Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Shows' started by Adam Lenhardt, Jan 11, 2013.
I agree jamie has become very likeable in the show, but to me, can't top Tyrion, Varys or Bronn.
Tyrion is the character I feel the most empathy for. Such an incredible mismatch between who he is and what he feels internally, and how others perceive him.
I may have to go back and re-read some books, because tonight had a moment that struck me as absolutely not in the book and a major game-changer, but maybe I'm wrong.
Major potential book spoiler, but could be wrong.. memory may be lagging me
I had thought in the book one of the laments after the Red Wedding was that he had left no heir, tonight it was implied that he had... ?
The book has a scene where Robb explicitly names Jon Snow his heir. Is this what you mean?
There are hints that Jeyne is not actually Jeyne (Cat says she had good birthing hips, while Jaime notes she is slender), but rather she was replaced with an double. Remember that House Westerling was minor, and almost nobody knew what Jeyne looked like. One theory is that she was carrying Robb's heir (despite supposedly being given contraception potions), and has been hidden away by Stark/Tully supports.
Stannis offered to legitimize Jon as a Stark, but Jon refused. This means that if Jeyne is indeed carrying Robb's child, and that child is a male, that son is the heir to Winterfell.
That Martin wrote this episode personally perhaps gives some credit to the rumour. Of course, Martin loves to screw with fans and theories
Josh, yes, and..
I seem to remember the book where there was a lot of lament that Rob didn't have a natural heir, that he was unable to impregnate his wife.. or that she wasn't pregnant, something like that.. which is why he named Snow.. but I could be VERY wrong..
In something that also isn't in the book, but just a comment.. the happenings with Theon, which were not in the book at all.. Theon's brutal handling in the book all happened outside of our view.. tonights was brutal beyond imagination and the first time I really thought they stepped maybe beyond what was called for. I don't know if there was anything about that scene that really was required to sell the torture of Theon, and probably could have lived without it.
Leave it to HBO to combine humping and torture. It was pretty easy to anticipate where that scene was headed prior to the horn blowing, but it was still brutal to imagine what occurred off camera.
Robb indeed names Jon his heir--or more accurately he says he is going to do it--but as a bastard, Jon still needs to be legitimized by a King. Of course, Robb was King in the North, but it's unlikely whatever king (or Queen!) who ultimately reigns supreme will recognize this fact. Stannis' offer for legitimization may be the last chance Jon gets.Regarding the child, it's possible Robb knew about the baby, and naming Jon (promising to do so) was part of the ruse to hide the fact that Jeyne was pregnant. This would have been a clever idea going into the den of a wary "ally" recently slighted. Never trust a Frey--and perhaps Robb didn't, and was planning ahead.In any event, you are correct that there is no explicit mention of a child in the books. As is the norm for Martin and his books, we're left with speculation and the piecing together of many ambiguous clues.
Still don't know where the torture of Theon is going. Heck, I'm kinda lost as to who holds him in the first place, Northeners? Meaning those loyal to the Starks.And yeah, while I fully expected his tryst to be cut short, I didn't fully expect it to swing the entire other way though. That truly is brutal and I'd bet all male viewers recoiled...
I'm uncertain where the torture is headed, and perhaps the answer is partly that
they wished to retain the actor portraying Theon vs. putting the character on the
bench for a long, long time...
Well, we need some kind of clarification soon on who is torturing him and why. It's too frustrating to keep watching and not get any answers. This isn't Lost!
There's something of a disconnect here. Benioff says the actor is "fun to watch", which is apparently why he's being given so much screen time, but I haven't seen anyone say he enjoys these torture scenes; in fact, everyone seems to be saying "enough already!" Are the producers not getting audience feedback with the same sentiment, or are they putting these scenes in only because they like it?
Robert, I just think that they are trying to retain the actor for the series and since they don't have a plot line for Theon until much later in the series that they are just sort of 'treading water' with the torture scenes. I hope there is a payoff for these scenes because otherwise it will be incredibly gratuitous (if not already so.)
Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't they just call him back later for the non-torture scenes? Why do they "have" to use him now? I agree with you that these torture scenes had better not turn out to be gratuitous. That article gives the impression the torture scenes were put in solely because the producers like to watch him, not because they're essential to the plot or because the audience likes them.
I agree. A lot of writers fall into the trap of thinking it's interesting and suspenseful if the audience is completely in the dark. In truth, the opposite is true: it's most interesting and suspenseful when the audience knows everything but the most crucial thing; that other knowledge makes the unknown stand out more.Since we don't know who's torturing Theon, we don't know the stakes or the meaning of what goes on there. Therefore it all seems gratuitous.
Because of the nature of production for Game of Thrones, the shooting schedule is completely different from a network show. While a network show shoots new episodes on average 1-2 months ahead of the air date, Game of Thrones finishes shooting the entire season months before the season premiere airs. So the show is a lot less able to accommodate viewer feedback than most other shows.
Having read the books, the torture is certainly there, it's just largely implied or filled in as back story rather than as many scenes. I'm okay with producer discretion here, but they need to move on shortly and progress Theon's story before we dread the character appearing on screen. Sent from my Android phone on the HTF App!
Theon's torture has to be shown, at least to a certain extent. While I can see how the graphic imagery may be too much for some viewers, at least some definitely needs to be shown, for the following reasons:
(Very light spoilers from book 5)
First, for books 3 and 4, we don't know what happened to Theon--there are rumours of his death, but nothing conclusive. When we finally catch up with him in book 5, he is completely and utterly broken--both physically and mentally. By way of fractured memory, we only catch glimpses of how he came to be this way. While this is potentially "film-able" in the strict sense, it likely wouldn't have the same impact on a viewer an internal dialogue/memory can have on a reader. We need to see this character reduced to a pathetic husk of his former self. Reek rhymes with meek.
Second, we need to see just how much of, ahem, a bastard that Ramsay Snow/Bolton is. The viewer needs to be shown images so abhorrent that they are left thinking that maybe even a monster like Theon (recall the miller's boys he butchered, and all the Winterfell residents) doesn't deserve it. Additionally, his rise to infamy (he's much hated by many readers) is dealt with by showing the readers graphic events, but also hinted at through rumour and suspicion--recall the story about Lady Hornwood. Simply put, many non-readers are already having a difficult time putting names to all the faces, and keeping the large cast sorted out (this is easily the number one complaint of non-readers). Having an evil character exist almost entirely off-screen would never work--the audience would never buy that he's *that* evil. Thus, we are shown it.
I don't think the Theon scenes work...AT ALL. But, I've read the books and there is no mystery to me...just lame backstory I don't need. It may work better for someone who hasn't read the books.
However, from a producer's standpoint I understand it somewhat. They want to keep Alfie Allen (Theon) in the cast and not lose him to other projects.
I'm not sure they NEED to - really, anyone could play Reek. But, they want Alfie to play Reek to keep some continuity.
So, in order to keep him they have to use him - thus, we get these laborious torture/mystery scenes. Now, I'm not totally up on SAG rules but in a 10 episode season I think they only have to use him in 5. Have we met that quota? If we have, I doubt we'll see him again.
Considering Game of Thrones is shot in Europe, SAG rules possibly don't apply. Although if shot in the UK, Equity rules might; not too sure where on-set (i.e. indoor) scenes are shot. Either way, I suppose it's a valid point, they need to keep the contractual rights 'alive'.