Game of Thrones - HBO part 2

[El Bastardo]

Yes, I have read all the novels. The first one twice even. Have you?

Oh heavens to betsy yes. I just didn't want to ruin anything for you, in the event you hadn't.
People, seriously - don't peek into my following spoiler tag if you don't want major spoilers.

Spoiler

Robb might have killed Jon if Jon had left the Wall in A Game of Thrones, but it doesn't happen, so moot point. Robb won't be killing Jon if Jon were to somehow choose to be King, since the last I heard of Robb, he has Grey Wind's head sewn beside his head. And he's dead.

The Warden of the North is Roose Bolton, who has to stabilize the North, as well as potentially face off against Stannis and possibly Jon, if Jon chooses to take action against Roose should word spread of the Red Wedding. We'll find out in less than a month. Woot!

Jon is also Lord-Commander of the Night's Watch. If he were also outed as Rhaegar's son, and the potential to become King came with it - at that point, Jon could potentially rewrite the rules, so to speak. Who says he can't leave the Wall when he, as Lord-Commander and potential King, says he can? If he wants to go against his vows, so be it. If he has the backing to be King, that's that. Of course, his vows make for a good potential defense for those who wouldn't want him to be King.

The main speculation of Jon becoming King, though, was posted above by Buford. If the Wall is gone after the Others have been defeated, if that is indeed what happens, and the Night's Watch is no longer needed, it can be disbanded, the vows completed, and nothing stands in the way. In short.

But yes, I understand it's all on speculation and conjecture. I've said as much. The possibility is there, though.

 

[Marvolo]

The "majority" are the smallfolk. The smallfolk don't matter.

Robert became King because the Ned Stark and Jon Arryn backed him, he mostly defeated the Tyrells (who fought for Aerys), killed Rhaegar on the Trident and defeated the Loyalist host Rhaegar led, and because the Lannisters chose to back him in the end and take King's Landing. When you have the Starks, Arryns, and the Lannisters behind you, followed by the Tullys, and then the Tyrells - at that point? You're King.

They did not illegitimize anything. The reason multiple parties are warring for the throne come the end of A Game of Thrones and beginning of A Clash of Kings is due to multiple happenings in A Game of Thrones, not because Robert took the throne. Joffrey is rightful heir because he's Robert's supposed offspring. Stannis believes he is rightful heir because he knows, via Ned's letter, that Joffrey is the offspring of Jaime and not Robert. Renly wants to be king because the Tyrells are backing him (a power play), he is a Baratheon (ding ding ding!), and he believes himself a better leader and politician than is Stannis. Robb has been named King of the North because all the Northmen are pissed that the Lannisters killed Ned - none of them know the truth about Joffrey. [BLACKOUT]And Balon Greyjoy is going to make a separatist move, which he's tried before.[/BLACKOUT]

Yes, the specifics are dependent on Robert being King, but the instances are not just because he took the throne from the Targaryens. GRRM has plenty of back-history during the Targaryen reign where there's plenty of strife.

The Baratheons sit on the throne because the family was legitimized as the ruling family of the Seven Kingdoms. Robert's Baratheon standard even came to be a Crowned Stag, not just the Stag that Renly and Stannis still bore. That lineage and title travels by blood has nothing to do with what family is sitting on the throne, or how they came to take the throne. The Targaryens took the Seven Kingdoms by conquest, as did Robert. The culture of Westeros still depends on blood heredity. When Tywin Lannister dies, his title as patriarch of House Lannister would go to Tyrion (skipping Jaime because he's Kingsguard). When Ned died, his title as patriarch of House Stark went to Robb. When Mace Tyrell dies, his title as patriarch of House Tyrell would go to his oldest son, whose name I cannot remember right now. As such, since House Baratheon sits the throne, when King Robert dies, the title goes to his son Joffrey - or, in the case you know the truth, his brother next-in-line, Stannis.

The Targaryens are no longer rulers of Westeros, so the only way Dany has a claim to the throne is if she conquers it - like Robert before her, like Aegon before him. Do note that actually is her entire gameplan. And even if she could, she'd either have to beat the great houses into submission, or have their cooperation.

I don't mean this to sound condescending, but have you read the books?

Yes ive read the books. I know why they are waring, but as i said none of this would have happened of the coup hadnt happened. This all goes back to the fact that a coup took place and has now dominoed onto a full on civil war. Yes at first there was peace, but it caught up with them and everyone involved in that rebellion has payed dearly. It took a few years but it has come back to haunt them. Had no one ever rebelled the taergaryans would still sit the throne and on one would give two ****s who joffrey is the seed of. Aerys would have died eventualy and who is to say the next king wouldnt have been better. This is fiction though and it doesnt warrant arguing over when everything happens according to the author and what
ifs are pointless.

 

[Thundercrack85]

As I understand it, the rebellion occurred because the king was insane. From the sound of things, there wouldn't have been much of a realm left if the other houses hadn't rebelled.

 

[nightwing06]

Im trying to stay away from the books but people keep offering me the E-books
Great season finale she's so cute:

 

[lime]

Can someone find me this photo in higher resolution?

 

[Superfreak]

Yea no matter what you think, to the general audience, Ned was the hero of the story up till now. He was presented in such a manner, you can't deny that but that's the beauty of it. They fooled alot of us into thinking it was his story when it seems like it's more Bran, Dany, and Jon's story. Maybe Robb too but alot of the focus seems to be on those three as well as Arya

they only fooled the stupid. Sorry for being harsh.

I haven't read the books, but since before the show started, you had to know that Stark/Bean was going to die. 1) he's expensive, to keep him more than a season is just a stupid conclusion 'the stupid audience' has come to 2) the first episode clearly defines the show to be about the children coping with what is coming, not the adults 3)this is an ensemble show, not your generic piece of american tv crap, characters will come and go 4)someone noble and strong has to die, before all these relatively young and innocent children/youth are thrust into this world.

for all these reasons, it was obvious that Estark was going to die.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

they only fooled the stupid. Sorry for being harsh.

I haven't read the books, but since before the show started, you had to know that Stark/Bean was going to die. 1) he's expensive, to keep him more than a season is just a stupid conclusion 'the stupid audience' has come to 2) the first episode clearly defines the show to be about the children coping with what is coming, not the adults 3)this is an ensemble show, not your generic piece of american tv crap, characters will come and go 4)someone noble and strong has to die, before all these relatively young and innocent children/youth are thrust into this world.

for all these reasons, it was obvious that Estark was going to die.

Or you are just too smart ....

 

[RockSP]

I haven't read the books, but since before the show started, you had to know that Stark/Bean was going to die. 1) he's expensive, to keep him more than a season is just a stupid conclusion 'the stupid audience' has come to

*snicker* Like the the general audience knows Bean's salary. Most people probably don't even know Bean.

 

[SouLeSS]

they only fooled the stupid. Sorry for being harsh.

I haven't read the books, but since before the show started, you had to know that Stark/Bean was going to die. 1) he's expensive, to keep him more than a season is just a stupid conclusion 'the stupid audience' has come to 2) the first episode clearly defines the show to be about the children coping with what is coming, not the adults 3)this is an ensemble show, not your generic piece of american tv crap, characters will come and go 4)someone noble and strong has to die, before all these relatively young and innocent children/youth are thrust into this world.

for all these reasons, it was obvious that Estark was going to die.

It's obvious when you look back on it and know it's going to happen, but during the first 7 episodes or so? No way in hell is it "obvious" that he's going to die. Up until the Goldcloaks turn on him at the end of episode 7 it's not clear at all the anything is going to happen to him.

 

[Raiden]

they only fooled the stupid. Sorry for being harsh.

I haven't read the books, but since before the show started, you had to know that Stark/Bean was going to die. 1) he's expensive, to keep him more than a season is just a stupid conclusion 'the stupid audience' has come to 2) the first episode clearly defines the show to be about the children coping with what is coming, not the adults 3)this is an ensemble show, not your generic piece of american tv crap, characters will come and go 4)someone noble and strong has to die, before all these relatively young and innocent children/youth are thrust into this world.

for all these reasons, it was obvious that Estark was going to die.

You are telling me that you knew before ep 9 that Ned Stark was going to die? I don't believe you.

 

[mr. peasant]

they only fooled the stupid. Sorry for being harsh.

I haven't read the books, but since before the show started, you had to know that Stark/Bean was going to die. 1) he's expensive, to keep him more than a season is just a stupid conclusion 'the stupid audience' has come to 2) the first episode clearly defines the show to be about the children coping with what is coming, not the adults 3)this is an ensemble show, not your generic piece of american tv crap, characters will come and go 4)someone noble and strong has to die, before all these relatively young and innocent children/youth are thrust into this world.

for all these reasons, it was obvious that Estark was going to die.

While the conclusion turned out right in the end, I think your reasoning is flawed:

1. Yes, Sean Bean is expensive. However, the show kept him the entire season; proving they have the budget to keep him for said period of time. The actor doesn't suddenly become more expensive and the budget shouldn't suddenly shrink for the following season. Therefore, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to afford him next season. The producers can't possibly have borrowed from the following season's budget since they wouldn't have had access to it. This reasoning would only work if Ned was killed off early; i.e. at the end of the first episode or around mid-season. It doesn't work that late in the season.

2. I ask you for specifics. How exactly did the show objectively define itself as being about 'the children coping with what is coming', to the exclusion of the adults. I really want to know this because the show is most definitely not about that and is so much more.

3. This, I agree with. However, there's no way of knowing which characters/actors will come and go. That's the entire point of the 'anybody can die' type of ensemble shows.

4. This is the only one I agree with. Ned needed to die in order for the stakes to get real for his children. Prior to that, all of them (including Robb) had him as a safe refuge.

 

[Superfreak]

While the conclusion turned out right in the end, I think your reasoning is flawed:

1. Yes, Sean Bean is expensive. However, the show kept him the entire season; proving they have the budget to keep him for said period of time. The actor doesn't suddenly become more expensive and the budget shouldn't suddenly shrink for the following season. Therefore, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to afford him next season. The producers can't possibly have borrowed from the following season's budget since they wouldn't have had access to it. This reasoning would only work if Ned was killed off early; i.e. at the end of the first episode or around mid-season. It doesn't work that late in the season.

2. I ask you for specifics. How exactly did the show objectively define itself as being about 'the children coping with what is coming', to the exclusion of the adults. I really want to know this because the show is most definitely not about that and is so much more.

3. This, I agree with. However, there's no way of knowing which characters/actors will come and go. That's the entire point of the 'anybody can die' type of ensemble shows.

4. This is the only one I agree with. Ned needed to die in order for the stakes to get real for his children. Prior to that, all of them (including Robb) had him as a safe refuge.

1)Sean Bean is expensive. It's that simple. A film actor is always going to be pulling more cash. Budget may be able to cover it, but if the show continues to be successful, salaries grow with inflation... and profit. Actors do become more expensive over time: so does every person on this planet. Bean would be above most if not all the other actors on the show in income. Lastly, face it, whenever a BIG name actor graces the TV screen, it's very rare that they stick around for very long. There is only one example that I can think of where an film actor (to make a distinction) stayed on a TV show for it's full life.

2)on the point about the children: how about the wolves? It was clear to me in the first episode that we are about to watch a world in transition, with the older generation moving on, and the younger generation left to deal with the results of such a transition. We met more children/offspring in the first episode than I think we met adults. The entire first episode was about teaching/preparing the children for what is to come. They didn't state that the show is about the children outright, but between the targarian, stark and baratheon children, and bastards, it was clear to me that most of the older characters would be moving on this season, if not in 2 and 3. Lastly, this entire conflict was started over one of the children, they were always going to be a, if not THE, central cohort in the narrative. Infact, I'm expecting a large number of the 'middle' aged characters to move on too (by middle aged I mean peops between maybe 18-35). I'm 100% positive that Rob Stark will be killed soon and maybe also Cersi.

3) is moot, but I'd also like to add that because of this format, all the characters will also turn out to be rather grey.

4)truth, what the hell would be the point of watching this show if all the current characters counted as protagonists were protected by EStark? There would be no drama, nothing to watch.

 

[Superfreak]

You are telling me that you knew before ep 9 that Ned Stark was going to die? I don't believe you.

I couldn't have told you which episode, but I was pretty sure he wasn't going to last the season.

 

[Superfreak]

*snicker* Like the the general audience knows Bean's salary. Most people probably don't even know Bean.

who cares what his salary is... what I can tell you, is that his was probably the greatest cost in budget to the actors.

 

[Superfreak]

Or you are just too smart ....

or I watch my tv with eyes and ears open, and compare to past trends where this has happened before (ie. the hiring of a big name actor for the small screen).

 

[Spidey-Bat]

There are multi-quote and edit buttons, BTW.

 

[Buford The Sly]

I knew he was going to die before the series was even given the greenlight so there . This argument going on is silly. t:

 

[mr. peasant]

1)Sean Bean is expensive. It's that simple. A film actor is always going to be pulling more cash. Budget may be able to cover it, but if the show continues to be successful, salaries grow with inflation... and profit. Actors do become more expensive over time: so does every person on this planet. Bean would be above most if not all the other actors on the show in income. Lastly, face it, whenever a BIG name actor graces the TV screen, it's very rare that they stick around for very long. There is only one example that I can think of where an film actor (to make a distinction) stayed on a TV show for it's full life.

2)on the point about the children: how about the wolves? It was clear to me in the first episode that we are about to watch a world in transition, with the older generation moving on, and the younger generation left to deal with the results of such a transition. We met more children/offspring in the first episode than I think we met adults. The entire first episode was about teaching/preparing the children for what is to come. They didn't state that the show is about the children outright, but between the targarian, stark and baratheon children, and bastards, it was clear to me that most of the older characters would be moving on this season, if not in 2 and 3. Lastly, this entire conflict was started over one of the children, they were always going to be a, if not THE, central cohort in the narrative. Infact, I'm expecting a large number of the 'middle' aged characters to move on too (by middle aged I mean peops between maybe 18-35). I'm 100% positive that Rob Stark will be killed soon and maybe also Cersi.

3) is moot, but I'd also like to add that because of this format, all the characters will also turn out to be rather grey.

4)truth, what the hell would be the point of watching this show if all the current characters counted as protagonists were protected by EStark? There would be no drama, nothing to watch.

1. Yes, Sean Bean's salary would go up with inflation, as would every other actor, and presumably the show's budget. In fact, I think it will be the younger/newer actors whose salaries will rise more relative to their original rather than the older ones. The reason for this being that their performances here prove their talent, where as the established actors' performances in this show are less likely to be significant compared to the entire body of their respective careers. In other words, Sean Bean's salary is likely more stable since he's already established himself in the business; he's already known to be good, and he's already in demand. His profile (and thus his asking price) isn't going to change all that much in the span of one season (especially since most standard contracts tend to have some sort of agreement for at least the second season).

2. I see what you mean. However, I think it's only truly clear in hindsight and less clear cut on first viewing as there are more than just those elements shown. Moreover, I feel the heart of the first season is the relationship between the Starks, Baratheons and Lannisters as whole families; and not just the plight of the children alone.

3. Agreed, and all the better for it.

 

[Project862006]

i knew he would die before GMM wrote the book

 

[ChickenScratch]

I knew he was going to die before the series was even given the greenlight so there . This argument going on is silly. t:

Yeah, so did I. Why are they arguing about seeing or not seeing something coming in a book that's over 10 years old?

 

[BlackLantern]

Yeah, so did I. Why are they arguing about seeing or not seeing something coming in a book that's over 10 years old?

seriously....its because they want to act like smarty pants' and say Martin wrote himself into a corner and blah blah blah

like I said before....people SAY they want surprises and something different, and they get it, and then piss and moan about said surprise

 

[ChickenScratch]

Well people shouldn't complain about GRRM writing himself into a corner, especially if you've not read even a page of one of the books. He has a plan working, I don't know what it is, but if he can do what he did and write two parallel stories in two separate books and not step on the other's toes.

I knew from the start people would be in uproar about Ned's death. Funny how he's just a character in the books, but on HBO he was turned into something else. Something that could not die because of story conventions. Just like they assume Sansa must kill Joff, or The Starks must beat the Lannisters in open battle.

 

[camp Blood]

i think that if this show is a reflection of the books then there good

 

[El Bastardo]

Yes ive read the books. I know why they are waring, but as i said none of this would have happened of the coup hadnt happened. This all goes back to the fact that a coup took place and has now dominoed onto a full on civil war. Yes at first there was peace, but it caught up with them and everyone involved in that rebellion has payed dearly. It took a few years but it has come back to haunt them. Had no one ever rebelled the taergaryans would still sit the throne and on one would give two ****s who joffrey is the seed of. Aerys would have died eventualy and who is to say the next king wouldnt have been better. This is fiction though and it doesnt warrant arguing over when everything happens according to the author and what
ifs are pointless.

Correct, we would not have the story as written if Robert's Rebellion had not happened. Wonderful.

Who's happy Robert's Rebellion happened? Show of hands, ladies and gents. I know I am.

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. I stated in the post you quoted that the specifics of story are dependent on Robert's Rebellion, but that the instances (of war, of power-struggles, of death) are not. They could happen even with Aerys or Rhaegar Targaryen sitting on the throne. Or with Viserys sitting on the throne. Or with distant-to-the-throne Dany sitting there.

You contend nothing bad would happen were House Targaryen the ruling great house of the Seven Kingdoms. This is an unrealistic contention given not only a history of strife with House Targaryen on the Iron Throne, but also the fact that Aerys II in his madness was steadily eroding support for and trust in the Targaryens. Could Rhaeger have stemmed that? Yes, probably, considering that what we hear of him is overwhelmingly positive. Could he have stemmed it in time to make it matter? Considering how inept he seemed at the small picture - maybe, maybe not. Even if there was no bad blood between Aerys II and the Starks and Arryns, he had already scorned and made bitter Tywin ****ing Lannister. Seems a bad fellow to cross, no?

But the history of strife: An early civil war between brother and sister over the Iron Throne, which leads to the death of the last dragons, continues after the death of one of the warleaders, and causes a whole mess of misfortune and death. Gee, that sounds like fun! Nothing bad ever happens when the Targaryens are running things. Before that we have King Maegor the Cruel, whose stories put Joffrey's random *****ebaggery to shame. Then we have crazy King Baelor the Blessed, who thinks he's Westeros Jesus and locks his sisters in a room. Then we have another civil war/insurrection at the hands of Aegon IV's legitimized bastards - the Blackfyre Rebellion. Then we have King Maekar's entire failed reign, the highlights of which involve one of his sons drinking wildfire (tasty stuff) and Maekar himself being killed in battle with outlaws. Then we have the War of the Ninepenny Kings, which was based on some Blackfyres trying to rise up again. Finally catching up to Aerys II, we have the spurning of Tywin, the Defiance of Duskendale, and the whole Kingswood Brotherhood mess.

Yeah, somehow I don't see the whole "Robert destroyed the sanctity of the Iron Throne" argument. The Targaryen dynasty was not exactly a golden age.

 

[El Bastardo]

And a message to my fellow reading compatriots, a wondering about projected conventions for people only viewing the HBO series.

Spoiler

Can you imagine the reactions we'll see when the show gets to the Red Wedding in a couple years?