"Official" Game Of Thrones Discussion for those who have read the books. - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

 

Someone in that article is seriously suggesting Katee Sackhoff?  That's laughably out of touch for that character.  I even think Zoe Bell is too attractive to play Brienne; Martin goes out of his way in describing how mannish and fuck-ugly she is.  

 

 

 

Yes, but he did the same thing with Tyrion, and we ended up with Peter Dinklage, and the Hound isn't as horrifically scarred as he's supposed to be either.  I think they're skewing slightly towards "more attractive than described" fairly often where the casting is concerned (Catelyn being a possible exception), and really that's probably to be expected. Let's be honest, most people that are genuinely as physically unattractive as some of the people in the books probably aren't looking at acting as a first career.  Brienne will almost certainly be more attractive than we envisioned her, but can be "uglied up" with well-applied makeup, an unflattering haircut, and some body language coaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

Someone in that article is seriously suggesting Katee Sackhoff?  That's laughably out of touch for that character.  I even think Zoe Bell is too attractive to play Brienne; Martin goes out of his way in describing how mannish and fuck-ugly she is.  

In my imagination, Brienne has always looked like a ripped version of Hillary Swank.  Just sayin'.
 

As with Tyrion, I never got the impression that Brienne was supposed to be face-meltingly ugly--it's just that they're both surrounded by pretty people who are also insensitive medieval yahoos, with whom they don't fit in. I think Brienne's just plain and mannish. I agree Zoe Bell's maybe a little too cute, but she's a lot better than casting the usual Sandra Bullock type as the "plain girl", and in all other respects she's perfect for the role. I mean, she's even a stuntwoman, and it's a highly physical role.

Also on the subject of future casting: I realize it's probably wise for the producers not to keep pulling in well-known actors, which is what made Deadwood such an expensive show, but thinking of that somehow made me consider Ian McShane as Mance Rayder, and now I WILL ACCEPT NO LESS.

I like to think of Jon's storyline in book 3 as the fantasy version of Donnie Brasco, with Mance in the Al Pacino role. Considered that way, it's a pretty awesome role. McShane would kill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

Isn't the hound completely bald in the books? I wasn't digging the way he looked on the show, but I supposed I'll get used to it. He seemed more menacing in my head all bald and half crispified.

No, he's pretty much described as shown.  Maybe more scarred than shown on TV, he certainly has an unnerving effect on others, but he was only bald on the burned side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirjonsnow 

No, he's pretty much described as shown.  Maybe more scarred than shown on TV, he certainly has an unnerving effect on others, but he was only bald on the burned side.

Huh. I like my version better. But this just means I'll have to read more carefully next time through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Sean Bean costs money, people!

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

The bean counters are probably going to be glad to see him go.

Why, you may be asking, did I spoilerize that? Because I've noticed something unfortunate: the first few sentences of the latest post is always visible on the main forum page. Which means that it might be possible to accidentally spoil people just for entering the Television forums. Just a heads up.

 

Had a thought for casting Brienne: Zoe Bell. What do you think?

 

A solid suggestion, is she big enough to wield sword and wear armour believably? I also don't know if she has the acting chops for the role. I thought she was decent in grindhouse, and have seen her in bit parts since then, but I cant think of any better choices off the top of my head. Hillary Swank maybe, but she would cost way too much.

I would take Ian McShane in just about any role, I would love him as big daddy Lannister (yes I forgot his first name), the prospect of him and Dinklage talking shit to eachother would make me giddy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3nnui 

I would take Ian McShane in just about any role, I would love him as big daddy Lannister (yes I forgot his first name), the prospect of him and Dinklage talking shit to eachother would make me giddy.

 

Charles Dance is Tywin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph P. Brenner 

Charles Dance is Tywin.

 

I guess his role in Your Highness was warm-up....

thanks joe, the premier of the show reminded me to check on the long awaited dance with dragons. I assume you all know this but we get a new book this summer.

I always imagined Robin Weigert of Deadwood as Brienne. Not just because of the mannishness! She was also tough and emotionally fragile, like Brienne.

Actually yeah, when I picked up the book I thought of Weigert as well. Though I imagine they want to stick to British actors whenever possible.

holy crap, the villian from the Golden Child is Tywin?? give me the knife.......please.

Sardo Lannister!

"In this world, the bad guys can win!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd 

"In this world, the bad guys can win!"

It's true y'know!

OK, question: I've only read the books once, and don't want to again because I want the show to feel relatively fresh. So: is it ever revealed, or at least hinted at, why Illyrio is helping the Targaryens? I mean, he lets them crash at his pad, he helps arrange a marriage, he lavishes a fair amount of money on them, he even gives Dany the eggs. Yet watching the show I couldn't help but feel like he was somewhat contemptuous of Viserys (rightly so) and that everything he said was dripping with sarcasm. And isn't there a line in the book where Dany thinks that she doesn't trust him? Obviously, there's the stated idea that when Viserys comes into his throne he'll remember his friends, but frankly that seems a bit hard to swallow. If I was Illyrio, I wouldn't see this foppish jackass and his timid sister, who have pretty much nothing but the clothes on their backs, as the right horse to bet on. So was there something more to it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

OK, question: I've only read the books once, and don't want to again because I want the show to feel relatively fresh. So: is it ever revealed, or at least hinted at, why Illyrio is helping the Targaryens?

I sort of assumed it was a blind/old loyalty to the family, and a hatred for Robert & Co. who took over. This site, though, suggests Illyrio simply sees it as a way to make a good deal of money.

Yeah, like Littlefinger, he seems to have gotten immediate monetary good out of every transaction, and trading Dany off to the Dothraki was probably no exception. Dance of the Dragons spoiler:

I like Roger Allam (he looks and sounds like Christopher Hitchens) as Illyrio, but Ian McNeice who instead looks like Otho from Beetlejuice and who dropped out before they reshot the pilot, I think would convey the written version of Illyrio without saying a word.

Ha ha, I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that guy and thought "When did Christopher Hitchens take up acting?"

That's funny, for some reason I got it into my head that Glen Shadix was playing Ilyrio, and when he died last year I remember thinking they'd have to recast, only to find out he had nothing to do with it. I guess I just confused him and McNeice. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

OK, question: I've only read the books once, and don't want to again because I want the show to feel relatively fresh. So: is it ever revealed, or at least hinted at, why Illyrio is helping the Targaryens? I mean, he lets them crash at his pad, he helps arrange a marriage, he lavishes a fair amount of money on them, he even gives Dany the eggs. Yet watching the show I couldn't help but feel like he was somewhat contemptuous of Viserys (rightly so) and that everything he said was dripping with sarcasm. And isn't there a line in the book where Dany thinks that she doesn't trust him? Obviously, there's the stated idea that when Viserys comes into his throne he'll remember his friends, but frankly that seems a bit hard to swallow. If I was Illyrio, I wouldn't see this foppish jackass and his timid sister, who have pretty much nothing but the clothes on their backs, as the right horse to bet on. So was there something more to it?

Dany doesn't trust him at all. It's why she amasses the army in SoS. I imagine that he's Petyr for the Dany storyline, Felt Pelt said.

Illyrio's like that guy who lets his friend crash at his place but passive aggressively asks "So you uh...look at the classified ads today? Got any uh...interviews lined up?" 

Even better job than the first ep! Only things missing that I wish they kept were Catelyn Stark telling Jon "It should have been you." and Bran's dream. I thought for sure they'd have Bran's dream, since it's related to later events.

I too was waiting for the line 'it should of been you' but I guess they want Catelyn to remain a sympathetic character.  The other was the change to the Dany storyline, making it a bit more modest than as written.

I was thinking there was another more significant change as I watched it, but I have already forgotten what it was.

In the middle of the episode.  Jon and Ned's conversation--

--just floored me a bit with sadness.  That line wasn't in the book, was it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirjonsnow 

Even better job than the first ep! Only things missing that I wish they kept were Catelyn Stark telling Jon "It should have been you." and Bran's dream. I thought for sure they'd have Bran's dream, since it's related to later events.

I was curious to see if they were going to do the dream, but I suppose they're still keeping the fantasy elements "light" (coupled with leaving the audience in suspense as to whether he would live or not).  I suspect he'll talk about the dream rather than us "seeing" it. 

As for Catelyn, I thought the actress did a great job of getting the sentiment across without speaking the words, which in its' own way is more effective. 

But with Bran's dream having been "unshown" I kinda have to wonder about Ned's fever-dreams later on in the book...a lot of the hinting around Jon's parentage not necessarily being what it seems comes from those, and I would think that's an important enough plot thread that they'd want to introduce that ambiguity. 

Or maybe not.

BLAH BLAH FILLING SPACE TO AVOID SPOILER SHOWING UP IN THE MAIN FORUM

One of the reviews from people who had seen several episodes mentioned that Dany's dreams are apparently cut as well. I guess Benioff and Weiss don't like dream sequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

BLAH BLAH FILLING SPACE TO AVOID SPOILER SHOWING UP IN THE MAIN FORUM

 

One of the reviews from people who had seen several episodes mentioned that Dany's dreams are apparently cut as well. I guess Benioff and Weiss don't like dream sequences.

Huh...that just seems, well...odd, given how much of what seems like necessary foreshadowing is done with such storytelling devices.

I understand the decision from a creative viewpoint...it can pull viewers out of the narrative and can be very cheesy if not handled delicately or overused, and again, might be introducing too much "fantasy" too soon for HBO's tastes (since they've been emphasizing "Oh but this isn't -THAT- kind of "fantasy."")  I'm just curious how/if they're going to replace the foreshadowing that takes place there.

I don't think the dreams are completely crucial (a critic who's seen episode 3 mentioned cryptically that Bran's dream "is and isn't" in this episode, so there'll be something--maybe just Bran mentioning it?) but now that you mention it, it does make me a little worried for the future fantasy elements. One of my favourite bits in the books is Dany's visit to the house of the Undying in Qarth, which should play out like a freaking David Lynch movie on screen. The dreams in S1 would have made a good trial run for seeing how the filmmakers handle the fantastical stuff down the road, which tends to have a dreamlike quality in the books--I'm also thinking of Mirri Maaz Duur's spellcasting near the end of book one. But I'd hate to think that they're so committed to "gritty and realistic" that they're going to minimize this stuff entirely--this IS still a fantasy series, after all. (OK, the White Walkers were really well done, so that gives me hope.)

OK, I gotta go back to Dany again. I actually haven't seen the second episode yet, but it sounds like this whole business is getting pretty controversial, with a number of people saying they turned away from the series in disgust due to what seems like misogyny and racism. Apparently Dany's feminist sexual awakening is coming off more like Stockholm Syndrome to some people. On the one hand, I appreciate that the filmmakers are playing a long game here, and they need to set up "innocent white girl raped by scary brown savages" so they can subvert it later, which will require patience from the audience. And of course, the brutality and limited options of medieval life is part of the point of the series. But on the other hand, given the producer's bad choices (IMHO) in their portrayal of Dany's wedding night, and the fact that the series doesn't have access to the book's internal monologues, I'm not sure that this storyline is going to prove satisfying and subversive enough to win these people back. In particular I'm not sure Khal Drogo and the other Dothraki are going to ever seem likeable and three-dimensional enough to overcome the racist first impression they gave in the pilot. And the later storylines could very easily turn into an unfortunate "Danaerys, white queen of the savage Dothraki!" cliche. I'm not sure Benioff and Weiss are capable of handling this delicately enough, especially given the rather crowded seasons we'll be getting.

I was also looking forward to seeing Dany's dreams visualized.  Oh well, here's hoping they can squeeze at least one sequence in this season.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

OK, I gotta go back to Dany again. I actually haven't seen the second episode yet, but it sounds like this whole business is getting pretty controversial, with a number of people saying they turned away from the series in disgust due to what seems like misogyny and racism. Apparently Dany's feminist sexual awakening is coming off more like Stockholm Syndrome to some people...

I don't think they've handled Dany and Drogo's relationship well at all, and I can understand how those unfamiliar with the books could be put off by what they've seen so far.  I think part of the problem is that the Dany/Dothraki story has been rushed a bit; a lot has happened for two episodes and maybe 30 minutes worth of scenes.  Trying to look at the relationship from a completely objective place, it totally comes off as Dany as concubine and love slave rather than unwilling Queen/Khaleesi, which makes her sudden desire to please Drogo seem strange to say the least.  I can't believe Benioff and Weiss have been so tone deaf with that storyline, and that GRRM hasn't pushed his weight around (ha!) a little more when it comes to those scenes.

In addition, it seems that many viewers new to the story are still confused about how the Targaryens factor into the larger story.  It seems fairly straightforward to me, Viserys wants the throne, he needs an army, he weds off his sister for Drogo's army.  I think Robert and Ned's discussion helped a little, and upcoming scenes in King's Landing will add some much needed context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

In the middle of the episode.  Jon and Ned's conversation--

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

"The next time we see each other, I'll tell you about your mother.  I promise."

--just floored me a bit with sadness.  That line wasn't in the book, was it?

It was. I didn't remember it either until he said because it didn't matter at the time, but going back over it, yeah, it's pretty depressing.

I like the series so far, but they are really screwing up the Dany sequences. If I hadn't read the books, those scenes would have given off entirely the wrong idea. But at least they got Peter Dinklage right. God damnit did they get that right.

I don't know.  Having just read A Game of Thrones a month ago, the early Dany scenes are pretty damn close to how I remember them.

It's all about execution, and the lack of internal monologue. I think they're trying to drag out Dany's self-actualization a bit more, turn it into a real arc, but they really needed to make the "wedding night" scene, at the very least, more palatable. In the book it was kind of touching, she faces this moment she's been dreading for ages, where it looks like things are about to get a hundred times worse for her, and suddenly its clear that her new husband is actually a nice guy and that sex is actually kind of awesome, or at the very least, not horrific. Which then slowly leads to her realization that, as Drogo's Khaleesi, she has a lot more freedom and control than she ever had before. Turning that wedding night into a borderline rape, no matter how things turn around later, creates problems for both Dany and Drogo's characters. Unless it's really carefully handled for the rest of the season, it could come off as Stockholm Syndrome, and Drogo may not evolve beyond "scary barbarian brown person", which would be a shame. It really does come down mostly to them botching that one scene (again, haven't seen the second episode yet, but it doesn't seem to have allayed many fears).

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 I think they're trying to drag out Dany's self-actualization a bit more, turn it into a real arc...

I think this is it precisely. They want to paint her strength and her confidence in her own terms, not Drogo's. It remains to be seen how they'll handle Drogo's attitude towards his bride, but personally I think they're heading in the right direction.

I'm sure they're heading in the right direction, but starting it off with what looks for all the world like a rape could be seen as casting a pall over what's coming.

Oooooon the other hand, James Poniewozik of Time Magazine makes an excellent point: romanticizing the idea of arranged/chattel marriages might not be a very responsible thing to do either. I guess it boils down to the fact that you have to look at all this with a certain nonjudgmental eye, and accept that this is taking place in (the equivalent of) a historical period where social mores were different.

I love the Dothraki stuff, maybe more than anything else right now, which might make me a perv, I fear. But really, I just like the characters and the Ghengis Khan stuff, and I love Viserys's brand of petulant evil. I also don't get the racism stuff, because Drogo looks pretty much like a white dude to me. I mean, he's got a bit of a tan, but he's a white dude.

Viserys also has pretty much zero triumphs and gets taken out soon, and about as awesomely as anything ever, which sets him aside from the Lannisters. I'm going to get damn tired of watching Cersei and Joffrey not get punished for the next couple years. Prince Draco Malfoy in particular is just a hissable little fucker, and seeing as how the SOIAF virgins are already looking forward to his death, I can only imagine how hateful he's going to be later on, after he, say, murders Eddard on a whim. I hope they goose his death to make it extra painful and humiliating.

Jason Momoa is Hawaiian. Drogo looks Middle Eastern to me. And the Dothraki are clearly meant to be of a different race. I mean, that's a good thing--I hate the idea of a lily-white fantasy world, and I always thought one of the points of Dany's sequences was so that Martin could plausibly introduce some different ethnicities. Fantasy does have a bit of a problem with this stuff, after all, and ASoIaF is meant to be at least somewhat of a deconstruction of fantasy.

Of course, I ran into trouble on another board for suggesting that Melisandre--"from the shadowlands beyond Asshai"--might not be a white person either. "BUT SHE'S GOT RED HAIR!!!! SHE MUST BE PLAYED BY CHRISTINA HENDRICKS!!!!" (Seriously, that's the big suggestion for Melisandre in some quarters. Because she has red hair, you see.)

The Hendricks suggestion isn't a bad one at all, especially given the outright sensuality of Melisandre. Don't the texts talk about the paleness of her skin?

That said, I care more that the actress playing her is good in the role. Race doesn't matter to me, and it certainly shouldn't be a factor for the role.

She's described as being pale-skinned and with red hair, but I got the impression she wasn't just a standard Irish-looking girl but rather someone very exotic and alien looking. Also, the maester dude at the beginning of book two specifically says she isn't beautiful, and implies she's extremely creepy-looking, though that's a matter of taste I guess. But I really don't think Hendricks is right for the role in any way other than the most superficial. Even on Mad Men she's got a certain warm sexuality that I don't think jibes with Melisandre, who strikes me as oddly sexless, despite the fact that you can read that into her relationship with Stannis. Anyway, it's moot since there's no way she'd leave Mad Men for this show (uh, unless you guys have heard something I haven't?) and aside from Dinklage the producers seem to be casting British and European exclusively, which I tend to think is the right move.

Per the Ice and Fire wiki "Melisandre is a beautiful woman, always dressed in red, with a heart-shaped face and red eyes. Great heat emanates from her body. She is full-figured with copper hai r."

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

[A]nd aside from Dinklage the producers seem to be casting British and European exclusively, which I tend to think is the right move.

And that's where Shirley Manson walks in.
 

It would seem that the producers would pick an Asian woman for that role. It just strikes me as something an HBO show would do, and it could work quite well if you got someone like Naoko Mori, but I don't know if she would be sexy enough or pale enough.

I sort of assumed Asshai is pseudo-Asian, so yeah, but the description given of Melisandre doesn't really sound Asian. I guess you could argue that an Asian woman would have "copper-coloured" hair, or you could say that she's got weird colouring due to her magical powers. But I do like the idea of casting Asian, or non-white at least.

Well, the Targaryens are described as having purple eyes, so I don't think it's that far off for Asians, or their equivalent, to have copper coloured hair in his world. But I agree it would be cool to see an Asian get such a large part in a big TV project.

But it's not that big of a deal. Whomever they choose, it will be an excellent choice. They really haven't gotten anyone completely wrong yet. 

My memory of the books is far from perfect, so I ask you this, was the scene where Cersei is speaking to Catelyn about the death of her first son in the book? I know she has all the bastards murdered later on, but I dont remember her smothering Roberts trueborn heir.

Of course, the trouble with casting Asian is that you're flirting with the "dragon lady" stereotype. But Melisandre's a complicated enough character that I don't think she would come off that way.

Someone on the TWOP forums pointed out something cool: almost the very first thing you see in those metal engravings that tell the history of the world is a city being destroyed by a volcano while a dragon looks on, which seems to give us more information about the Doom of Valyria. That's something I've been quite eager to find out more about for a while now, especially given that it was suggested that the dragons were somehow linked to what happened. It really seems like, for all that we're being made to be afraid of the White Walkers and the Wights and the Eternal Winter, the opposing fire magic seems to carry its own dangers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3nnui 

My memory of the books is far from perfect, so I ask you this, was the scene where Cersei is speaking to Catelyn about the death of her first son in the book? I know she has all the bastards murdered later on, but I dont remember her smothering Roberts trueborn heir.

I don't believe so.  In fact, there's virtually no interaction between Cat and Cersei at all.
 

No Cat/Cersei scene in the books.

I'm also fairly sure the scene between Jaime and Jon Snow, in Winterfell's smithy/courtyard, was invented for the HBO series. Can anyone confirm/correct?

Jaime and Jon Snow never interact in the Game of Thrones novel.