Game of Thrones - HBO part 2

[camp Blood]

how much of a part will the white walkers play in the second season

 

[Marvolo]

Two characters probably have a better claim to the throne than Dany does. In order:
1. Stannis, for reasons I'm sure we can all fathom. He is next in line after Robert, and Cersei's children are not of Baratheon-lineage. Considering Baratheon is now the royal house of King's Landing and the Iron Throne, he's the direct claim.
#2 shall be in spoilers, though it's not a spoiler of anything past the first book and is utter speculation:

Spoiler

I contend, as do many others including Sean Bean, that Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. As such, if this were ever made known and recognized, he would be in direct claim to the throne from a Targaryen standpoint. Aerys --> Rhaegar --> Jon.

#3. Dany. I think her daddy's genes run a little too strong in her, though, and that she'd probably just have the dragons burn the entire ****ing city down.

And I hate four characters - three now, technically - in the series. Given how many POV characters there are, that isn't even close to most of the protagonist characters, and even less in the grand scheme of major players in the story.

Stannis has no claim because Robert stole the throne. The Baratheons have no claim. I do agree about the character in spoilers. There is possobility there. Only Dany and maybe that character mentioned in spoilers have rights to the throne. The rest are claiming rights based on a rebellion and coup that took the throne from Aerys. No matter how crazy he was. He was king and his children and heirs had rights to the throne above all others.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

how much of a part will the white walkers play in the second season

You don't see 'em for a while after Jon fought that one in Mormont's room.

 

[Raiden]

Do you guys think that Dany's decision to spare the villagers indirectly resulted in the death of her unborn child and Drogo's as well?

 

[El Bastardo]

Stannis has no claim because Robert stole the throne. The Baratheons have no claim. I do agree about the character in spoilers. There is possobility there. Only Dany and maybe that character mentioned in spoilers have rights to the throne. The rest are claiming rights based on a rebellion and coup that took the throne from Aerys. No matter how crazy he was. He was king and his children and heirs had rights to the throne above all others.

No one stole the throne. Robert didn't pick it up, hide it, and have everyone say, "What? Where'd the big swordy seat go?"

There was an open rebellion. The old order was overthrown, and the nobles and landed families recognized Robert and House Baratheon as new king of the Seven Kingdom.

Unless you'd consider that America should still be colonies under the yoke of the British Empire, because, you know, a bunch of terrorist rebels with no claim to leadership rose up and beat their butts and took leadership for their own.

Or I could use France as a bunch of examples. Or a bunch of other countries as examples.

 

[El Bastardo]

Do you guys think that Dany's decision to spare the villagers indirectly resulted in the death of her unborn child and Drogo's as well?

Well, yes, on account of the fact that's what happened.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Two characters probably have a better claim to the throne than Dany does. In order:
1. Stannis, for reasons I'm sure we can all fathom. He is next in line after Robert, and Cersei's children are not of Baratheon-lineage. Considering Baratheon is now the royal house of King's Landing and the Iron Throne, he's the direct claim.
#2 shall be in spoilers, though it's not a spoiler of anything past the first book and is utter speculation:

Spoiler

I contend, as do many others including Sean Bean, that Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. As such, if this were ever made known and recognized, he would be in direct claim to the throne from a Targaryen standpoint. Aerys --> Rhaegar --> Jon.

#3. Dany. I think her daddy's genes run a little too strong in her, though, and that she'd probably just have the dragons burn the entire ****ing city down.

And I hate four characters - three now, technically - in the series. Given how many POV characters there are, that isn't even close to most of the protagonist characters, and even less in the grand scheme of major players in the story.

With regards to #2....

Spoiler

Doesn't it not matter since he's now in the Night's Watch?

Also, where did you see Sean Bean say he believes this theory? I'm just curious.

 

[El Bastardo]

With regards to #2....

Spoiler

Doesn't it not matter since he's now in the Night's Watch?

Also, where did you see Sean Bean say he believes this theory? I'm just curious.

Sean Bean gave an interview. It showed up on the Game of Thrones facebook page: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/sean_bean_on_whats_next_for_ga.html

There might be other story spoilers in there, but I don't remember.

And

Spoiler

it might matter, might not matter about Jon being in the Night's Watch. Given everything that has happened, or hasn't happened, if he was going to be named King, why couldn't he choose to take the title and forsake his vows? Then again, he might just say the hell with it. It wouldn't stop the claim from being true, even if he gave it up.

 

[The Sage]

[TV] HBO's Game of Thrones Season Finale Gets Strong Ratings
Posted by Chad Webb on 06.21.2011

The show did well throughout the whole season...

HBO's Game of Thrones debuted in April with solid ratings, which brought in around $2.2 million viewers for three airings of the season premiere. The series was renewed after only one episode.

The show received impressive ratings throughout the whole season, and recently, the season finale drew 3.9 million viewers for that episode and the repeat airing. It was a series high.

http://www.411mania.com/movies/news...Thrones-Season-Finale-Gets-Strong-Ratings.htm

 

[El Bastardo]

 

[Marvolo]

No one stole the throne. Robert didn't pick it up, hide it, and have everyone say, "What? Where'd the big swordy seat go?"

There was an open rebellion. The old order was overthrown, and the nobles and landed families recognized Robert and House Baratheon as new king of the Seven Kingdom.

Unless you'd consider that America should still be colonies under the yoke of the British Empire, because, you know, a bunch of terrorist rebels with no claim to leadership rose up and beat their butts and took leadership for their own.

Or I could use France as a bunch of examples. Or a bunch of other countries as examples.

And had all these rebellions failed the rebels would have been trialed and hanged. Its all subjective, and depends on the winner. The winners write the history books. Just because the rebels won doesnt make it legal though. Its funny though how we throw out the rule books when someone does something we dont like. There was a coup and the throne was taken from the rightfull king. He still has an heir and she has claim to the throne.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Sean Bean gave an interview. It showed up on the Game of Thrones facebook page: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/sean_bean_on_whats_next_for_ga.html

There might be other story spoilers in there, but I don't remember.

And

Spoiler

it might matter, might not matter about Jon being in the Night's Watch. Given everything that has happened, or hasn't happened, if he was going to be named King, why couldn't he choose to take the title and forsake his vows? Then again, he might just say the hell with it. It wouldn't stop the claim from being true, even if he gave it up.

Spoiler

Nope, no one can leave the wall once the oath is said. The guy in the first episode is not the first guy to be beheaded because of being a deserter. Look who their Maester is, he was in line too. Or how about Mormont who was a lord and got sent the wall because his son fled for being in the slave trade. The Wall is it for anyone, unless all of Westeros law is changed.

 

[El Bastardo]

And had all these rebellions failed the rebels would have been trialed and hanged. Its all subjective, and depends on the winner. The winners write the history books. Just because the rebels won doesnt make it legal though. Its funny though how we throw out the rule books when someone does something we dont like. There was a coup and the throne was taken from the rightfull king. He still has an heir and she has claim to the throne.

Except Robert's Rebellion did not fail. He became the legitimized, recognized King of the Iron Throne. That he is legitimized and recognized means the Targaryens no longer are. The Baratheons are. That's called a change of power.

No? Then the Targaryens aren't "rightful rulers" either, because Aegon was basically a Mob racket running around making the original kings of the Seven Kingdoms pay him protection money. So that would mean the Starks are still the rightful rulers of the North, since Aegon had no claim to the lands they were kings of? So Robb being named King of the North isn't really rebellion, it's him claiming his ancestral birthright. And the Martells of Dorne could get away with it just fine, too. And the Greyjoys of the Iron Islands - oh, wait, no, they got kicked in the face when they tried that. Wait, now I'm confused.

So if we found some great descending of Louis XVI, France should go back to being a monarchy? Is that what you're saying? Or if a descending of Napoleon was found, France should go back to being an imperial monarchy? Because the presidential republic is way down on the list of "proper claim."

By the way, the addages "history isn't about what's right, it's about who's left" and "history is written by the winners" don't really apply to changes of power that aren't propagandized. Nothing about Robert's Rebellion was propagandized.

Spoiler

Nope, no one can leave the wall once the oath is said. The guy in the first episode is not the first guy to be beheaded because of being a deserter. Look who their Maester is, he was in line too. Or how about Mormont who was a lord and got sent the wall because his son fled for being in the slave trade. The Wall is it for anyone, unless all of Westeros law is changed.

Spoiler

That doesn't mean it can't ever happen. Jon was going to leave. Would Robb have killed him for leaving? Maybe. Maybe not. If Jon becomes King, who's going to behead him? Himself?

 

[mr. peasant]

Because they're part of the plot early on.

That doesn't mean they're part of the plot two books later, or in the next book, or even necessarily later in the same book.

I'm just pointing out that the characters who are core to the story throughout generally are important in its resolution. At least, that's the way following convention and based on GRRM's writing style, he does (yes, even the killing of Ned. For a character to be introduced in the very first novel, and then to grow and evolve throughout the entire story with the reader reading about it, only to wind up being unimportant in the ending will leave readers unsatisfied and feeling cheated of all those pages.

 

[El Bastardo]

Not all characters are going to be important, however, and not all important characters are going to be represented as protagonists. Areo Hotah, for instance, in A Feast for Crows is not a very important character. He does, however, offer GRRM an opportunity to explore, and so he makes for a worthwhile character. Similarly, a few important characters are brought in as POV protagonists only in later books, like A Storm of Swords and A Feast for Crows. This does not lessen their importance.

Characters will be present at the end of the story as the story merits. The story is a living, breathing entity that exists as it must exist. As for convention, the only convention that exists is what GRRM chooses to use and warp and incorporate as he sees fit.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Spoiler

That doesn't mean it can't ever happen. Jon was going to leave. Would Robb have killed him for leaving? Maybe. Maybe not. If Jon becomes King, who's going to behead him? Himself?

Spoiler

You are basing this on two assumptions, that Jon is not Ned's kid and that he is in fact the rightful heir. There's no real evidence of either barring fan conjecture and the fact that it's a subject Ned avoids. But if he left the Wall, the Warden Of The North, Rob would have to kill him because that's the law. Think Ned wanted his brother on the wall? I'm sure given the choice he would have him back in the family home at Winterfell. Besides, since he is on the Wall, he has given up all claim to title and lands so even if he truly is then he could never claim it.

 

[El Bastardo]

And actually, the character of Eddard Stark and his use by GRRM really is not an example of your linked "Decoy Protagonist" trope. This could maybe apply to how HBO used him as a centerpiece of the series, but it doesn't apply to the written work. He doesn't have the most chapters in the book, I'm pretty sure, and he isn't even the first POV character introduced. Not counting the one-off prologue, that honor goes to Bran. He is not the focal character the book relies upon, and the book is not about his journey or character arc at all - the most the character can claim is being the instigator to the major meta-action of the novel and to later events. Those are not the same things.

 

[El Bastardo]

Spoiler

You are basing this on two assumptions, that Jon is not Ned's kid and that he is in fact the rightful heir. There's no real evidence of either barring fan conjecture and the fact that it's a subject Ned avoids. But if he left the Wall, the Warden Of The North, Rob would have to kill him because that's the law. Think Ned wanted his brother on the wall? I'm sure given the choice he would have him back in the family home at Winterfell. Besides, since he is on the Wall, he has given up all claim to title and lands so even if he truly is then he could never claim it.

Spoiler

Yes, the entire concept is based on conjecture and speculation. I was up front about that from the beginning. But before I go any further - and this isn't meant to be condescending - have you read through all four currently published novels?

 

[mr. peasant]

Not all characters are going to be important, however, and not all important characters are going to be represented as protagonists. Areo Hotah, for instance, in A Feast for Crows is not a very important character. He does, however, offer GRRM an opportunity to explore, and so he makes for a worthwhile character. Similarly, a few important characters are brought in as POV protagonists only in later books, like A Storm of Swords and A Feast for Crows. This does not lessen their importance.

As I specified above, I'm talking about characters who were introduced as central in the first novel and who continue to be so until the final novel. Those specific characters will almost certainly be the more important ones.

Also, I disagree that the story is a 'living, breathing entity'. GRRM almost certainly plotted the story out from the very beginning. Perhaps not in its entirety but the major events, such and who and what will be needed for the final chapter.

And actually, the character of Eddard Stark and his use by GRRM really is not an example of your linked "Decoy Protagonist" trope. This could maybe apply to how HBO used him as a centerpiece of the series, but it doesn't apply to the written work. He doesn't have the most chapters in the book, I'm pretty sure, and he isn't even the first POV character introduced. Not counting the one-off prologue, that honor goes to Bran. He is not the focal character the book relies upon, and the book is not about his journey or character arc at all - the most the character can claim is being the instigator to the major meta-action of the novel and to later events. Those are not the same things.

By virtue of being the patrician of the Stark family, the heroic character central to the main story arc and the member of the Stark family most vested in it, Ned certainly seemed set to be a key character in the grander story.

 

[Marvolo]

Except Robert's Rebellion did not fail. He became the legitimized, recognized King of the Iron Throne. That he is legitimized and recognized means the Targaryens no longer are. The Baratheons are. That's called a change of power.

No? Then the Targaryens aren't "rightful rulers" either, because Aegon was basically a Mob racket running around making the original kings of the Seven Kingdoms pay him protection money. So that would mean the Starks are still the rightful rulers of the North, since Aegon had no claim to the lands they were kings of? So Robb being named King of the North isn't really rebellion, it's him claiming his ancestral birthright. And the Martells of Dorne could get away with it just fine, too. And the Greyjoys of the Iron Islands - oh, wait, no, they got kicked in the face when they tried that. Wait, now I'm confused.

So if we found some great descending of Louis XVI, France should go back to being a monarchy? Is that what you're saying? Or if a descending of Napoleon was found, France should go back to being an imperial monarchy? Because the presidential republic is way down on the list of "proper claim."

By the way, the addages "history isn't about what's right, it's about who's left" and "history is written by the winners" don't really apply to changes of power that aren't propagandized. Nothing about Robert's Rebellion was propagandized.

Spoiler

That doesn't mean it can't ever happen. Jon was going to leave. Would Robb have killed him for leaving? Maybe. Maybe not. If Jon becomes King, who's going to behead him? Himself?

No i dont think france should go back to a monarchy because they arent a monarchy now. Westerros is still a monarchy. Taking things a little personal are we? If i recall Robert was in this due to what happened to Ned's sister. He didnt care about the realm so much as his own desire for revenge. There are two sides to this coin. The targaeryans had their supporters and they didnt support the rebellion. What about them? All of westerros did not unite under Robert. Yes they played nice and bid their time, but behind closed doors not everyone supported the new status quo. And why should they? A man was setting on the throne who got there through through revenge for a womans life none of the commoners knew. I liked robert but i did not think he needed to be king or deserved it really. And you say the people accepted the new king and order. No the influential powerful people who won the rebellion supported it. The commoners and people who had no part in the rebellion had no choice. Not to mention that news travels slow and the fact that the news is distorted when it reaches its audiences ears. Most commoners wouldnt have even known who was setting on the throne for weeks. Heck, after the battle of hastings it was weeks before some shires knew the Normans had successfully killed King Harold. In a game of thrones no one is honorable or wholly just. You cant excuse one side just because the majority says its right. Dany has just as much claim as Stannis. Personally i would prefer you know who getting the job but his current employment may get in the way of that.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So once you're stationed at the wall you can never leave? No leave of absence, even if you're a volunteer? That seems rather extreme.

 

[Marvolo]

So once you're stationed at the wall you can never leave? No leave of absence, even if you're a volunteer? That seems rather extreme.

The wall is their life after they join. Thats the point of the oath. You give up all claim and family. But remember most men of the Watch are criminals who had two options: death or the wall. In a sense the wall is a penal colony. If they run away they are choosing death.

 

[Buford The Sly]

Well here's my perspective on Jon Snow

Spoiler

He can leave the Wall if there is no Wall...

 

[El Bastardo]

As I specified above, I'm talking about characters who were introduced as central in the first novel and who continue to be so until the final novel. Those specific characters will almost certainly be the more important ones.

Also, I disagree that the story is a 'living, breathing entity'. GRRM almost certainly plotted the story out from the very beginning. Perhaps not in its entirety but the major events, such and who and what will be needed for the final chapter.

If Arya Stark ends up more important than Jaime Lannister, Cersei Lannister, Arianne Martell, Quentyn Martell, or even Victarion Greyjoy, I'll be very surprised.

But I don't disagree with you, necessarily. I suppose that if the end of the series is to be the culmination of the storyline regarding the Others, the only important characters will be [BLACKOUT]Jon, Dany, and Bran[/BLACKOUT]. That's assuming we don't get a curveball and lose one or all of them along the way, but I think they're fairly safe.

Of course, that means most other characters won't be important to the very end. Rather, they'll all be important to their necessary plot points, and no more - not necessarily to the end.

As for GRRM having the entire story plotted in terms of plot points, maybe he's had a fledgling outline to be working off of, but have you ever read his not-a-blog? Once he confirmed ADwD was definitely done, he posted a big explanation of what had happened and why it took so long. The story has transformed, grown larger by necessity, and been restructured, rewritten, and re-everything. Any original plotting-out he'd done has fallen by the wayside.

By virtue of being the patrician of the Stark family, the heroic character central to the main story arc and the member of the Stark family most vested in it, Ned certainly seemed set to be a key character in the grander story.

I went and dug my book out, and I was wrong - Ned actually does have the most chapters in the novel. I swore he had less than other characters. Hah, I guess it has been awhile.

I still never looked at him as the focal character of the novel, or that the novel was about him and his character arc - especially since there's no real character progression. Ned Stark is Ned Stark will be Ned Stark. He's a player in a larger piece, though he doesn't survive, and the instigator that allows it all to unfold, and certainly our viewpoint. That makes him a protagonist, not a decoy, though. So my point remains.

 

[El Bastardo]

No i dont think france should go back to a monarchy because they arent a monarchy now. Westerros is still a monarchy. Taking things a little personal are we? If i recall Robert was in this due to what happened to Ned's sister. He didnt care about the realm so much as his own desire for revenge. There are two sides to this coin. The targaeryans had their supporters and they didnt support the rebellion. What about them? All of westerros did not unite under Robert. Yes they played nice and bid their time, but behind closed doors not everyone supported the new status quo. And why should they? A man was setting on the throne who got there through through revenge for a womans life none of the commoners knew. I liked robert but i did not think he needed to be king or deserved it really. And you say the people accepted the new king and order. No the influential powerful people who won the rebellion supported it. The commoners and people who had no part in the rebellion had no choice. Not to mention that news travels slow and the fact that the news is distorted when it reaches its audiences ears. Most commoners wouldnt have even known who was setting on the throne for weeks. Heck, after the battle of hastings it was weeks before some shires knew the Normans had successfully killed King Harold. In a game of thrones no one is honorable or wholly just. You cant excuse one side just because the majority says its right. Dany has just as much claim as Stannis. Personally i would prefer you know who getting the job but his current employment may get in the way of that.

Sigh. Nevermind. Although you did go from "Stannis has no claim, only Dany does" to "Dany has just as much claim as Stannis."

The wall is their life after they join. Thats the point of the oath. You give up all claim and family. But remember most men of the Watch are criminals who had two options: death or the wall. In a sense the wall is a penal colony. If they run away they are choosing death.

This is a very good explanation and relation.

Well here's my perspective on Jon Snow

Spoiler

He can leave the Wall if there is no Wall...