Season 3: Episode 3 *** Have NOT read the books/SPOILERS ***MOD Note Post#1

Mickeroo

username123 wrote: »

I do get it from the books but this is a thread for non book readers. Im pointing out that its not that clear on the show.

It's clear as day imo. Watch the end of seson 2, look at the dead humans walking then look how the guy on the horse is revealed to the audience, and notice how he's not staring off into space like a mindless zombie nor does he have any signs that he was killed at some point nor is he wearing human clothing. Also why would they give a big reveal to the guy on the horse if he was no different from the ones that were walking? why is he on a horse? why no horses for the guys with half their faces missing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyQhvknxc-8

pixelburp

I haven't read the books and it doesn't take a lot of horsepower to work out the difference between the obviously-mindless zombies (the one that attacked Sam only punctuated that fact) and the creatures in control - the famed White Walkers; it's clear they're the ones in charge & have obvious intelligence & sentience.
Ok sure at no point in the show has anyone stopped, pointed and said for the benefit of the audience "Hey, see those giant blue-eyed monsters? Yeah those are the White Walkers", but happily the show is confident in itself and its audience that it lets us draw our own, fairly logical, conclusions.

Seems like quibbling over particulars to be honest.

username123

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's clear as day imo. Watch the end of seson 2, look at the dead humans walking then look how the guy on the horse is revealed to the audience, and notice how he's not staring off into space like a mindless zombie nor does he have any signs that he was killed at some point nor is he wearing human clothing. Also why would they give a big reveal to the guy on the horse if he was no different from the ones that were walking? why is he on a horse? why no horses for the guys with half their faces missing?

Not to me its not.

In the context of the show - I just thought he was King Zombie (for want of a better term). But I wouldnt distinguish him as different in nature to the other ones - not from that scene anyway.

username123

pixelburp wrote: »

Seems like quibbling over particulars to be honest.

How is this helpful, surely people are allowed to express opinions if they do so respectfully and politely?

It is my opinion that there is not a clear distinction made between WWs and wights in the tv show. I have given some reasons why. Others are free to disagree. Some people feel the same, some dont.

If my opinion is not welcome I guess Ill stop posting here.

Mickeroo

username123 wrote: »

Not to me its not.

In the context of the show - I just thought he was King Zombie (for want of a better term). But I wouldnt distinguish him as different in nature to the other ones - not from that scene anyway.

Well there' no point arguing over it anymore. I hadn't read any of the books when I saw the first two seasons and it was crystal clear to me.

I'm not sure how you thought being deliberately obtuse about something in a bid to get people to say more on the subject was going to help matters if you considered what Blay said a spoiler in the first place tbh.

username123

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not sure how you thought being deliberately obtuse about something in a bid to get people to say more on the subject was going to help matters if you considered what Blay said a spoiler in the first place tbh.

I didnt think what Blay said was a spoiler. I just didnt know how he could assert such a thing from the show - its not obvious IMO.

Sure, we will leave it there - no need for personal abuse though, I was not being "deliberately obtuse" - I simply do not see how it is clear from the show what the difference is.

pixelburp

username123 wrote: »

How is this helpful, surely people are allowed to express opinions if they do so respectfully and politely?

It is my opinion that there is not a clear distinction made between WWs and wights in the tv show. I have given some reasons why. Others are free to disagree. Some people feel the same, some dont.

If my opinion is not welcome I guess Ill stop posting here.

Everyone's being polite, nobody's unwelcome so there's no need to get defensive, opinions work both ways and part of any discussion is the acceptance that not everyone will agree with you and will make that known.

In this case, yes, ultimately this is quibbling over the particulars because the White Walkers are still being portrayed as the off-screen threat. Witness how we never see the slaughter of the Night Watch at their hands: outside of the showy reveal at the end of series 2 we (the audience) are clearly meant to be as in the dark about them & their intensions as those trapped North of the wall. There's enough information around the fringes however to figure out what their story; but beyond that getting het up about it is counter-productive.

If anything, I'd be more irritated with the breakneck pacing & bloated cast-list than how we don't know what genus of monster is dining on the Nights Watch

iamanengine

It seems to me that we're not really meant to be able to make that distinction between the White Walkers and the Wights yet, although I do think there is enough evidence to come to that conclusion before it is more clearly set out for us!

Scuba Ste

iamanengine wrote: »

It seems to me that we're not really meant to be able to make that distinction between the White Walkers and the Wights yet, although I do think there is enough evidence to come to that conclusion before it is more clearly set out for us!

I thought from watching the first two series it was pretty clear there was a difference. I'll have to re-watch some episodes but I thought there were some scenes in which wights and white walkers were discussed as separate entities. Eg. when the wights attacked Mormont and Jon in series 1 they were former NW men. The walkers are never described as former humans.

Dubhlinner

I've read the books so I know the difference, but to be honest I could see loads of viewers missing it.

A big reason is the name "wights". you hear the legends of the white walkers from old nan and the guy in first episode saying he saw white walkers.

Then we see Jon Snow saying "I killed a wight" but the viewer (and I did at the time) thinks he's just saying "a white" as in short for "white walker"

Gbear

This is the very first scene from the first episode:

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

If you compare the way we see the white walker move, the wielding of the sword, the graceful movement and the fact that it tosses the head over at the guy who's later executed by Ned, he clearly looks different to the wights which act much as you would expect zombies to.

It's also really big.

It isn't clear what exactly is going on at this point but the way the white walker acts clearly sets it apart.
They both look like cold dead things but the white walkers are quite distinguishable.

ThirdMan

I was very impressed with last night's episode. I love the slow-burning nature of the show, but after two series' it's nice to see things being turned up a notch. I thought Dany's actions were a little predictable. But it was thrilling nonetheless.

It's tempting to call the series 'cinematic', but that would be doing it a disservice. High quality TV really exists on its own now, and employs its own methodology. Something that Hollywood would do well to employ. I'm re-watching The Sopranos again and it's just such an accomplished piece of work. I feel that Game of Thrones has every chance of becoming as influential.