Season 4 Episode 3 "Breaker of Chains": *HAVE NOT NOT NOT* read the books

Michael D Not Higgins

norrie rugger wrote: »

Everyone pictures this taking place in England-ish location. Weird given that some kind of Old Europe, with all the different cultures in closish proximity would be better but, as the books as the common language in the books and series is English, we all this Northerners equates to Northern England and the wall keeping the wild red haired scottish out (with the walkers being from Glasgow?)

The white walkers are the junkies.

Seriously though, there are parallels with ancient Europe. The dothraki could be seen as the Mongol horde. The Westeros people as English. Iron Islands as Vikings.

Artful_Badger

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The white walkers are the junkies.

Seriously though, there are parallels with ancient Europe. The dothraki could be seen as the Mongol horde. The Westeros people as English. Iron Islands as Vikings.

I'd imagine its all based on actual world layout and historical wars.

And there's countless fantasy series that run along the same lines. There's always the capital with the manoeuvring families, the lords in the country, the savages that live in the desert wastelands, the oddballs that live on the islands, the mysterious kingdoms across the sea and quite often a group charged with manning a wall, gap or fort protecting it all from barbarians or monsters at the edge of the world.

Well established fantasy structure really.

Naydy

Artful_Badger wrote: »

My big worry is that all this outrage is based on his actual character development in the books beyond what's already happened and this scene going against that and not his character development in the series.

I haven't read the books and am going by what I've seen in the show so far. I don't like Jaime much, he is a pretty despicable character in many ways (pushing Bran, murdering that other Lannister in Robb's camp). But he seems completely devoted and loyal to Cersei no matter what she does. As disturbing as his relationship with Cersei is, you never see him cheating on her like she does with Lancel and he goes as far as murdering solely to return to her. He genuinely seems to love her in his own way. That's why it seems out of place to me.

Mind you, if it really does go against whats happened in the books, that raises another question of why on earth they'd would deviate it other than for simple shock value. Seems unnecessary when the incest/their dead child being right there aspect of the whole thing was more than shocking enough.

norrie rugger

Because they made a balls of the shooting of it. The meaning was not meant to be that of a rape

Artful_Badger

I'm done talking about it now anyway, I'm getting worried with the amount of times I've typed rape. << >>

designbydan

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm done talking about it now anyway, I'm getting worried with the amount of times I've typed rape. << >>

Not nearly enough.

K_user

Settle down, this is a long one! :P

Bacchus wrote: »

Brienne was getting raped either way. The Boltons would probably have preferred a fight. He was trying to help her. It was a key point in his redemption arc showing a more complex side to Jamie that wasn't seen in Season 1. He's a killer and he is incestuous but he's actually a fairly moral man by Westeros standards and his journey with Brienne was a period of growth for him. It wasn't just one scene saving Brienne from rape. It was everything.

Moral is a strange word to use in relation to Jamie.

Ned was moral. Rob was moral. Tywin, as odd as it seems, is moral. But Jamie? He's confused, easily lead in many ways. I'd go with loyal over moral.

I've said it here before, I believe that Jamie and Cersei bring out the worst in each other. Their secrets, their relationship, their co-dependence, it spins things out of control. And I don't believe that Jamie is the dominant by any means.

Cersei is like her father, and like Tyrion. She thrives in the manipulations at court. She has spies, she has plans and she is always pushing for more power.

Jamie is a man of action. He has a reputation. He prided himself on his skills with the sword. He is to be feared because he is a noble, from the richest house, who could kill almost any man in a face to face fight.

Take Jamie away from Kings Landing, and place him with Brienne and there is a change in him. For a while they were all that they had. They were comrades. Thats were his loyalty levels kick in. For that sort while he would died for her. Because that is what soldier comrades do.

Put Jamie back with his father, his sister, the vipers nest that is Kings landing and old habits, survival habits, return.

That cockiness that he had for seasons 1-3.5 is back. Look at how he tackled Loras. He is now a Lannister, again.

Bacchus wrote: »

He went back for her to save her from the bear too remember (what an odd sentence )

Bacchus wrote: »

We all agree, he is a killer, but he is a soldier. He was trained to kill. He killed Neds men cause they fought for him, Ned being a traitor at the time. Pushing Bran off the tower is probably the most evil thing he's done but his character has grown since then.

Very true. He's a soldier. To him ambushing Ned was a natural reaction on hearing of his brother being captured. But he wasn't thinking like his father. He was thinking with his sword. He knew that Ned couldn't harm him. Not in Kings Landing. He also knew that he could flee the city if it all went wrong. Which he did.

The same thing happened with Bran. He was thinking with his other sword. Again he was certain that nothing would happen to him, and if it all got messy he could flee.

He is fueled by reaction, he is not a rationalist.

Now put him in his current situation. The woman he loves has rejected him. He is no longer the swordsman that he once was. His son has just died and he can't react like a father. His brother, with whom he is very close, is in prison. And his own father is trying to force him out of the Kings guard and marry off his sister/lover.

He reacted. He was overly forceful. Totally in character.

Bacchus wrote: »

But this is the exact thing right there. He is no angel, noone will argue that but he has developed as a character since his journey with Brienne. To make out that scene to be a rape doesn't fit with that arc. Since we know too that the director wasn't going for "rape" we know he wasn't meant to be portrayed in that way, which makes it even more obvious this wasn't meant to be a step backward for his character. It was supposed to be 2 fcuked up siblings giving in to what they both wanted.

The connection with Brienne was the start of his path to redemption IMO. You can see it even in the comments for each episode. Jamie has grown to be a more and more likeable character. This was out of place with Jamie 2.0 And, as I said just above, the scene wasn't supposed to have been a rape but they managed to film one anyway. So his character was not meant to have regressed like this.

Most well written characters, like people, aren't all evil, or all good.

Jamie's arc is taking him to a more sympathetic place. But people don't have straight trajectories. Its two steps forward, one step back.

Look at the Hound. A scary man at first sight. Had no trouble killing the butchers boy. Yet saved Sansa. Saved Loras. Saved Arya - for a price. Had no problems attempting to kill a farmer for his cart. Talked about having a code when it came to stealing from the Lannisters, but bet up a farmer for his money. His arc is also taking him to a more sympathetic place. But he's still the same man.

Changing Jamie too quickly would take away the realism.

As for what the director wanted. Novels and film often portray one thing and the audience interpret it another way.

He was going for forceful sex between two consenting adults. At the body of their son. But from an outsiders perspective it looked like rape. Again as I've said already, its not a huge leap to imagine that forceful sex is common between these two strong characters. So in that sense, we've learned something and were made somewhat uncomfortable.

Bacchus wrote: »

In summary: Rape and worse happen on this show all the time. It is at times unsettling but that's par for the course on GoT. The problem I (and I suspect others) have with the "rape" was not that it was shocking but that it did not fit with how Jamie has developed as a character. Add to that the comments from the director and GRR Martin himself, and it's clear it wasn't supposed to have been a rape.

Personally I think its more disturbing watching a young girl slowly push a sword through a mans throat - and I'm willing to believe most people got a sense of satisfaction from that, including me!

Dan_Solo

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'd imagine its all based on actual world layout and historical wars.

And there's countless fantasy series that run along the same lines. There's always the capital with the manoeuvring families, the lords in the country, the savages that live in the desert wastelands, the oddballs that live on the islands, the mysterious kingdoms across the sea and quite often a group charged with manning a wall, gap or fort protecting it all from barbarians or monsters at the edge of the world.

Well established fantasy structure really.

I know I'll get slaughtered by hardcore fans here but GoT (and presumably ASOIAF) are about as tropish as fantasy gets.

Dan_Solo

K_user wrote: »

Personally I think its more disturbing watching a young girl slowly push a sword through a mans throat - and I'm willing to believe most people got a sense of satisfaction from that, including me!

I would've thought the boy getting the sword in the throat which that was "revenge" for would be considered more disturbing?
Didn't see any worldwide outcry when that happened!

Bacchus

A well put together post and a good interpretation of Jamie. I won't argue with that. I love that Jamie is such a complex character now and you summarized it quite well.

The key thing for me though is this...

He reacted. He was overly forceful. Totally in character.

If THAT was all that happened and it portrayed that way, yes I can see it. It'd have been a messed up, hateful, lustful, incestuous thing and it fits.

However, what we were given was a rape and for Jamie (and his relationship with Cersei) that just seemed out of place. Mostly this is down to the directors fault. It wasn't an "OMG THEY'RE BUMPING UGLIES NEXT TO THEIR DEAD SON" moment, it was an... "eh.. is he raping her?" moment. The context wasn't clear and it's just made Jamie into an evil fcuker again, as opposed to a... morally grey character. This is mostly annoying because the scene was not meant to do this and now the character is in a weird place. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

designbydan

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'd imagine its all based on actual world layout and historical wars.

It's based on the war of the roses.

He's mentioned the books he took his inspiration from before and they're historical accounts of what happened, I haven't read them but apparently much worse stuff went on then is on GOT, (not counting dragons & magic obviously)

snausages

So I'm looking forward to seeing where they take Tywin and Joffrey Jr's story. As much as I like GoT some of the relationships between characters feel very, very unrealistic, to the point that some of the more 'heartfelt' moments feel hammy and contrived. I want to see the new guy getting mentored by Tywin. It's rare you get to see Tywin as the wisened old patriarch that he is. He's fast becoming my favourite character in the show, and Tyrion is becoming one of my least favourite.

Just hope that they don't go and kill him now

Dan_Solo

Bacchus wrote: »

However, what we were given was a rape and for Jamie (and his relationship with Cersei) that just seemed out of place. Mostly this is down to the directors fault. It wasn't an "OMG THEY'RE BUMPING UGLIES NEXT TO THEIR DEAD SON" moment, it was an... "eh.. is he raping her?" moment. The context wasn't clear and it's just made Jamie into an evil fcuker again, as opposed to a... morally grey character. This is mostly annoying because the scene was not meant to do this and now the character is in a weird place. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

I still don't get why Jamie is now "grey". He's a nasty sh1t and the only thing he ever did in the whole series which wasn't crappy was not immediately killing someone who saved his life as soon as they got to King's Landing. He simply didn't have the opportunity to do much evil stuff while he was captive, and he still managed to break his own cousin's face open to make an escape bid.

K_user

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I would've thought the boy getting the sword in the throat which that was "revenge" for would be considered more disturbing?
Didn't see any worldwide outcry when that happened!

Well that was a hard foot soldier, cruel, and somewhat stupid, doing what we suspect his type are capable of.

Ayra is a well educated young girl, of noble birth, who took an awful lot of pleasure in her revenge.

Great scene. But disturbing in its detail.

Dan_Solo

K_user wrote: »

Well that was a hard foot soldier, cruel, and somewhat stupid, doing what we suspect his type are capable of.

Ayra is a well educated young girl, of noble birth, who took an awful lot of pleasure in her revenge.

Great scene. But disturbing in its detail.

Different perspective I suppose. I'd be more upset to see kids murdered by adults than the other way around!

K_user

Bacchus wrote: »

A well put together post and a good interpretation of Jamie. I won't argue with that. I love that Jamie is such a complex character now and you summarized it quite well.

The key thing for me though is this...



If THAT was all that happened and it portrayed that way, yes I can see it. It'd have been a messed up, hateful, lustful, incestuous thing and it fits.

However, what we were given was a rape and for Jamie (and his relationship with Cersei) that just seemed out of place. Mostly this is down to the directors fault. It wasn't an "OMG THEY'RE BUMPING UGLIES NEXT TO THEIR DEAD SON" moment, it was an... "eh.. is he raping her?" moment. The context wasn't clear and it's just made Jamie into an evil fcuker again, as opposed to a... morally grey character. This is mostly annoying because the scene was not meant to do this and now the character is in a weird place. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

Don't get me wrong, I like Jamie. He's an interesting character.

It wasn't a nice scene. And that does seem to be done to editing. But I'm sure next week he'll be back on the right track!

K_user

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Different perspective I suppose. I'd be more upset to see kids murdered by adults than the other way around!

Neither is good!

designbydan

K_user wrote: »

Neither is good!

They're both great !

Hazys

Did anybody else go "Joeffrey has a brother"? WTF? when did this happen?

Artful_Badger

Hazys wrote: »

Did anybody else go "Joeffrey has a brother"? WTF? when did this happen?

Not really. He's got a brother and sister. They've featured in it a good bit.

MadYaker

I enjoyed that. The scene with Tyrion and Pod was sad though. It will be interesting to see how he's going to talk his way out of that one. I'm also bared of the fat man and his wildling girlfriend, but I'm guessing is going to be significant in the future or else they would just leave him out.

The way littlefinger talks is still very annoying. Sansa is probably better off with him that in kings landing but id say its still not a great situation for her.

Dan_Solo

One scene I'm not really happy about is that "duel of champions" in front of the city Daenarys was about to liberate. I was under the impression that thrown weapons were pretty much bad form for this kind of combat. If anything it would make the guys in the city more irate rather than convince them that the army before them had better warriors.
I mean, anybody with a bow and arrow wins those duels every time then!

MadYaker

To be fair the other guy was on a horse and had a lance. I think he was just evening out the playing field by removing the horse from the equation.

Artful_Badger

MadYaker wrote: »

To be fair the other guy was on a horse and had a lance. I think he was just evening out the playing field by removing the horse from the equation.

Daario was offered a horse though and he declined. Was a pretty crap duel of champions in fairness. But I suppose if the other guy was worth his salt he shouldn't be so easily defeated by a man with a dagger.

norrie rugger

he did not throw the weapon at the other combatant just his horse

Dan_Solo

norrie rugger wrote: »

he did not throw the weapon at the other combatant just his horse

Er, that just makes it worse!

Degag

Grimebox wrote: »

Well Oberyn will get his revenge to an extent by being gifted The Mountain, to torture and murder I assume.

I don't think he'll be gifted The Mountain, there will probably be some sort of duel.

Duckworth_Luas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Er, that just makes it worse!

Dan_Solo

Different situation. If you just want to kill the other guy there's other ways of doing that.
If you want to have a single combat then it's always gotta be hand to hand. Otherwise you may as well just have your own archers cut him to pieces with no duel and say "Look, we're better than you!".

Eoghan S

But if you can look cool AND defeat the champion in front of his entire city, would you really care what people thought of you? :P
Did you not notice how they fired the arrows at him afterwards anyway?

Dan_Solo

Eoghan S wrote: »

But if you can look cool AND defeat the champion in front of his entire city, would you really care what people thought of you? :P
Did you not notice how they fired the arrows at him afterwards anyway?

Yes, that's because they didn't feel he'd defeated his opponent in any kind of combat like those kinds of duels were meant to be, so they tried to kill him in retaliation. All this says is "we have to cheat to match your warriors." to me.

Witcher

Guy was going to lose either way really, Barristan Selmy would have just floored him off the horse with a lance anyway so it makes no difference really.

No city is going to stake their survival on the skills of a single warrior, even Troy didn't open its gates when Hector died. It was just a pissing contest really, no pun intended:pac:

norrie rugger

not to the slaves though

Artful_Badger

Blay wrote: »

Guy was going to lose either way really, Barristan Selmy would have just floored him off the horse with a lance anyway so it makes no difference really.

No city is going to stake their survival on the skills of a single warrior, even Troy didn't open it's gates when Hector died.

Hector wasn't sent out as a champion (not in the Iliad anyway) but I'd agree the outcome of the duel wasn't going to be the deciding factor in the war so to speak.

Dan_Solo

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Hector wasn't sent out as a champion (not in the Iliad anyway) but I'd agree the outcome of the duel wasn't going to be the deciding factor in the war so to speak.

It's not a deciding factor except as to how it relates to the morale of the troops. If the guys in the city see their champion get utterly battered (Troy) then they'll think oh, that's what they've got. If they guys in the city see a guy using missile weapons to kill a horse they'll probably think oh, they can't take our troops on directly.
That's the whole point of the duel of champions surely.

Witcher

They can see 8000 Unsullied outside the city, I'd say it's obvious Dany's army could take care of business without cheating:pac:

thefa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's not a deciding factor except as to how it relates to the morale of the troops. If the guys in the city see their champion get utterly battered (Troy) then they'll think oh, that's what they've got. If they guys in the city see a guy using missile weapons to kill a horse they'll probably think oh, they can't take our troops on directly.
That's the whole point of the duel of champions surely.

I think it would be more logical for them to look on and be worried at how quickly their mounted champion was dispatched.

Dan_Solo

thefa wrote: »

I think it would be more logical for them to look on and be worried at how quickly their mounted champion was dispatched.

Not really if they see can he clearly wasn't defeated in the normal course of a single combat duel. All this says to me is "we can't fight ye in single combat, we need to cheat to have any chance."

Dan_Solo

Blay wrote: »

They can see 8000 Unsullied outside the city, I'd say it's obvious Dany's army could take care of business without cheating:pac:

Jeez, I dunno. 8,000 looks a bit piddling to lay siege to a city that size with walls like that. I wouldn't fancy their chances without a slave revolt.

Witcher

You should watch the trailer for the next episode.

Dan_Solo

Blay wrote: »

You should watch the trailer for the next episode.

OK, so they going to sow some seeds of revolution inside the city. Fair enough. As I said though, 8,000 men of any sort isn't enough to take a city that size directly, unless they're all The Hound or something...
In fact, if I was running that city I'd face Dany on the field ASAP. Just talking tactics, ta know.

K_user

MadYaker wrote: »

To be fair the other guy was on a horse and had a lance. I think he was just evening out the playing field by removing the horse from the equation.

Exactly. The guy on the horse had no issue with charging a standing target, therefore it was fair game.

Dan_Solo

K_user wrote: »

Exactly. The guy on the horse had no issue with charging a standing target, therefore it was fair game.

Dany offered him a horse, and the other guy waited for him to get one before charging. It was pretty clear to everybody involved what the normal rules were for a duel of champions.

K_user

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, that's because they didn't feel he'd defeated his opponent in any kind of combat like those kinds of duels were meant to be, so they tried to kill him in retaliation. All this says is "we have to cheat to match your warriors." to me.

This wasn't a duel in the normal sense. It was a test of skill. A pi$$ing contest, as someone else pointed out.

Selmy might have been more gentlemanly about it, but the goal was to win. Two warriors, the best they have to offer, lets see what happens.

The arrows were actually more of an affront. Their champion was defeated by Danys man alone. The arrows were a genuine attempt at revenge.

norrie rugger

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not really if they see can he clearly wasn't defeated in the normal course of a single combat duel. All this says to me is "we can't fight ye in single combat, we need to cheat to have any chance."

more like 'screw this, we will beat you fast and by any means'

K_user

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Dany offered him a horse, and the other guy waited for him to get one before charging. It was pretty clear to everybody involved what the normal rules were for a duel of champions.

A city that has dead slaves positioned every mile for over 100 miles aren't exactly "normal", or likely to be concerned with chivalry.

Their champion declared that Dany was a man with his c@#k up her a$$. This was their opening negotiation gambit. No flag of truce. No diplomats. Just a man pi$$ing in the sand.


The first rule of combat is to win. He won, against a charging horse and lance.

Dan_Solo

If the objective was purely to kill the opponent in the duel by any means you'd find both sides would come out with a crate of loaded crossbows!

norrie rugger

No one asked them to send out a champion, who pissed at their queen, and no rules of engagement were agreed upon. Now unless you have something that was not on screen then saying that they cheated is pure speculation.
Also should you challenge someone to a duel, they choose the method

Dan_Solo

norrie rugger wrote: »

more like 'screw this, we will beat you fast and by any means'

Nope, if that was the objective then they'd just have everybody throw spears at their champion as soon as he came out.

Dan_Solo

norrie rugger wrote: »

No one asked them to send out a champion, who pissed at their queen, and no rules of engagement were agreed upon. Now unless you have something that was not on screen then saying that they cheated is pure speculation.
Also should you challenge someone to a duel, they choose the method

I'd bet money it doesn't happen like that not n the books. It's like Indy shooting the swordsman, pure Hollywood cool factor the overriding objective. Dany knew the rules, in fact everyone knew the rules or they would have just killed him and not had the duel at all.