is filmed quite dark, so it pays to watch the series at night with the lights off.
2. Watch it early in the evening not late at night and not after an intensive mind-numbing day at work, or a stressful one for that matter, you are likely to fall asleep. Light and frothy cotton candy tv, it's not. It has a lot of characters to follow and track, which can be head-ache inducing if you have a difficult and mentally exhausting job which requires a lot of tracking of information.
3. At this point, any and all comparisons to the books upon which it is based are sort of futile. Somewhere around the tail-end of S3, the television writers decided to skew left, while the books skewed right. It's actually better if you haven't read them or forgot most of it.
4. Frigging violent series written mainly by heterosexual and somewhat war obsessed men. It's going to be grim and violent. And in this case even more than the books were, because hello, visual. This is not a fun fantasy series with unicorns and fairies or quippy jokes.
That said? I came to the realization while watching it, and reading comments elsewhere about it, that the characters I like in the tv series aren't necessarily the same one's I liked in the books. For example? My favorite characters in the books were Jamie, Ayra, Tyrion, and Samwell. I think that was it. Sansa was beginning to grow on me. As was Dany. But barely. In the television series - my favorite characters are Tyrion, Dany, Brienne, Samwell, Ayra, the Hound, Bronn,
the two younger guys - Daario and Dany's advisor who was also on Downton Abbey, and the Onion King (he's interesting here - not so much in the books.).
I find Jamie interesting in the tv series, but not quite as likeable - he's darker and nastier here. It's subtle, but I picked up on it. Not everyone did. We read and watch and think very differently - so not all that surprising. Why folks can't wrap their minds around that continues to bewilder me.
* The recasting of Daario (I think that's his name, no clue, too many frigging characters, I can barely remember the names of my co-workers and the people at my church as it is) was inspired. I rather like the actor and he's hilarious. Casting really is everything. He's more likable here than in the books.
Loved the Dany scenes in this episode. Co-worker was right - it gets better once we get away from Cersei, the Boltons and Stannis.
* I'll give Lena Headly credit for making Cersei somewhat sympathetic here. Apparently they had troubles filming that controversial rape scene - because Jack Gleeson kept making faces and cracking everyone up. I do however find it disturbing that the director/writer and actor didn't view it as an obvious rape scene. Ah, sorry to break this to you - but it is a rape scene. Nothing was ambiguous about it.
That one I can't wrap my mind around. Maybe Cersei's "no, no, no" was in reality, Lena Headley going "no, stop" making me laugh Jack, "stop, no" can't stop laughing...?
Well the scene did not succeed in making Cersei more sympathetic. Felt gratutituous to me. I didn't see the point of it. It doesn't tell me anything new about either character - except they are at odds, which I sort of already knew. In an already violent story, why add more? Seems like overkill. Plus a really nifty way of pissing off more viewers - considering the ratings already dropped, kudos.
* Loved the Tyrion scenes. That actor, Peter Dinklage, is actually more attractive and more charismatic than the Nick C-W, who plays Jamie. I'm actually considering watching X-Men Days of Future Past - just for Peter Dinklage. Tyrion self-lessly tries to convince Podric to leave him. I also like his response to Podric's question, did he do it.
Tyrion: Gods no. Although the world is admittedly better off without Joffrey in it. I had nothing to do with his untimely demise. And if I had, I'd like to think I'd plan it in such a way that I'm not caught gawking at him like a fool.
He figures out that it wasn't Sansa or for that matter Cersei - since Cersei loved her children. And he apparently has no character witnesses - they won't allow Bronn near him. And the other witness they are calling against him. With Oberyn serving as a judge. He's wondering if it was his father - who stands to gain a lot by Joffrey's death. (I'm pretty sure it was the Queen of Thorns. But can't remember exactly. I do remember the reveal on who set up the assassination attempt on Bran and framed Tyrion for it - but the tv series has played that slightly differently, so that reveal probably won't happen?)
And asks for his brother. The Jamie/Tyrion relationship is amongst my favorites in the series to date.
*Ayra and the Hound (did this happen in the books? Can't remember.) They have an interesting relationship. And appear to be bonding on some level. Both are bitter, in different ways. He's yet another violent teacher.
Overall better in the second half. Still meandered a bit. Kept wanting to tell the writers to get on with it. Felt the same way reading the books. They need to tighten things up a bit.
Also saw Nashville on the On Record - which was a concert episode, where the actors discussed performing the songs with the songwriters. Was rather interesting and the songs were great. Learned during it that the actors playing Gunnar and Scarlet are British and use American accents in the show. Which heightened my respect for both.
On the fence about continuing with Arrow, The Tomorrow People and
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-04-27 10:48 pm (UTC)Personally, I'd have preferred a Spike arc without the soul canon, but I can find plenty of good things about the way it played out.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-27 11:10 pm (UTC)Felt much the same way. They went the easy route - mainly because they'd written themselves into a corner way back in S2 with Angel's curse, all in order to do a nifty metaphor. (Whedon does that a lot - he sacrifices character and plot for emotional impact/theme and metaphor. Reminds me of daytime soap writers and comic book writers who do the same thing.] Granted the metaphor was nifty. I can see why they went that route. And they could have written around it - they could have done a Spike without a soul redemption arc without killing that metaphor or screwing up Angel, actually it may have made Angel more interesting. But eh...tv writers not novelists.
I was happy enough with how it turned out in both Buffy and Angel, that I was able to handwave all of that. (shrugs).
But in retrospect - I think the show would have been better served if they'd gone the more difficult route. Particularly after having read fanfic which did.
I've seen Jaime as still in the stage of "he's stopped being evil", rather than on a true path of redemption. I think you may be right about Martin. However, if anyone in the books is on a path of redemption, Jaime is the best bet. That's an interesting comparison to Angel, and I think you may be right.
There's two ways of reading Jamie. I suspect the writer's pov is that Jamie was never evil, he just did a couple evil things. I remember reading somewhere that writer sees all the characters as being capable of doing good and evil things depending on the situation. Catelynn does some evil things early on - in her quest for justice such as almost execute an innocent man again without listening to him, as does Ned Stark - who chops off a man's head instead of actually listening to why he fled. If he listened - he may have gone North instead of South to his death. Ayra also does quite a few evil things. As does Tyrion, John and Dany. Jon does some nasty things actually. We have a tendency to define people by an action. One of the themes of Song of Ice and Fire is everyone is capable of good and evil and isolated actions don't define you. So from GRRM's perspective redemption isn't really an issue. People are neither good nor evil, and circumstances influence our actions. ie. The Hound can be a hero and Jon Snow can be a villain.
The other way of reading it is that Jaime stopped being a bad guy or dishonorable and is trying to regain his honor and manhood, to be become a better man. Brienne has inspired him. And Cersei to a degree as well.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-27 11:24 pm (UTC)I agree that Brienne -- who's perhaps the one truly honorable person in the whole series (though perhaps there are a few others) -- has changed Jaime. Whether he'll actually become a good man, as opposed to merely better than he was, is still an open question for me.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-28 09:36 pm (UTC)Quite a few people on my flist do, and you may be the only one that I'm comfortable explaining my take on it to...
Before I judge an action or the person/character for their actions, I tend to look at their motivation or what lay behind it. I ask myself why did they do that? Because for me - the why is always far more important than the what. The why can often change an unforgiveable act to an understandable one, not necessarily justifiable, but forgiveable.
So, why did Jamie push Bran out the window?
a) did he just happen to look up, see Bran, and think to himself - hmmm, I wonder if boys can fly - I'll push him? Because hello, fun. (Unforgiveable and probably what Joffrey or Ramsey Snow would do.)
b) did he think, I hate Ned Stark, I'll push and kill Bran to get vengeance (unforgiveable and most likely something Cersei would do, and possibly Ayra, although maybe not)
c) did he push Bran to earn points with his father or show how important he was (Theon)
or
d) did he do it to protect his family, himself, and everyone/thing he loved and cared about? (still horrific, but understandable and somewhat forgiveable)
Replace Bran with say...Theon, say he pushed Theon for seeing him and Cersei having sex? Would you feel the same way? Most likely not. Yet the motivation would be the same.
Jamie and Cersei were making love in the tower and discussing their dilemma. The odds of anyone seeing them was pretty low - honestly how would they have predicted that anyone in their right mind would climb a 75 foot tower? Particularly one of the Stark children? Along comes Bran who sees them. They are already terrified of Robert finding out via Jon Arryan's research prior to his death. The last thing they need is Bran running to Ned Stark and saying something. If he does and Robert believes it, which there's a 75% chance he will considering all his bastard sons having dark hair and the fact that Robert hates the Lannisters...then Cersei, all three of her kids, Jaime, most likely Tyrion, and Tywin are dead. Robert would execute pretty much the entire family - after all there's precedence for it. So - you are Jaime, you have a choice between pushing Bran Stark to his death or seeing your entire family get executed? Keep in mind what Jaime does, his first impulse is to pull the boy in, he grabs on to his wrist, Cersei reminds him of what is at stake, he grimaces, then states, something to the effect that he doesn't suppose Bran will keep his mouth shut, then, "what I do for love".
This was not an act of vengeance (the Red Wedding), or power (Purple Wedding), it was a choice to protect people he loved.
Also, he doesn't attempt to assassinate Bran after he was paralyzed (although not sure what the tv series will do) and he is horrified that his son did it and framed Tyrion for it. It's what Tyrion throws in Jaime's face and why Jaime releases him in the books. (Not sure how the tv series will play it.)
And Jaime's prior act - killing King Aerys...was again in order to protect his family. Aerys was going to burn his family alive.
People are willing to do insane things to protect their loved ones, their family, their kids. While not necessarily justifiable, it is understandable and I think forgiveable. It's not the same as what Theon did - burning the two farm boys, or the stuff Joffrey did, or even some of what Ayra does - which is out vengeance. Or for that matter what Ned Stark did - beheading a man merely for running away from the wall, out of fear, and a desire to warn others, because the law states anyone who leaves the wall is beheaded.
It's always about why for me, not what.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-28 09:48 pm (UTC)My biggest issue with Bran is that Jaime put himself into that position. Sure, he was at risk if Bran told anyone. But that's not Bran's fault, that's inherent in what Jaime and Cersei were doing. Yes, Robert undoubtedly would have executed both of them (any king in the Middle Ages would have done the same). But that's the risk they ran all along and they knew that risk. Bran was an innocent -- he didn't go up there looking for them, he just happened upon them under circumstances he could never have anticipated. So my view is that Jaime and Cersei should be the ones to suffer the consequences because they were the ones doing wrong.
Now, if Robert had gone on to kill Joffrey or Tommen or Myrcella, that's a different story entirely. Then Robert's the one at fault (though we might give him a pass on Joffrey just because). Maybe Robert would have, maybe he wouldn't, but I don't think Jaime gets to assume that and then push Bran.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 10:48 pm (UTC)Bran? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to climb a 75 foot tower, an old stone one at that? My problem with the Starks was with the possible exception of maybe Ayra, they were/are all candidates for Darwin awards. Common Sense and being a Stark do not go hand in hand. ;-)
Yeah, everyone is at fault in these books ...it just to what level or degree. While from Jaimie's pov, I can see how the actions are "understandable", I wouldn't say they are justifiable or excusable. Forgivable maybe, excusable? No. There is a difference.
I can see the trail now...the defense argues that the Starks were negligent for allowing Bran to climb a 75 foot tower and not keeping an eye on their kid. Also Bran should have known better. And Jaime was protecting his family. The prosecution argues that Jaime and Cersei had no business in the tower, and had a responsibility to protect the life of child over their own fear of being caught. Plus there were other ways they could have ensured Bran's silence or if Bran talked, ensured no one believed him. The jury agrees with the prosecution. End of case.
After examining the scene in depth - it seems a bit over-the-top. So does the entire series actually. No one does anything halfway. I think that's a huge flaw and may be one of my problems with the series. I can see why Martin had Jamie knock Bran out the window - it's a great dramatic moment and shocking. The audience/reader immediately hates Jamie, so the writer gets to play the game to convincing the reader/audience to change their mind. It's actually very similar to the games Whedon played with various characters - can I have this character do a really horrific thing and bring them back from it or make them likable? Martin likes to go a step further - can I have someone do something completely monsterous, then something completely honorable and make it work?
Saving Brienne from the Bear for me, made up for pushing Bran out the window. But that's admittedly a subjective thing. It clearly doesn't work for everyone. But that scene - where he saves her - is a completely selfless act. Amongst the few in the story.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 10:58 pm (UTC)Good point about the comparison to Whedon. He definitely has that habit. It's an odd thing, for me. I do believe that many acts are forgiveable at some point. I don't know if Jaime has ever expressed remorse for Bran, but Bran does seem like he might forgive Jaime.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-30 02:19 am (UTC)Remorse isn't something I look for in a redemption arc - mainly because it is easy to say I'm sorry. What is hard is making different choices or learning from it. Choosing to do something else the next round. You can't change what has already been written, you can only change what hasn't been. Or actions speak louder than words.
The Bear scene was incredibly huge. Here was someone that Jaime didn't like that much, who had been a thorn in his side, and it would have been really easy to leave her behind. But instead, he puts his life in danger and saves her - with a missing hand and little ability to fight.
How can't that be major? That's more redemptive than anything Spike did in S6-S7. And Spike did much worse things than push a little boy out a window.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-30 02:24 am (UTC)BTW, GRRM does do redemption. Here's a quote from a Rolling Stone interview on April 23:
One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don't have an answer. But when do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick. Michael Vick has served years in prison; he's apologized. Has he apologized sufficiently? Woody Allen: Is Woody Allen someone that we should laud, or someone that we should despise? Or Roman Polanski, Paula Deen. Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you're a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard? I don't know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about. I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what's the answer then?