These two challenges—an increasingly fragmented narrative and a lack of a clear overarching story arc—are not insurmountable; in fact, I found neither to be particularly concerning, and found the first four episodes of the season to be a most welcome return to Westeros. However, the circumstances under which I viewed these episodes mitigated these factors in ways that not all viewers will have access to. As someone who has read the books, I know where these narratives are heading, and can therefore read purpose and momentum in ways that those ignorant to those futures may not. And as someone who is lucky enough to receive advance screeners for the series, I had the luxury of popping in the second episode when I discovered one of my favorite characters doesn’t appear in the first one, something that those watching weekly won’t have.
What I’m suggesting, I suppose, is that Game of Thrones has evolved in such a way that I’m unsure if my experience with the show’s third season can be successfully mapped into a more generalized “review.” I thought every storyline was well executed, I enjoyed every episode, and I was left wanting more, but I also left wondering how much those responses were shaped by the context in which the episodes were viewed, and if we’re reaching the point where reaction to the series will be divided more starkly among devoted viewers and more casual audiences.
The abundance of characters -- and story lines -- on "Thrones" can be both a blessing and a curse. All the actors, including notable Season 3 newcomers Ciaran Hinds and Diana Rigg, are marvelous. But the show can, at times, feel frustratingly overstuffed and disjointed.
Just when you find yourself becoming riveted to one plot thread, a switch is made and a connection is lost. "Thrones" is like a dozen shows in one, and it's about the farthest thing you can get from veg-out TV. You have to fully immerse yourself in the blood, the muck and the duplicity of it all.
But those who make the investment are richly rewarded. There's enough tension, betrayal, treachery, greed and sex, after all, to fill eight seasons of "Scandal." And no show on TV contains the visual majesty of this production, which is shot in five countries for a reported $50 million to $60 million.
...but I don't think we'll be seeing any Children of the Forrest at all this season....
...but I don't think we'll be seeing any Children of the Forrest at all this season....
If no crannogmen then nobody to explain the Children of the Forest, except Osha? Maybe it'd work, but then you could probably cut them entirely. Just work with green dreams and Osha's explanation. Tough to say though, considering the unwritten portions.to get them to cold hands and the cave
...but I don't think we'll be seeing any Children of the Forrest at all this season....
If no crannogmen then nobody to explain the Children of the Forest, except Osha? Maybe it'd work, but then you could probably cut them entirely. Just work with green dreams and Osha's explanation. Tough to say though, considering the unwritten portions.to get them to cold hands and the cave
According to a Comic-Con panel last summer both Meera and Jojen Reed have been cast and will feature in season 3. Frankly I'm glad they're not being written out.
http://io9.com/5925957/game-of-thrones-reveals-new-cast-members-for-season-3
Because casting an actor for a minor role in one episode and then not having him appear again until two years later isn't really a practical way of doing things. It's the same reason the featured extra who played Beric in season one wasn't brought back for season three.Thoros of Myr? Why wait until now? Why not introduce him at the Hands games?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.