Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Inside Game of Thrones" - Making of Preview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    "Inside Game of Thrones" - Making of Preview

    Warning - contains spoilers for events in first 2 episodes of the series!

    If anyone else watched this 10-15 min making of/ preview show about GoT, were they struck by the way people involved were portraying the world as one of shades of grey? Talking about how it wasn't a simple case of good vs evil and such;

    "It's not a good guys, bad guys story - it's a story where everyone is pursuing their own interests and everybody is following their own code and it's about those interests and those ethics coming into conflict with each other and this provides a much richer story than the guys in white beating the guys in black."
    D.B. Weiss

    "It's set in this interesting world of contrasting ideologies, what's right and wrong and has a great philosophy about it."
    Peter Dinklage

    Well forgive me for my perhaps overly simplistic morality but, having watched only 2 episodes, I'm getting a pretty good feeling of some good vs. evil!

    Lannister

    Incest with your twin and child-murdering = evil
    torturing a commoner for sport, trying to kill a little girl out of pique and lying through your teeth about it in an attempt to get her whipped = evil

    Targaryen

    stripping and touching up your sister, forcing her to marry a savage foreigner against her will and telling her you'd happily let 40,000 men and their horses shag her to suit your purpose = evil

    Stark

    honour, duty, loving your children (even the bastard), keeping your oaths, honesty and (most of the time) fidelity = good

    So far the only shades of grey (from where I sit at least) are the old King & Sansa. Too early to say on "the imp" and perhaps on Jason Momoa's savages.. although all the raping he gets up to could well be considered evil in some circles

    Am I rushing to judgement or are the lines of morality perhaps a bit more clearly defined than that preview would have us believe?
    Last edited by Huaracocha; 12 July 2011, 01:44 PM. Reason: add spoiler warning
    "There is only one universe. It can only contain one life. It is me." - MorningLightMountain

    #2
    I think things might look black and white at first, but as the series goes on, the characters and their choices become more grey, as they are faced with problems that have no easy answers. Good and bad become a bit more relative to where or with whom(or what) the characters' loyalties lie. Sometimes even "good" characters need to do "bad" things; events and circumstance change the characters for better or worse

    Some characters are clearly worse than others in the things that they do, or how they go about acheiving their goals, but sometimes even their actions seem understandable or sympathetic from a certain point of view (IMO).

    Sorry if I'm being vague, but I'm trying to avoid accidentally being spoilery.
    Last edited by VampyreWraith; 12 July 2011, 03:02 PM.
    sigpic

    Comment


      #3
      Yeah I see what you mean having caught up with the whole series.. insofar as a lot more characters have been introduced and they aren't all out and out good or evil.

      Still I'm calling shenanigans since, by and large, to me it still seems to be a case of good vs. evil at least in Westeros. Although I guess with..
      Spoiler:
      Stark dead and the family of super-evil in power they were right that it's not the guys in white beating up the guys in black but closer to the opposite


      Keeps things interesting though and gives me a lot more people to want dead in the second series or if I start in on the novels
      "There is only one universe. It can only contain one life. It is me." - MorningLightMountain

      Comment


        #4
        I disagree that it’s a complete case of good and evil. There are sympathetic characters, yes, and there are some villains who are complete monsters, but so many characters have grey areas. Ned Stark for example, is completely obsessed with remaining honourable, at the cost of almost anything else. I’m not sure how far you are through the series now, so I’ll use an early example of the deserter, who is clearly scared out of his mind. Rather than investigating any further, taking the guy back to the wall, he lops the guys head off, because that’s the honourable thing to do to Night’s Watch Deserters. Thing is that might be the” honourable” thing to do, but it’s not the smart thing to do, nor arguably is it the right thing to do. And as the series goes on, there are even more extreme examples of Ned trying to preserve his honour at the expense of everything else.

        Daenerys Targaryen is another very grey example. She may be a sympathetic character to the audience and she may seem nicer than her brother, but she is just as committed to reclaiming the 7 Kingdoms as he is. And if she turned up with 40,000 Drothraki’s it would not be a pretty site, half of Westeros would burn. What’s more she would view people like Ned Stark as mortal enemies, and probably have him and others executed, after all he and Robert were the leaders of the Rebellion against her father, which led to his death.

        The Lannisters may seem evil, but if you turned the conflict on its head, then the Starks would have reacted the same way too many events. The Starks are capable of unpleasant actions as well. Theon Greyjoy for example, is a hostage, kept by the Starks to keep the Greyjoy family in line. They are nice enough to treat him as a Ward, but if his father had ever tried to rebel again, Theon would be killed.

        Increasingly as the books go on, and hopefully the series as well, as the conflict escalates, you will find that no sympathetic character does not have their hand stained with blood. Many of them have to commit shocking actions in the conflict. That’s without mentioning that so many characters are just very grey, people like Tyrion, Jaime, Bronn, Sandor, Varys, Dany, Jorah, and Robert, to name a few, all have their dark sides.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Huaracocha View Post
          Still I'm calling shenanigans since, by and large, to me it still seems to be a case of good vs. evil at least in Westeros. Although I guess with..
          Spoiler:
          Stark dead and the family of super-evil in power they were right that it's not the guys in white beating up the guys in black but closer to the opposite


          Keeps things interesting though and gives me a lot more people to want dead in the second series or if I start in on the novels
          As you progress through the series, you will notice there are no knights in shining white armor. Even by the end of season 1, you should see signs that even the characters you thought were "good" will have to make decisions that puts them in a grey area.

          Without spoiling much for you I will just say that your impressions of some characters right now will completely change by the fourth book.
          sigpic

          Comment


            #6
            Thanks for the replies Mighty 6 and magictrick Good to know that things progress through the books and I look forward to having my assumptions about the characters challenged. I've finished watching season 1 now and was so impressed I decided to start delving into the books, but of course have to read the 1st one so will be a while before I tread new ground

            In the show at least I still see Stark = good and Lannister = evil from my perspective. Interesting perspective on Stark Mighty 6 but, to my rather Klingon mentality, honour is pretty much universally a good thing I can give Tyrion grey although he's definitely hovering toward the darker end of grey in my mind but not Jaime.. his actions toward Bran alone have painted him as almost (totally?) unforgivable and I've seen nothing to redeem that so far.
            Have to agree that Dany feels somewhat grey in the show..
            Spoiler:
            Rather sympathetically though - she hasn't actually done anything evil yet imo. My favourite surviving character from the show's season 1 Discounting the half-man


            Even in reading the first few chapters of book 1 some things do seem a little more grey already, which is to be expected I guess with the deeper characterisations and details that can be explored in the format.

            A bit less sun shining out of Ned, Jon & Robb's behind as they are introduced.. no sign of the Queen or her brother eating babies or drowning puppies up to the feast at least. Although I'm coming up on the climbing incident so I may well feel a bit more partisan on them shortly!
            "There is only one universe. It can only contain one life. It is me." - MorningLightMountain

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Huaracocha View Post
              Thanks for the replies Mighty 6 and magictrick Good to know that things progress through the books and I look forward to having my assumptions about the characters challenged. I've finished watching season 1 now and was so impressed I decided to start delving into the books, but of course have to read the 1st one so will be a while before I tread new ground

              In the show at least I still see Stark = good and Lannister = evil from my perspective. Interesting perspective on Stark Mighty 6 but, to my rather Klingon mentality, honour is pretty much universally a good thing I can give Tyrion grey although he's definitely hovering toward the darker end of grey in my mind but not Jaime.. his actions toward Bran alone have painted him as almost (totally?) unforgivable and I've seen nothing to redeem that so far.
              Have to agree that Dany feels somewhat grey in the show..
              Spoiler:
              Rather sympathetically though - she hasn't actually done anything evil yet imo. My favourite surviving character from the show's season 1 Discounting the half-man


              Even in reading the first few chapters of book 1 some things do seem a little more grey already, which is to be expected I guess with the deeper characterisations and details that can be explored in the format.

              A bit less sun shining out of Ned, Jon & Robb's behind as they are introduced.. no sign of the Queen or her brother eating babies or drowning puppies up to the feast at least. Although I'm coming up on the climbing incident so I may well feel a bit more partisan on them shortly!
              Dany is responsible for the sack of the Lhazareen village and indirectly the rape of Mirri Maz Duur and the other women in the village. She was the one who pressed her husband to invade Westeros, which required ships, which required gold to pay for ships, so the Drothraki attacekd the vilage for slaves and plunder to get gold. That to me is pretty grey.

              As for the Stark's honour, the books and the series show that honour to the exclusion of everything else is not only stupid, but dangerous. Ned Stark, unwilling to face the political realities of the situation, has now inadvertently plunged the 7 Kingdoms into a brutal civil war. And I don't want to spoil what's ahead for you, but let's just say the war is pretty horrific. In fact if in the next few seasons they film even half of what is described on the book, it will still be very difficult to watch. I think one of the themes of the book is how honour at the expense of everything else doesn't work. Frequently through the series, bad stuff happens to characters who value honour above everything else.

              Comment


                #8
                Fair points and I don't disagree with anything you've said.. but it can be looked at another way too I think. Taking the example of Ned and the civil war and other consequences of his actions, you could argue that it is the dishonorouable (evil) people who are responsible for those things and not him. If everyone was honourable such problems wouldn't occur
                "There is only one universe. It can only contain one life. It is me." - MorningLightMountain

                Comment


                  #9
                  I don't find the Lannisters to be evil, some of them do bad things for various reason, but they have their own kind of honor(mostly Tyrion and Jaime).

                  With the more honorable characters, a lot of their conflict comes when they need to choose between duty, family, and honor ; especially when doing your duty would mean doing something "dishonorable" but not doing what you were sworn to do is "dishonorable" as well.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Huaracocha View Post
                    Fair points and I don't disagree with anything you've said.. but it can be looked at another way too I think. Taking the example of Ned and the civil war and other consequences of his actions, you could argue that it is the dishonorouable (evil) people who are responsible for those things and not him. If everyone was honourable such problems wouldn't occur
                    There will always be, in this world and in Westeros, evil and power hungry people. Saying it's ultimately their fault might be true, but it doesn't deal with them. In the real world "honourable" solutions to major problems often don't work. For example to bet Germany in World War 2, the U.S and U.K allied themselves and supported with the Soviet Union, who were just as bad as the Nazis, but without them, the war could not have been won. Similarly in Westeros, sometimes things that may be dishonourable or unpleasant may have to be done, to serve the greater good.

                    Ned failed to play politics, and as a result he didn't take action that could have prevented the 7 Kingdoms from falling apart, which was a critical mistake.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by VampyreWraith View Post
                      I don't find the Lannisters to be evil, some of them do bad things for various reason, but they have their own kind of honor(mostly Tyrion and Jaime).

                      With the more honorable characters, a lot of their conflict comes when they need to choose between duty, family, and honor ; especially when doing your duty would mean doing something "dishonorable" but not doing what you were sworn to do is "dishonorable" as well.
                      Bear in mind I'm not far into book 1 but have seen season 1 of the show so that's what's informing my perceptions at the moment. That being said I guess it's just a different take on things, to me they seem to be the epitome of evil with the possible exception of Tyrion. Some of the things they get up to...

                      Spoiler:
                      Incestuously & adulterously conspiring to put a bastard on the throne (Jaime & Queen Evil Face), attempting to murder innocent children (Jaime - Bran), slaughtering babes (Tywin), treacherously and oath-breakingly (bad word I know ;P) killing the King and trying to take his throne out from under their 'ally' (Jaime), torturing for their own amusement be it butcher boys or their betrothed (Jothree), poisoning and murdering good people, husbands who happen to be the King to protect their own dark secrets and even tying up loose ends of the people used in their machinations with finality (Queen Evil Face I assume) or even simply breaking their word to show mercy (Jothree - Ned)


                      well to me it's hard to see a more evil antagonist without maniacal cackling or pronouncements about the "dark side of the force"

                      Originally posted by The Mighty 6 platoon View Post
                      There will always be, in this world and in Westeros, evil and power hungry people. Saying it's ultimately their fault might be true, but it doesn't deal with them. In the real world "honourable" solutions to major problems often don't work. For example to bet Germany in World War 2, the U.S and U.K allied themselves and supported with the Soviet Union, who were just as bad as the Nazis, but without them, the war could not have been won. Similarly in Westeros, sometimes things that may be dishonourable or unpleasant may have to be done, to serve the greater good.

                      Ned failed to play politics, and as a result he didn't take action that could have prevented the 7 Kingdoms from falling apart, which was a critical mistake.
                      Yes indeed that's very true. Allying with Russia was hardly a clean move, nor was permitting the bombing of Coventry to protect the Enigma code secret. I'd agree that Ned's glaring flaw is excessive honour, even stupidity in the face of the treachery of others. As fatal as such a flaw can be though, it doesn't strike me as 'evil' in any way.

                      I love honourable characters who are willing to set aside their own virtues and do what must be done in dealing with the treacherous and dishonourable in a ruthless manner. This would almost invariably be a wiser and more successful strategy than one employed by the likes of Ned but, if anything, would make such a character less 'good' than a blinkered so-and-so like Lord Eddard
                      "There is only one universe. It can only contain one life. It is me." - MorningLightMountain

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Huaracocha View Post
                        Bear in mind I'm not far into book 1 but have seen season 1 of the show so that's what's informing my perceptions at the moment. That being said I guess it's just a different take on things, to me they seem to be the epitome of evil with the possible exception of Tyrion. Some of the things they get up to...

                        Spoiler:
                        Incestuously & adulterously conspiring to put a bastard on the throne (Jaime & Queen Evil Face), attempting to murder innocent children (Jaime - Bran), slaughtering babes (Tywin), treacherously and oath-breakingly (bad word I know ;P) killing the King and trying to take his throne out from under their 'ally' (Jaime), torturing for their own amusement be it butcher boys or their betrothed (Jothree), poisoning and murdering good people, husbands who happen to be the King to protect their own dark secrets and even tying up loose ends of the people used in their machinations with finality (Queen Evil Face I assume) or even simply breaking their word to show mercy (Jothree - Ned)


                        well to me it's hard to see a more evil antagonist without maniacal cackling or pronouncements about the "dark side of the force"


                        Regarding Jaime and the previous king, I think it was mentioned during in the TV series this season but just in case
                        Spoiler:
                        King Areys was a bit nuts, he was going around burning and killing people, and everyone just stood there and watched him, until Jaime finally killed him. i think theres more to Jaime than what he outwardly presents and later on it comes out more.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by VampyreWraith View Post
                          Regarding Jaime and the previous king, I think it was mentioned during in the TV series this season but just in case
                          Spoiler:
                          King Areys was a bit nuts, he was going around burning and killing people, and everyone just stood there and watched him, until Jaime finally killed him. i think theres more to Jaime than what he outwardly presents and later on it comes out more.
                          It is mentioned in the first season, I think it comes up when it is explained why people call him "Kingslayer". I always found it interesting how he gets all this flack for being the Kingslayer, but no one else would step up to do it either. Its like they forget what a whack job King Aerys was and how many meaningless deaths he was responsible for.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by magictrick View Post
                            It is mentioned in the first season, I think it comes up when it is explained why people call him "Kingslayer". I always found it interesting how he gets all this flack for being the Kingslayer, but no one else would step up to do it either. Its like they forget what a whack job King Aerys was and how many meaningless deaths he was responsible for.
                            There's a conversation or two in the 1st book quite early on, specifically one between Robert and Ned, that clear all that up a bit..

                            Spoiler:
                            It's the fact he was in the King's Guard and sworn to protect the King that gives the derisive aspect to the nickname. I think people like Ned would feel a lot more comfortable if it had been Robert, Ned or anyone else who had done the deed rather than Jaime doing it and oath-breaking in the process. I guess they didn't have the time to go into all that in the show so they substituted him doing it by backstabbing since nobody likes a backstabber There's also the matter of him trying to / thinking about taking the throne out from under Robert after killing him which is touched on in the show.
                            "There is only one universe. It can only contain one life. It is me." - MorningLightMountain

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Huaracocha View Post
                              There's a conversation or two in the 1st book quite early on, specifically one between Robert and Ned, that clear all that up a bit..

                              Spoiler:
                              It's the fact he was in the King's Guard and sworn to protect the King that gives the derisive aspect to the nickname. I think people like Ned would feel a lot more comfortable if it had been Robert, Ned or anyone else who had done the deed rather than Jaime doing it and oath-breaking in the process. I guess they didn't have the time to go into all that in the show so they substituted him doing it by backstabbing since nobody likes a backstabber There's also the matter of him trying to / thinking about taking the throne out from under Robert after killing him which is touched on in the show.
                              Spoiler:
                              So Jaime should have just stood there and watched Aerys kill more innocent people until some else got up the nerve to kill the mad king, just so he wouldn't be an oathbreaker? Robert and Ned think he was trying to to take the throne after killing Aerys, their opinion of Jaime isn't exactly unbiased.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X