A Game of Thrones

What are you talking about?
I actually do understand the difference between "for pay" TV versus "broadcast/free" TV.
But my post had nothing to do with that difference.

Since pay cable is the ONLY thing we are talking about here and they CAN show us a "plethora of boobies, full nudity and blood hoses" why on Earth would they treat someone knifing a defenseless canine like it was even too taboo for HBO?

That was my point. Even when a "for pay" cable TV show could technically show us practically ANYTHING it is interesting that being able to show massive violence to other human beings is fine but when it comes to killing a lesser mammal that's apparently too nasty for TV. I was simply commenting on this from a social commentary point of view.

I consider it such. It's a question of innocence for me. For the most part dogs are trusting creatures and I've seen so much abuse in my 30 years of animal rescue that it makes me sick to even think about it. I have the same issues with violence against women as it's portrayed in films and the endangerment of children just for cheap thrills. Victimizing those who are weaker shows a character's... well, character, or lack thereof, but it's gotten to the point where it becomes gratuitous. In Jurassic Park II Spielberg had a humorous bit where the Lab is barking at the noise until he sees it's a T. rex, then hides in his dog house. That was quite funny. But in the next shot, you see that the dinosaur has eaten the dog. That was just pointless and ruined the moment.

That's an entirely different thing, though. Watch some old Westerns (and even some modern-day epics from overseas) and you'll see the most horrific things imaginable done to animals, but especially horses. They used to tie a wire to a horse's front leg and then let them gallop along. When they got to the end of the wire, the horse would be tripped, throwing the rider. This was supposed to emulate the animal being shot, but it's incredibly cruel. Quite often they'd break their legs or necks, and the wrangler would just cut their throats and they'd cart them off once they'd bled to death. For a freaking movie. They still do this in movies in India, China and Europe. It started here because a Henry Fonda film featured a horse who was forced over a cliff to his death. Talk about senseless, man.

No dog or cat or bunny has ever screwed me over the way people have. Some people actually go out of their way to ruin your day. I have no problem going to guns on those folks. But a dog that wants to play fetch or a cat that wants to sit on your lap? Why is it cool or funny to mutilate and murder them?

SPOILERS!!!!!!!





Thematically, it foreshadowed her being cut off from her homeland. Same with Arya, who also lost her direwolf, though significantly Nymeria continued to live and become somewhat of a legend in the Riverlands.

Practically, there were many, many times where having a direwolf devoted to her protection would have been helpful to Sansa.

They ALL float down here. When you're down here with us, you'll float too!

@Starflier

Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers










I really hate spoiling things for people but I have a theory Ive long entertained and havent put on paper. As you watch the Arya/Sansa personalities unfold in the next couple of books Arya seems to become more feral, more A Type personality and Sansa wilts in front of the Lannisters and Kings Landing becoming more of a pawn than anything else.

I think Sansa losing her wolf took from her some innate sense of self that keeps Arya going. Arya's "Starkiness" (for want of a better word) mirrors Nymeria, she leads her pack and becomes focused on survival and revenge. Sansa just loses sight of herself and lets a successive people push her around until she finally finds an identity (maybe)

I think the Wolves are were given to the Stark children so they could do what needs to be done at a very early age. Robb and Greywind, Jon and Ghost, Bran and Summer...etc. The names chosen are prophetic and indicative of a core portion of their personality

--Frog

Thank you!

And yes, he is. I wonder, was the queen's line in the second episode, about her first born son - the one who died - looking like the king, foreshadowing that Prince Whineybritches is the product of... a less common union?

I'm looking very forward to where things go with Danerys(?) - the Kahlesi. She's beginning to realize the power she could potentially have, I just hope it doesn't turn her into an *** like her brother. Though the way they always focus in on the dragon eggs any time she's on screen, I fear that when she "comes out of her shell," she'll be less than pleasant.

ETA: It's weird speculating about things that many people probably already know the answers to.

I have no problem with the idea that the Stark children's relationship with their respective wolves is somehow "linked" to their innate personalities.

But it was already pretty clear from the first TV episode that Arya was going to become more of a strong-willed "tomboy-ish" fighter and Sansa was going to be more of a vain, courtly, self-centered yet subservient princess-type before they even got their wolves as pets. I think the wolves' fates are mirroring the paths of the characters but I'm not sure the wolves directly -caused- them to be the people they were going to become anyway.

I'm not saying your interesting theory is completely wrong because clearly there is meant to be some connection between the children and the wolves. I'm just thinking the wolves are more of a literary reflection of the type of people the children were to begin with instead of being a factor in making them become something they might otherwise not have become. Case in point I think Sansa lost her wolf because she willingly turned against her sister in favor of the Lannisters. She didn't become less "Stark-y" because her wolf died - her wolf died because she turned her back on being a Stark.

I think it's going to be interesting to see how closely this series follows its source books or not.

I know that the HBO True Blood TV series followed the first two Sookie Stackhouse books pretty closely during the first two seasons. But by the time the third season came around the TV show started grasping for material that didn't appear until like the 4th, 5th and 6th books. By the end of the third season the show was still interesting but the gap between "what happened in the books" versus "what was happening in the TV show" was starting to get pretty wide.

I guess time will tell if Game of Thrones starts to diverge like that or not.

I can't say whether they'll end up sticking to the books or not (although I hope they do) but I will say from my experience reading them and watching the show, it already feels like they're doing the bare minimum to fit the story in within an hour block. The books are massive and are filled with all sorts of character stuff.

The show hits the important parts and has done great job at showing the audience what it needs to know about each character so we can connect with them but there's a ton more they could draw from if episodes end up being light. I don't suspect they'll be running out of material anytime soon.

****Spoilers Spoilers Spoiler and more Spoilers*********






All the Stark children except Sansa do remarkable things and show themselves to be of remarkable mettle over the course of the novels....

Sansa is the only one who lets circumstances control her. I really think losing her wolf ties to losing her exceptionalness regardless of what traits are magnified by the wolves.

I could point out examples of how the children act above what one would expect throughout the novel and how Sansa acts "below" what we would expect (especially late in the first novel) but Id rather not spoil things for people.

No, the wolf-link is what separates the children from the masses and makes them exceptional. Lady's death will be Sansas doom.

--Frog

Again I'm not questioning the wolf-link. I'm questioning your interpretation of the cause and effect relationship between them.

I don't think Sansa is a weak-willed person who lets "circumstances control her" BECAUSE she lost her wolf.
I think she lost her wolf BECAUSE she is an innately weak-willed person who lets "circumstances control her".

Once again remember that even during the brief bit of time we see Sansa -before- she got her wolf it's fairly clear (at least it was to me) what kind of "less than exceptional" character she was going to be. She wasn't "Stark-y" enough before she got the wolf, so thematically speaking her disloyal actions towards her sister effectively led to the loss of the wolf because she wasn't worthy of it to begin with.

The wolves are a reflection of the characters they are bonded to. Not the other way around.

Well in all fairness the HBO True Blood TV series has also ignored huge portions of the Stackhouse books so far. Yes they started to grab plot points that didn't come up until the later books earlier than expected. But technically they didn't -have- to do that. There was more than enough interesting material there that the TV show could have kept tight to the story presented in the books season to season and still been a fun show.

So my curiosity still stands: Will the Game of Thrones TV series stick to the linear plot presented in its source books forever or will it begin to "cherry-pick" bits of the story from different parts of the books to weave a reformulated version? Either way I'd expect it to be an interesting show.

Well part of those reasons in True Blood is because the Sookie books are all told from her perspective and there is nothing really told about what's going on "off scene" so more side plots needed to be added (or pulled from further down the line) or some of the actors would have been completely missing from entire seasons or demoted to cameos. Also I think after the first season, certain actors and characters were given expanded duties due to popularity and awesomeness and in some cases "reprives".

Yes these are valid points. For example Lafayette was only given about 2 pages of "coverage" in the books before he was killed off. Obviously he's been given more of a role in the TV show.

But I could see the same types of things steering Game of Thrones too. The books this show is based on may be very good, but there's really no guarantee that they will be able to translate it directly into a great screenplay word for word. As Cassie_Storm mentioned they are already having to "highlight" the main points of the story to fit within the hour episodes. The longer this show keeps going the chances that it'll evolve into its own "reworking" of the story to fit the confines of TV will only increase.

I suppose the only real question is how quickly it evolves and whether the people making it can keep it organized enough to be a good show -despite- the books.

I counted three major scenes in the last episode that did not appear in the book -- the scene of Robert, Selmy Barristan, and Jaime recounting their first kills, Jaime and Cersei discussing what to do now that Bran is awake, and Cersei tutoring Jeoffrey on how to be a "good" king.

I think we'll continue to see more of these kinds of scenes since the show isn't married to the book's strict PoV structure. For the show, they are important character-building moments. However, I predict the show will continue to be very faithful to the main story elements of the bookk.

I disagree with you disagreeing I guess is where we're at then

I think youre missing my point about what the wolves mean to the children, and I imagine Im explaining it really poorly as well. Suffice it to say theres obviously a mystical aspect that hasnt been touched on in the show or the novels (cmon a Stag, the symbol of Baratheon, piercing the throat out of a Direwolf, while the puppies all live through the birth in identical numbers as the Stark children) Then add the novels version of Brans recovery that he seems stronger when the wolves are howling...

Then add Sansa's wishywashyness, Arya, Jon, Robbs, and Brans exploits and its obvious (to me at least) theres something there. Heck I imagine Rickon is probably somewhere gathering a shaggy haired army at the age of 4....

Enjoying the series

--Frog

Nice!

Tyrion is easily one of my favorite characters of the show so far. His swaggering hyper-confidence despite his physical "disadvantage" brings a smile to my face whenever I see him on screen.

I'm pretty sure I'm not missing the point that there's an apparent "mystical aspect" between the wolves and the children. Heck I ran a D&D campaign about 25 years ago that basically explored this same kind of connection between wolves and the characters involved so I'm no stranger to the general concept. Maybe Martin stole MY idea in the first place.

I just see the wolves in this story REFLECTING the general aspect and personality of their owners, not the other way around. The wolves are an expression of the children's overall "Starkiness". The wolves are not the SOURCE of their overall "Starkiness". Sansa lacked a connection with her inner Stark from the beginning so she lost the privilege of having a wolf. If her wolf was the "source" of being a strong willed Stark then why was she "wishywashy" disloyal to her sister while her wolf was STILL ALIVE. She was weak-willed DESPITE her wolf, not because she lost it.

There are five baby Dire wolves just because there happens to be five Stark children. The wolves exist to provide a tangible thematic link to the "mystical" Stark family legacy. The five kids don't exist because the baby wolves were the "main characters" of the story before the kids existed. The wolves are howling because Bran's recovering - he's not recovering because they are howling.

I think you understand the mystical wolf-link thing going on here. I just remain convinced you have the cause-and-effect relationship between them backwards. Maybe the ironic part is that the story apparently works regardless of which way you think the link works.

For real?