A Game of Thrones - TV Show Discussion Thread

[Asher]

Thank Christ for that.

[Docfeelgood]

Thank Christ for that.

second

[Bosh]

Liked the second episode a lot better than the first, felt a lot less hurried and people nailed their parts (the Hound did just fine, I was a bit worried about him...) Only problem is they cut Bran's line (the one he said when he was waking up). "His name is Summer." (about his wolf) I can see cutting the trippy dream sequences, but I wanted that line

Poor poor poor Lady, that part always gets me

I'm really looking forward to seeing Tywin Lannister (the father of the three) and the Hound's big brother...

[a.kitman]

they sure know how to end an episode and make you come back for more.

[Guynemer]

Enjoyed the episode, definite improvement, BUT...

Without spoiling anything for me, as I may want to read the books at some point, PLEASE tell me the villains get some sort of character depth. Because, thus far, the Lannister twins and the (what I assume to be their inbred offspring) Prince and the albino son of the former King are all completely hissable, loathsome people who are just one mustache-twirl away from the very definition of cliche. (I nearly include the elder Stark daughter and that Khal fellow in this as well.)

[Tuberski]

Big changes for all characters...... next season.

ACK!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Inbred prince always remains a despicable cliche. The rest of the characters get humanized.

[Wezil]

I preferred the first episode. #2 seemed to drag.

[Kuciwalker]

Enjoyed the episode, definite improvement, BUT...

Without spoiling anything for me, as I may want to read the books at some point, PLEASE tell me the villains get some sort of character depth. Because, thus far, the Lannister twins and the (what I assume to be their inbred offspring) Prince and the albino son of the former King are all completely hissable, loathsome people who are just one mustache-twirl away from the very definition of cliche. (I nearly include the elder Stark daughter and that Khal fellow in this as well.)

Yes, they get a LOT of depth.

[Bosh]

Because, thus far, the Lannister twins and the (what I assume to be their inbred offspring) Prince and the albino son of the former King are all completely hissable, loathsome people who are just one mustache-twirl away from the very definition of cliche. (I nearly include the elder Stark daughter and that Khal fellow in this as well.)

Hmmm, hard to answer this without spoiling things. But in the books Khla Drogo should already have a bit more depth, they darkened him up a lot in the TV show, in the books he never raped Dany. As far as the Lannister twins and Viserys (who isn't albino, his family just tends to have silver blonde hair naturally and I guess the TV show nixed the violet eyes for looking too silly) and Sansa (the older daughter) all of them get lots and lots of depth (one of them became a huge fan favorite by the third book for example) except for one. That one is annoying as all hell, but still only one of them...

I'm a bit disappointed with who they cast as Payne (the king's executioner) in the books he's tall, gaunt and as creepy as **** and in the TV show he looks like a Scooby Doo villain

Luckily it looks like they've cast the right person for the Hound's big brother, he'll be fun to watch...

[MikeH]

£5 million an episode for 'Thrones.

Which is much, much less per minute than a feature film with equivalent looking production standards.

[Arrian]

I'm most of the way through book 2 at this point. Martin sure loves the idea of a emotional yo-yo. Yay, good thing happened, immediately followed by a bad thing (both of which usually involve a bunch of people dying), rinse, repeat.

And, though the "evil" (or simply annoying, *coughSansacough*) characters do get some depth, I think it's fair to say that you know who the good guys are (even if they have flaws) and who the bad guys are (even if they have some redeeming qualities) pretty much from the get-go. Unless, of course, I've more to learn in the next 2 books (possible).

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And, though the "evil" (or simply annoying, *coughSansacough*) characters do get some depth, I think it's fair to say that you know who the good guys are (even if they have flaws) and who the bad guys are (even if they have some redeeming qualities) pretty much from the get-go. Unless, of course, I've more to learn in the next 2 books (possible).

-Arrian

Nope the good guys are shown with faults the bad guys with explanantions for their behavior for the most part, save the inbred prince who never truly amounts to anything other than a POS with no explanantion other than he is a spoiled brat.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see what the problem is with having good guys and bad guys.

My personal experience is that there are good guys and bad guys in real life.

What should be included is that even good guys have character flaws, and bad guys might have some place where they can be touched (/etc).

JM

[MikeH]

Show us on the dolly where the bad guy made you touch him Jon?