HBO adaptation of Game of Thrones - will this be just for nerds? (NO SPOILERS PLEASE)

I read that as a metaphor for US foreign policy and the aftermath of "liberations"/revolutions. It all seems so cut and dried when you get rid of the hated rulers but then there's the unexpected blowback and dangerous new forces rushing into the power vacuum. This thread is too big to load now so sorry if this has already been said.

Or it might just be that those silly brown people need a firm hand to rule them.

I dunno I have zero faith in this series' politics, gender, racial or otherwise

good to know

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYBAMxJecLI

I'm sort of hoping that the unravelling of Dany's liberation tour is a critique of that scene — "See! It was meant to be a parody of the White Messiah Complex all along!" — but that might be giving them too much credit.

I think he is trying to do something more interesting with this series. This quote from his Rolling Stone interview is pretty salient:

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

Good quotation, though he still has blind spots with regards to race and colonialism, among other things.

But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy?

let's ask George Lucas

quote is ludicrous, he seems to intentionally elide things Tolkien's explicit about (there are no orc babies, orcs are MADE)

lol shakey

(there are no orc babies, orcs are MADE)

this isn't completely true. Tolkien was pretty hazy about their origins but their are a couple of mentions of Orc children and Bolg and Azog are father and son

maybe I was thinking of the uruk-hai

anyway

I like GoT because it is not just another re-hash of "good v evil" or "forces of light vs darkness" fantasy tropes. It's chock-full of shades-of-grey characters, most of whom are acting out of self-interest, and Martin stirs that all together and attempts to play it all out. It ends up pretty cynical and depressing most of the time, but at least it feels more true than most fantasy.

what an interesting quote. holding Tolkien accountable to historical reality is one thing, but doing so in the context of an equally fantastical story? not criticizing it so much as fascinated it. to what end is fantasy "realistic"???

What was Glinda the Good Witch's tax policy

I suppose what Martin is getting at is something like a self-critiquing fantasy? something which exposes fantasy's inherent simplifications from within?

would be amazing if he followed through with this to the end.

dany's army and dragons land only to be decimated by smallpox or something.

Dany turns to the camera and shrugs. Credits roll.

I'm not saying all fantasy needs to be concerned with this stuff (it IS called "fantasy!"), but I like what he is trying to do.

i would be just fine with dany's whole army taking a wrong turn at cucamonga and sailing off the edge of the world; i've avoided book spoilers but if we end up with a full season of DWAGONS vs WHOEVER HAS THE IRON THRONE i'm gonna get bored quick

My good man, there are a million ways to get bored, let GRRM show you them all.

*fastens a doublet*

this show is the worst rn

*travels in a pair*

to what end is fantasy "realistic"???

To what end is any art anything? It's an avenue in the genre that GRRM perhaps hadn't seen satisfactorily explored before, and he's been pursuing it to often interesting effect.

it's "realistic" like Punisher MAX is realistic aka grim

yeah "realism" ehh just an excuse for more gore and boobs really. although I appreciate schwantz' need for moral ambiguity, I don't think that's unique to GRRM (Golem kind of the ur-text of morally ambiguous fantasy characters)

http://undergroundmgzn.com/2014/04/15/man-ruins-game-thrones-series-novels-full-spoilers/

^ guessing that contains spoilers??

Sub-Onion article, I apologize for wasting people's time.

The concept was funny, but clearly the actual Onion guys could've made it worth reading and made the headline a little less awkward.

Davos is the one true onion guy

that's SER ONION GUY to you.

my fave grrm anti-fantasy trope is the wise gandalfian greybearded maesters all being gross traitors and pawns

or at least the one in king's landing whose name i forget

Duracelle

lol.

I think he is trying to do something more interesting with this series. This quote from his Rolling Stone interview is pretty salient:

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

― schwantz, Tuesday, May 6, 2014 3:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i know what GRRM is saying here and ive definitely said things like this in the past but this manages to both misunderstand LOTR and elide the fact that there are a lot of socio-political-economic-historical questions that GRRM isnt asking either

that being said i think GRRM has probably found the best balance btwn great-man history and price-of-grain history to tell an effective epic fantasy saga for the late 20th/early 21st century

aragorn apparently based on old school king in the north king oswald of northumbria

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gJXoNOB8AGM/TjwHhOkjiqI/AAAAAAAAAgs/3qtcdqqOmbo/s1600/4855831753_c861feecb4.jpg

Skipping the last couple bits of the thread because I'm two episodes behind, but there might be something to the self-defeating theory of killing your protagonists. The reason I'm behind is because my wife told me with a shrug she really has no interest in watching the show anymore (I'd been sitting on the eps for her). I guess that's what happens when you kill off your good guys, leave the other protagonists literally wandering the wilderness aimlessly, and stick the rest of the unpalatable bunch in these sort of dead-end, untenable positions. It's like a narrative cul-de-sac. The only moving part actually moving forward is the Dragon Lady, and frankly even she hasn't had much to do this season (that I've seen).

Rob Stark and his mother were never the protagonists.

Well, no. But they were the "good guys," and by default one's sympathies gravitated to them. Now the show's another Asshole Protagonist series, not even packed with Anti-heros (dwarf or maybe currently Hound aside). With the exception of Dany, but like I said, she's almost an afterthought so far this season; I think it's more than possible her story is what caught my wife's attention, and now why her attention has started to wane.

The bit I could do without is Magic Bran's tedious quest for the three-eyed raven, which resembles a dud YA movie. I'm more interested in the state of the Lannister finances than mind-melding with wolves. I guess the cleverness of the show is that it gives you both and lets different elements appeal to different viewers.

Everyone hates that storyline surely? At least it intersected with something good this week.

the most interesting part of the series for me is reintroducing magic in a world where it had been lost or believed to be merely mythical. bran is a huge part of that, and i like his story, and am fine with it moving slowly at this point.

I am interested in Bran because it feels like he and Arya Stark will be standing triumphantly in a high place at the end of the story. But maybe Martin would avoid the young rising hero thing because it is such a cliche (Frodo, Link, Harry Potter etc).

I would have thought that Tyrion and Arya were the crucial characters that people were rooting for, that would be the biggest risk with the audience if they were killed. Personally, Dany's story never really interested me much aside from the idea of her trying to take the throne. I'm quite fond of her bearded swordsman though.

I used to not like the Stannis segments until I grew to love Davos.

I wish someone would go somewhere cool like Bravos or Dorne for a change. Been watching people trudge back and worth from King's Landing to the Wall and the Eyrie so many times now. My heart sank when Brie told Sancho Panza that their journey was going to take weeks.

Gotta save something for next season.

that's another reason i like the dany storlyine, essos is cooler than westeros. even if we don't get to see that much of it.