Season 4; Episode 1: 'Two Swords': *Have NOT* Read the Books MOD NOTE POST #

Mickeroo

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Yeah, that's the bit that kinda threw me. I mean, are they actually uniting? Where is Jon getting that number from? I know we saw the scene where the cannibals met with the red-headed girl and her people, but that's just two tribes. Had there been mention of there being loads more before and that they might unite? And what do they want exactly or what's their purpose for going to war?

Sorry, I would Google all of this, but I'm afraid to stick anything GoT related into the search engine! I also can hardly remember some stuff from the last 3 seasons!

Tormund (the big beardy guy) is a leader of a tribe himself iirc. I'm not sure I remember what tribes have been mentioned in the show so far but they were already shown to have united at the start of season 3 more or less when you get the glimpse of the massive camp with the giants and everything.

Their purpose is simply to get south of the wall to try and escape the white walkers and that.

Burt Macklin

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Yeah, that's the bit that kinda threw me. I mean, are they actually uniting? Where is Jon getting that number from? I know we saw the scene where the cannibals met with the red-headed girl and her people, but that's just two tribes. Had there been mention of there being loads more before and that they might unite? And what do they want exactly or what's their purpose for going to war?

Sorry, I would Google all of this, but I'm afraid to stick anything GoT related into the search engine! I also can hardly remember some stuff from the last 3 seasons!

The game of thrones wiki is useful for little bits of info like that.
http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Free_Folk

It only covers the show and doesn't post any spoilers for future events. In fact there is an entirely separate wiki for the books (a wiki of ice and fire).

The Game of Thrones one updates from the last episode aired, so don't consult it if you aren't up to date. Obviously don't mix those two wikis up either or risk major spoilers.

Also there is no comments on any of the pages so its safer than youtube or facebook.

DL Saint

Watched the episode twice now. I enjoyed it more the second time for some reason. Probably because you can pick up on more smaller details.

One thing that I think may be significant is the necklace that Sir Dontos has given Sansa. It is a beautiful necklace with a fine history. Wasn't Olenna looking for a magnificent necklace for Margaery to wear for the wedding? If said necklace ends up around her neck how will a (presumably drunk) Sir Dontos react to this? and what may the repercussions be?

Have to say the final scene with Arya and The Hound couldn't have been more enjoyable to watch. Can see that scene being a popular clip on Youtube very soon.

ShaggyQueen

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I thought he was just telling her that she needs to realize that they can't totally be tamed and that there needs to be a boundary between herself and them. But maybe it is a foreshadowing that she loses control of them or something.

I think I'd like her if there was more action. So much of her storyline is them just walking to different places and her right-hand man being thoroughly friendzoned. She hasn't faced any true adversity in her travels yet, whereas a lot of other characters are encountering problems all over the place. Her journey just seems a bit smooth and uneventful compared to others.

Don't know about that, she was lost in desert and lost her husband and his army. Her brother wasn't exactly the kindest man in the world and she nearly lost everything in Qarth. Not exactly plain sailing either

duploelabs

snausages wrote: »

No, I'm saying if you're casting actors don't hire pornstars. Shea is a former pornstar, hence her crapness

David Ducovney is an alright actor

evil_seed

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I thought he was just telling her that she needs to realize that they can't totally be tamed and that there needs to be a boundary between herself and them. But maybe it is a foreshadowing that she loses control of them or something.

I think I'd like her if there was more action. So much of her storyline is them just walking to different places and her right-hand man being thoroughly friendzoned. She hasn't faced any true adversity in her travels yet, whereas a lot of other characters are encountering problems all over the place. Her journey just seems a bit smooth and uneventful compared to others.

I took it as more symbolism towards the freed slaves/army. She might be their mother (misa) but she won't be able to control them the way she expects/wants to

thefa

connollys wrote: »

sorry if this was already covered, havent read the entire thread but was it explained who Tywin had the second sword made for? One was noticeably shorter than the other. Maybe he is softening toward Tyrion? Or did he keep the large one himself and Jamie get a smaller one to use with his weaker arm?

Jaime comments how it's good to have a valyrian steel sword in the family or something along those lines. Tywin says the Lannisters now have two. I believe he's including Joffrey as a Lannister rather than implying Cersei or Tyrion will get it.

John_D80

Gbear wrote: »

I genuinely love the phonetic spellings you get from people who don't get to see the names written down.

Glad I could be of service. Wish I was as easily entertained!!! Sorry to disappoint you though, it was a typo. I read the first book way way back in the late 90's!!!

Chet T16

When reading these threads I sometimes need to Google image the names to see who people are talking about

Bacchus

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think I'd like her if there was more action. So much of her storyline is them just walking to different places and her right-hand man being thoroughly friendzoned. She hasn't faced any true adversity in her travels yet, whereas a lot of other characters are encountering problems all over the place. Her journey just seems a bit smooth and uneventful compared to others.

I too would like to see a bit of a shake-up of her story. It has progressed well over the 3 seasons but another siege on another slave city seems a bit repetitive at this point.

However, she's been through LOADs of adversity so far....
- Brother sold her to a savage who raped her repeatedly
- After finally turning that situation to her advantage, he dies and she's abandoned in the desert with no food, water or shelter
- Her followers were slaughtered and her dragons stolen from her in Quath
- She was temporarily held hostage by the warlocks (who are still after her... wonder will they come back into it soon?)
- She quite skilfully dealt with the slave army liberation

Since then she has freed a bunch of cities and things have been going better for her, which is why I hope something new is done with her soon. I doubt it will happen this season but I really hope at the end of season 4, she'll be on a boat with her army heading for Westeros.

Da Shins Kelly

Bacchus wrote: »

I too would like to see a bit of a shake-up of her story. It has progressed well over the 3 seasons but another siege on another slave city seems a bit repetitive at this point.

However, she's been through LOADs of adversity so far....
- Brother sold her to a savage who raped her repeatedly
- After finally turning that situation to her advantage, he dies and she's abandoned in the desert with no food, water or shelter
- Her followers were slaughtered and her dragons stolen from her in Quath
- She was temporarily held hostage by the warlocks (who are still after her... wonder will they come back into it soon?)
- She quite skilfully dealt with the slave army liberation

Since then she has freed a bunch of cities and things have been going better for her, which is why I hope something new is done with her soon. I doubt it will happen this season but I really hope at the end of season 4, she'll be on a boat with her army heading for Westeros.

I realise all those things have happened, I just haven't found it particularly exciting. When I say she hasn't faced much difficulty, I mean since the dragons, it all just seems like she can't really be defeated. Any difficulty she does face never seems like it could truly upset the balance, and that it will eventually be resolved in her favour. There was that guy that was trying to take one of her dragons off her, and you just knew that was never going to work.

When you compare it to the fortune of the Starks, where it was always kinda up in the air about what would happen, her story has been comparatively easy to predict.

Artful_Badger

Has Game of Thrones gone too far? Scene involving group of prostitutes at start of new series shocks fans

Daily Mail headline

Is that the dumbest thing you've ever seen or what ? Game of Thrones fans shocked by naked prostitutes ?

calex71

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Daily Mail headline

Is that the dumbest thing you've ever seen or what ? Game of Thrones fans shocked by naked prostitutes ?

I'd be shocked if they were not naked :pac:

snausages

I wish GoT had more naked men tbh, because there is a bit of a gender imbalance. More male nudity would be ace.

Da Shins Kelly

Yeah, the gratuitous amount of female nudity that seems to be included for no apparent reason except to be titillating is kinda irksome. It's typical HBO though.

username123

snausages wrote: »

I wish GoT had more naked men tbh, because there is a bit of a gender imbalance. More male nudity would be ace.

I'm with you! Tormund Giantsbane, get them off you boy!

snausages

username123 wrote: »

I'm with you! Tormund Giantsbane, get them off you boy!

I don't know who that is but I hope he's got an impressive beard.

naughto

snausages wrote: »

I wish GoT had more naked men tbh, because there is a bit of a gender imbalance. More male nudity would be ace.

a no there be none of that
the nudity is for the ladies only
sure joe would have a field day on live line if there was

ShaggyQueen

naughto wrote: »

a no there be none of that
the nudity is for the ladies only
sure joe would have a field day on live line if there was

Did you not see Hodor in the earlier season, big man :pac:

Liam O

snausages wrote: »

I wish GoT had more naked men tbh, because there is a bit of a gender imbalance. More male nudity would be ace.

I hate reading things like this, the justification for it being that GoT has a lot of female and gay fans so you have to start telling the story differently just because they want to see some dicks. They already overdo it on the sex scenes that could go to giving characters more exposure.

snausages

Liam O wrote: »

I hate reading things like this, the justification for it being that GoT has a lot of female and gay fans so you have to start telling the story differently just because they want to see some dicks. They already overdo it on the sex scenes that could go to giving characters more exposure.

But that's what I want. More exposure. Of the male variety.

GerB40

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Daily Mail headline

Is that the dumbest thing you've ever seen or what ? Game of Thrones fans shocked by naked prostitutes ?

Maybe the daily mail should look back on the royal families of Britain (which really happened) who starved cousins to death, murdered brothers to gain the throne, massacred millions to show strength, kings who raped commoners because they could, destroyed crops to basically eradicate unruly subjects, used slavery an the norm and lest we forget, inbred for generations.

Game Of Thrones if FICTION!!! Never happened.

How the fúck The Daily Mail is even considered relevant any more is beyond me.

GerB40

Liam O wrote: »

I hate reading things like this, the justification for it being that GoT has a lot of female and gay fans so you have to start telling the story differently just because they want to see some dicks. They already overdo it on the sex scenes that could go to giving characters more exposure.

Any gay scenes in the show more than likely happened in the books. In the books some of the "sword swallowing" is alluded to but most are hardcore sausage fests... Whether you like it or not, the show writers are following the books and shît that GRRM writes will usually happen in the show..

Liam O

GerB40 wrote: »

Any gay scenes in the show more than likely happened in the books. In the books some of the "sword swallowing" is alluded to but most are hardcore sausage fests... Whether you like it or not, the show writers are following the books and shît that GRRM writes will usually happen in the show..

Even though they likely happened in the books it's still wasting time, the same with a lot of female sex scenes. It's the same as the books overusing of food description, it seems the show can't go an episode with a sex scene that's pointless and just there to make the show more edgy. The nudity is so forced and inorganic, the actresses are more than likely porn actresses incapable of anything other than OTT facial expressions and stupid walks. It jars when you have such good acting from a lot of other characters including actual meaningful nude scenes, just throwing in over gratuitous scenes where whore x does this cheapens the show for me once you get over the "boooooobies" phase.

username123

Liam O wrote: »

Even though they likely happened in the books it's still wasting time, the same with a lot of female sex scenes. It's the same as the books overusing of food description, it seems the show can't go an episode with a sex scene that's pointless and just there to make the show more edgy. The nudity is so forced and inorganic, the actresses are more than likely porn actresses incapable of anything other than OTT facial expressions and stupid walks. It jars when you have such good acting from a lot of other characters including actual meaningful nude scenes, just throwing in over gratuitous scenes where whore x does this cheapens the show for me once you get over the "boooooobies" phase.

Have to disagree with you there Liam O, I like a bit of gratuitous sex on the telly meself.

iamanengine

Yes I don't think I ever get I get over the 'booooobies' phase

kronsington

Can we get back to talking about the actual episode rather than who wants to see some cock etc

naughto

kronsington wrote: »

Can we get back to talking about the actual episode rather than who wants to see some cockbooooobiesetc

fixed that for you

duploelabs

kronsington wrote: »

Can we get back to talking about the actual episode rather than who wants to see some cock etc

It's all the sword metaphors

username123

And the Hound kept talking about "C*nts".

Da Shins Kelly

Liam O wrote: »

Even though they likely happened in the books it's still wasting time, the same with a lot of female sex scenes. It's the same as the books overusing of food description, it seems the show can't go an episode with a sex scene that's pointless and just there to make the show more edgy. The nudity is so forced and inorganic, the actresses are more than likely porn actresses incapable of anything other than OTT facial expressions and stupid walks. It jars when you have such good acting from a lot of other characters including actual meaningful nude scenes, just throwing in over gratuitous scenes where whore x does this cheapens the show for me once you get over the "boooooobies" phase.

I agree. It's totally meaningless and a waste of time, and the fact that it's pretty much always women taking their clothes off for no other reason other than for the viewing pleasure of men is pretty unfair too. It's also a pretty well-known fact that HBO demand a lot of gratuitous nudity in their programming. The writer of True Detective said that they told him he had to meet a certain level of nudity in that show, which of course meant that the female characters had to strip (God forbid Woody Harrelson or Matthew McConaughey got naked!). Neil Marshall who directed for Game of Thrones also said that he was specifically told to shoehorn scenes with nudity into the show by an executive who said he was "representing the pervert side of the audience".

I don't mind nudity and sex in a show if it serves a purpose, but this attitude of including it simply to titillate is quite cynical. The fact that it's almost invariably women doing it too makes it seem a little bit sexist and pretty much catering to the male gaze.

I still like the show, but it's something that does irk me quite a bit, especially since it's done very much with an agenda by HBO.

snausages

The only stuff that makes me very uncomfortable is the rapey stuff, and this episode had quite a bit of that. I get why it's there, but I don't think so much of it is necessary. It's very unpleasant viewing, very off-putting.

lynski

I know this is a no-book thread but i will only say there is lots of sex in the books too - consensual, and non, and straight and non.

iamanengine

It seems like it's down to HBO and not GoT so to speak, while boobs are great I'd rather they spend more time progressing the story!

snausages

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

username123

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

A world where people live by the sword would be very rapey though.

Did you watch "Rome"? That was rapey too.

Gbear

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

We see these things not because it's necessary to advance the plot, but because you can't take them out and have the story remain logically consistent.

It's like saying "we got the idea with the costumes so they should change to jeans now".
Changing or ignoring the way women are treated makes no more sense then moving out of the time period, changing their clothes, their accents or anything else that makes the world what it is.

youreadthat

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I agree. It's totally meaningless and a waste of time, and the fact that it's pretty much always women taking their clothes off for no other reason other than for the viewing pleasure of men is pretty unfair too. It's also a pretty well-known fact that HBO demand a lot of gratuitous nudity in their programming. The writer of True Detective said that they told him he had to meet a certain level of nudity in that show, which of course meant that the female characters had to strip (God forbid Woody Harrelson or Matthew McConaughey got naked!). Neil Marshall who directed for Game of Thrones also said that he was specifically told to shoehorn scenes with nudity into the show by an executive who said he was "representing the pervert side of the audience".

I don't mind nudity and sex in a show if it serves a purpose, but this attitude of including it simply to titillate is quite cynical. The fact that it's almost invariably women doing it too makes it seem a little bit sexist and pretty much catering to the male gaze.

I still like the show, but it's something that does irk me quite a bit, especially since it's done very much with an agenda by HBO.

Hey, they owe us straight guys a lot of tittie as compensation for that gay blowjob slurping in season 1 or 2. :mad:

snausages

Gbear wrote: »

We see these things not because it's necessary to advance the plot, but because you can't take them out and have the story remain logically consistent.

It's like saying "we got the idea with the costumes so they should change to jeans now".
Changing or ignoring the way women are treated makes no more sense then moving out of the time period, changing their clothes, their accents or anything else that makes the world what it is.

So you're saying if they cut the scene where the woman in the bar was being groped people would suddenly not be able to believe the world anymore? That's absurd.

Gbear

snausages wrote: »

So you're saying if they cut the scene where the woman in the bar was being groped people would suddenly not be able to believe the world anymore? That's absurd.

If there's a woman in the presence of scumbags like the Moutain's men and there's nobody to protect them, they're going to be sexually assaulted.

If you want to take it out of the show you have to remove all women from these scenes.

You're changing the story in service of squeamishness.
If they were parachuting in women into places where you wouldn't expect to see them then that would be tits for the sake of tits but there's nothing off about the inn keeper having a daughter.

Da Shins Kelly

iamanengine wrote: »

It seems like it's down to HBO and not GoT so to speak, while boobs are great I'd rather they spend more time progressing the story!

It completely is down to HBO, if you're to believe the writers and directors who have worked for them. I really like HBO and the kind of people and programming they give a platform to, and I think they make amazing decisions about what shows they give chances to, but knowing that they actively push nudity (and almost exclusively of the female variety) for no artistic reason is a little disheartening. The quality of the writing and acting, etc. of the shows they produce should and can speak for themselves.

December2012

Groping and talk of rape is not there to titillate - it's meant to make you feel uncomfortable. It's meant to show you what war really brings. And the books are full of that kind of descriptions too.

Liam O

snausages wrote: »

The only stuff that makes me very uncomfortable is the rapey stuff, and this episode had quite a bit of that. I get why it's there, but I don't think so much of it is necessary. It's very unpleasant viewing, very off-putting.

Em, that's the stuff that is necessary. To show the nature of a lot of men in the show. The amount of time spent with whores in the Kings Landing brothels has been way too much, even introducing a lead whore character just for that purpose. Why not introduce another character relevant to the story which as a book reader I obviously wont say but there have been plenty left out.

snausages

Yes, I understand the narrative justification for those scenes. In fact I already mentioned it myself in my original post, so I really don't need people explaining it to me. But that doesn't mean there needs to be so many of these scenes. I don't think the show would lose much by toning down some of its content. That's not puritanism.

Da Shins Kelly

The rapey stuff I get - that's a real danger women in the story face.

It's the endless prostitute parades, women just standing there with no clothes on for no reason or performing sexual acts while the men talk about 'important' stuff that irritates me.

Gbear

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

(and almost exclusively of the female variety)

Phew... I just nearly weed myself when I realised this is the non-book thread.:o

Thankfully nothing was said so for safety's sake I'll bugger off.

GerB40

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

The author of the books (George R R Martin) based the whole story on real life events, mainly the war of the roses. Those days were extremely violent, very "rapey" and, disregarding the magic, basically like what you see on game of thrones.
Sometimes the story seems to go too far but in reality most of it actually happened.

GerB40

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

You should give Lord of the Rings a watch. It might not hurt your sensitivities so much and there's far less rapey moments in it. Just to warn you, there is some blood so you mightn't want to watch it on your own.

Paddy Cow

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

There are some good guys in Westeros. Tywin basically told Tyrion to rape Sansa if that's what it would take to get a child out of her. Thankfully Tyrion is not like that.

username123

Paddy Cow wrote: »

There are some good guys in Westeros. Tywin basically told Tyrion to rape Sansa if that's what it would take to get a child out of her. Thankfully Tyrion is not like that.

And Jamie Lannister could have just let Locke rape Brienne. He lost a hand for that.