Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Re: The deaths in GoT season 3: Why the outrage? (Season 1-3 spoiler
I would agree all the "reactions" on the internet were way OTT.
I expected Rob's wife to die, so wasn't surprised there. Then I was a bit surprised when he died, then even more shocked when his mum got slashed too. But yeah I didn't go mental or anything.
It wasn't really any more shocking than say Lori being killed off in The Walking Dead early s3, which just surprised me as it was a lot earlier than she when she dies in the comics.
Or even say when Doyle died fairly on in Angel season 1.
It was hardly the first time main characters have been killed off in TV shows.
Well, Catelyn had the word of a Lord on the Small Council and the word of a High Lady (Lysa) condemning Tyrion. In Westeros, that's usually enough. We sympathized with Tyrion through it all because we could see his inner thoughts and already knew he was innocent. Catelyn wouldn't have known that.
Anywho, about the "Villains get no comeuppance" thing. S3 was just half of the 3rd book's story, so we get the rest in S4. Don't worry...
EDIT: The real reason the villains keep on surviving is because eventually Daenerys will return to Westeros, and she'll kill most of her opposition (or try to). If the good guys were still around by the time she got there, she'd kill them too. Since we're supposed to see Daenerys as a big hero, she couldn't do this. So to preserve her heroism, the villains have to keep surviving and the heroes losing so there won't be any major heroes active for her to kill.
Is it wrong that I don’t see Daenerys as a big hero? Bear in mind I’ve never read the books so I’m only going on the TV show but whilst she’s done a lot of good things, I’m not sure she’s doing them with a good heart, she seems to feed off the adulation of others, so she doesn’t free slaves because it’s a good thing to do, so much as it makes her feel good doing it, especially when they all start chanting her name.
None of which makes her a terrible person, or even close to it, but I find I can’t quite bring myself to root for her in the same way I can for Tyrion who is far more honest about his flaws.
In a way I’m actually glad season 3 shocked me, sometimes I do feel like I’ve become desensitised to TV and films so it’s good to know I still can be shocked.
No, she's kind of an entitled silly girl who stumbled into a position of power but has no idea what she's doing.
I don't think there are many heroes in the series, almost every character is either selfish, stupid, entitled, greedy, power hungry or mad. Even fan favorites like Arya and Tyrion are anything but heroes.
For me the person who could become a hero is Sansa, she was naive but that's not such a negative trait compared to the others and that naivety has been slapped out of her by Joffrey.
I predict that at the end of the series she will be queen in the north, her "I've gotta get out if here" attitude replaced with "This is where I belong, f*** the south".
No, she's kind of an entitled silly girl who stumbled into a position of power but has no idea what she's doing.
I don't think there are many heroes in the series, almost every character is either selfish, stupid, entitled, greedy, power hungry or mad. Even fan favorites like Arya and Tyrion are anything but heroes.
For me the person who could become a hero is Sansa, she was naive but that's not such a negative trait compared to the others and that naivety has been slapped out of her by Joffrey.
I predict that at the end of the series she will be queen in the north, her "I've gotta get out if here" attitude replaced with "This is where I belong, f*** the south".
While I agree with you, it seems fairly clear that she is on a journey, and as time passes she becomes less of a silly girl. She learns from her experiences. She does things initially because they make her feel better about herself, and make her feel that she is completely unlike her brother, but when she looks back at what happened she realizes the right and wrong of it.
I feel that by the time she returns, she will be a good person for the right reasons; this is the point of the story not bringing her back with her dragons right now.
Re: The deaths in GoT season 3: Why the outrage? (Season 1-3 spoiler
Remember she is supposed to be about 14-15 at this point in the books. Likewise, Robb was supposed to be around 16 when he died. Their behavior (and mistakes) make a lot more sense in that context.
While I agree with you, it seems fairly clear that she is on a journey, and as time passes she becomes less of a silly girl. She learns from her experiences. She does things initially because they make her feel better about herself, and make her feel that she is completely unlike her brother, but when she looks back at what happened she realizes the right and wrong of it.
I feel that by the time she returns, she will be a good person for the right reasons; this is the point of the story not bringing her back with her dragons right now.
But she's still entitled, she thinks she has a claim to the throne and a right to rule just because she has the right ancestry. She's an interesting character but I don't want her on the throne.
Actually, I want no one on the iron throne, I want Westeros to be divided into separate kingdoms once more.
While I agree with you, it seems fairly clear that she is on a journey, and as time passes she becomes less of a silly girl. She learns from her experiences. She does things initially because they make her feel better about herself, and make her feel that she is completely unlike her brother, but when she looks back at what happened she realizes the right and wrong of it.
I feel that by the time she returns, she will be a good person for the right reasons; this is the point of the story not bringing her back with her dragons right now.
But she's still entitled, she thinks she has a claim to the throne and a right to rule just because she has the right ancestry. She's an interesting character but I don't want her on the throne.
Actually, I want no one on the iron throne, I want Westeros to be divided into separate kingdoms once more.
If not her, then someone else. She is developing a moral compass.
Part of the point of it all is that any leader who is in power will have the same entitlement. None of the existing leaders lack entitlement, and no one without entitlement is going to gain power through any means possible.
While I agree with you, it seems fairly clear that she is on a journey, and as time passes she becomes less of a silly girl. She learns from her experiences. She does things initially because they make her feel better about herself, and make her feel that she is completely unlike her brother, but when she looks back at what happened she realizes the right and wrong of it.
I couldn't believe that Dr. Huxtable didn't even care when they sent him his son's severed penis, and left it up to Rudy to form a rescue party. That was a dark season.
The first two seasons mostly adapted the first two books, with some material brought forward or delayed here and there, but the third season mostly adapted the first half of the third book, while the fourth season will adapt the second half of the third book and a lot of story elements from the fourth and fifth books.
I never heard any "outrage", but rather surprise and WTF comments.
I think what throws people is that there is not really a major protagonist "good guy" to the series. Ned Stark was the closest, and after him people imagined it would be Rob.
I would say that Jon and arguably Dany are much closer to that status, but I may be talking as a book fan who knows that Robb was never a POV character and was lot less in the books than in the show, while all his family members apart from little Rickon have been POV characters from book 1.
I liked Robb and Catelyn more early in the series than in season 3. In season 3 their story seemed stagnated, all Robb did the season was alienate allies. In fact, I would say given his decisions leading up to his death, having him still win wouldn't have made sense. And, while it was terrible to see Robb's wife killed like that, they really didn't develop her that much in the TV series, so my connectedness to her wasn't there.
I would list my favorite characters though as Arya, Tyrian, Denerys, Bran, and my favorites among the secondary cast include Samuel and Brien. My favorites all survived the season in ways that made it seem like their role would expand in the future, and even my 'Love to hate' characters like Tiwyn survived.
I would say that the show is about the civil war between the various "Kings", and it all started because Robb Stark declared war over his father's death.
No, that is not what it is all about, just a part of it.
And Robb Stark did not start it, Tywin Lannister started it when he sent the Mountain to sack the Riverlands. It escalated with the death of king Robert, followed by Ned's arrest and death. Furthermore, Robb did not march north after his father's death, but after his father's arrest, which he rightfully suspected to be utterly unjust, in order to save his father.
And the civil war would have started anyway, without Robb, because Stannis and Renly would have declared themselves kings regardless. Robb didn't even vie for the Iron Throne, while those two did. Balon Greyjoy also would have eventually pronounced himself the king as soon as the turmoil started.
It boggles my mind why so many people see the civil war as a Stark vs Lannister conflict, when there were several factions in fact - and still are.
I would say that the show is about the civil war between the various "Kings", and it all started because Robb Stark declared war over his father's death.
I always thought declaring war over Ned's death almost made Robb a bad guy.
If you think about it Joffrey had every right to execute Ned, he had just publicly confessed to treason and that he wanted to get rid of Joffrey and claim the throne for himself, his execution was politically stupid but justified especially Joffrey didn't know the truth about his parents.
The Starks aren't even opposed to chopping people's heads off, Ned killed the poor schmuck who ran from the Night's watch and Robb executed Lord Karstark for not following his orders and murdering the Lannister boys and he sees nothing wrong with that but if his father is executed for treason that means war? Robb was a hypocritical asshat who obviously thought rules applied to others but not the Starks. I'm glad he's dead, he was a dumbass.
BS. First off, Robb did not declare war over Ned's death, he declared war over Ned's arrest. Which he believed to be utterly unjustified and a result of Lannister lies... just as it was. He knew that Ned was an honorable man and Robert's best friend, and that the Lannisters had tried to kill Bran, and Cat also believed that they were behind Jon Arryn's murder. Then Joffrey went and chopped off Ned's head, after his "confession", which anyone with half a brain could see he only gave because the Lannisters were keeping his daughter hostage. To make it worse, they had promised him and Sansa, privately and publicly, to spare his life and send him to the NW if he confessed, before Joffrey proved to be the little shit he is and ordered his execution.
Ned, on the other hand, was following the law, and Robb executing Karstark was completely right and justified according to their laws and to ours. He murdered two prisoners, little boys, to make it worse.
In other words, there was nothing hypocritical about Robb, you're just trying to be a hipster.
Is it wrong that I don’t see Daenerys as a big hero? Bear in mind I’ve never read the books so I’m only going on the TV show but whilst she’s done a lot of good things, I’m not sure she’s doing them with a good heart, she seems to feed off the adulation of others, so she doesn’t free slaves because it’s a good thing to do, so much as it makes her feel good doing it, especially when they all start chanting her name.
None of which makes her a terrible person, or even close to it, but I find I can’t quite bring myself to root for her in the same way I can for Tyrion who is far more honest about his flaws.
Actually, no. When you read her chapters in the books and know her inner thoughts, it's not about "adulation" at all. Dany isn't one of the people who are constantly worried about not being loved and respected or always yearning to be loved and respected and powerful (e.g. like Tyrion, who mostly craves adulation, or Cersei, who mostly craves power). It's all about her being disgusted by the way the slaves are being treated, and reacting emotionally by wanting to stop the injustice and atrocities. She is extremely protective of people she feels responsible for. Her major flaws, or problematic aspects of her character, are a tendency to get vengeful and use "fire and blood" against those who have hurt those she cares about or who she sees as the bad guys (although, most of the time so far, they have been very bad guys - I'm referring to the slavers; I didn't see Mirri Maz Duur as a real villain, but I can see why Dany did what she did after what happened to her due to MMD), and a tendency to see things a bit black and white, especially when it comes to Westeros - though, nobody has really tried hard to explain more about it to her. And she's still young and a bit naive in that respect. She also sometimes trusts the wrong people, and - vague/general spoilers for the later book stuff that still hasn't happened in the show
at one point she goes into the other extreme and, afraid that she is becoming a violent vengeful monster, starts making too many compromises, which proves to be a very big mistake.
The first two seasons mostly adapted the first two books, with some material brought forward or delayed here and there, but the third season mostly adapted the first half of the third book, while the fourth season will adapt the second half of the third book and a lot of story elements from the fourth and fifth books.
The plan is for the book series to end at seven books and the TV show to run for at least seven and probably eight seasons. They have to rework a lot of the material as the adaptation enters its later stages as the books become too unwieldy in terms of the number of characters and storylines to directly adapt.
While I agree with you, it seems fairly clear that she is on a journey, and as time passes she becomes less of a silly girl. She learns from her experiences. She does things initially because they make her feel better about herself, and make her feel that she is completely unlike her brother, but when she looks back at what happened she realizes the right and wrong of it.
I feel that by the time she returns, she will be a good person for the right reasons; this is the point of the story not bringing her back with her dragons right now.
So does Stannis. And everyone else who's ever sat on the throne or been vying for a throne, or a lordship, or the position of a khal among the Dothraki. I don't see peasants becoming kings because of their intelligence. There's no democracy in Westeros, or most of Essos. Even in the Free Cities, you have to be from one of the right families to have any political power. The free folk are probably the only ones with a democratic system. (But even among the wildlings, the Thenns have a lordship system more similar to the Seven Kingdoms.)
If you haven't read book 5, you don't, since book 4 and the first 3/4 of book 5 run concurrently. You only know what happens in a half of locations/with half of the characters.
