Game of Thrones (Contains spoilers)

[Drecon]

First of all, thanks for the spoilers. I'm about keeping pace with the novels, but mostly I'm watching the series so I like that.

Maybe the point of the rape is to establish Jamie as a sad human being that doesn't feel like he has any control over his life? In the scene he doesn't really seem to be doing it to enjoy himself.

I can actually understand it a bit from a character standpoint. He has his hand, the one thing that he felt differentiated him from other people, he's lost the affection of the only person he ever loved (Cercei), and of course his son, his job (kind of)... It just piles on.

So he tries to win Cercei back by trying to relive moments past or something like that.

Problem is... if you ever want your viewers to think anything positive about the guy again... that's now pretty hard to do.

Maybe they thought it was okay because nobody liked Cercei anyway? I don't know, seems weird to make a decision like that.

[Lord Hosk]

So because the rape is so public we all agree no longer spoiler?

OK One thing It is impossible for someone to rape their spouse(dodges arrows and rocks) Not legally mind you, but anyone who would force themselves on someone doesn't care about them and is in essence going to in the presence of others and saying "I divorce you I divorce you, I DIVORCE YOU"

You cant rape your spouse, not because you can't force yourself on the person you married but because violating someone like that instantly breaks the bond of trust, fellowship, commitment, and fidelity that a marriage is. You rape that person, you have just ended your marriage.

You guys bring up a good point about the rape though.
It could be that they had it happen that way because they didnt want Jaime to be too "good" and likeable and they wanted Cerci to have a level of sympathy when she gets brought into the sept for trial. In the books Cerci is a terrible human being but her one redeeming characteristic is that all her actions good and bad are driven by a love of her children. That really isnt brought about in the show. She endures Robert so her son can be king, she kills LOTS of people because they find out about their incestual conception not because she is embarrassed or ashamed but because it will mean her children will be cast out. They needed something so that when Cerci is brought on trial there would be a whisp of caring about her.

[Avistew]

I think Cersei's love of her children is made clear in the show. Even Tyrion says she's the one person he can be sure had nothing to do with it. We see how she loves Joffrey while knowing how twisted he is. I think it was definitely made apparent in the show. I don't think that fact is a spoiler so I'm leaving it unspoilered.
Sidenote, mothers really fuck up the world in that story. Take out Cersei and Catelyn's love for their children and actions taken as a result and you've got pretty much zero bad thing happening ever.

As to the part in your post that was actually a spoiler, maybe? My thought is they're not going to be able to show her naked for the sept scene. As my husband said, "Named PCs dont get naked". That's very true for most of the show. That very scene is an example, we didn't see any nudity in Cersei or Jaime despite the fact they're having sex and her clothes got torn. That makes sense because the major parts are played by famous actors who might not be fine with getting naked, while for smaller parts that require nudity, they probably hire people who are fine with it but are less big names.
Originally I thought they'll hire another actress for that scene, but they might also make her wear some clothes. Either way, they probably want to start the "feeling sorry for Cersei" wagon. Honestly not needed, seeing her mourn her son was enough I believe

Hosk, your argument is that once you rape someone, you have broken the trust that makes the marriage valid in a spiritual or emotional way. I understand what you're trying to say but I think that's beside the point people were trying to make. Taking marriage as the legal contract it is rather than the intimate bond (which doesn't require a piece of paper), rape does not nullify that contract. It's ground for divorce, like beating up your spouse would be, but you're not automatically "not married".

But yes, there is no going back I think. After what happened, the relationship between Cersei and Jamie is, I believe, destroyed forever. There is no rebuilding it. They could fake it, they could wish for a return to before, but that will always stand between them. Maybe that's what the showmakers wanted. But I dont think that was needed either. The lost hand already has that effect to some extent. The fact they have both changed. The death of Joffrey. They are not healthy enough to get over it all, and Jaime's time with Brienne has shown him that there are women who are not as morally flawed as Cersei is.

I'm sure that's where the "why do I have to love a hateful woman?" thing comes from. But the reaction. And I do believe that if he still loved her the way he did at the beginning he never could have raped her. Maybe that's what they were trying to show, how the relationship had been irremediably changed. But raping Cersei isnt just violence against Cersei, its violence against women in general, it's being dismissing someone's right over their body, it's just not Jaime.
The new character they created is now going to be very hard to like or empathize with. It is worse than pushing a kid out of the window because he thinks it will save the woman he loves. It is worse than killing a king because he wants to save a town. Because he doesn't have a good reason behind his horrible act, this time. Jaime had always followed a code but what code is he following now? "I'll rape you because you're asking me to kill my brother and I dont want to"?

Jaime was never a completely selfish character. He acted for other people all the time. He lost his hand to prevent a rape! And now he's the rapist? That makes the whole point of his lost hand meaningless. It's ridiculous.

[Lord Hosk]

Wait, Jaime lost a hand? who was holding that coffee then?

[Ptangmatik]

I disagree entirely it seems right in line with the characters.
spoiler

I never thought about it like that, I was annoyed by how it played out, which coloured my opinion.

You make a good point.

[Geoff_B]

It's interesting how we're all talking about a character whose first major act in the entire series is to attempt to brutally murder an eight year old boy, succeeding in paralysing said eight year old boy from the waist down, leaving him unable to walk for the rest of his life.

[Avistew]

It's interesting how we're all talking about a character whose first major act in the entire series is to attempt to brutally murder an eight year old boy, succeeding in paralysing said eight year old boy from the waist down, leaving him unable to walk for the rest of his life.

I adressed both that and the Kingslayer thing in my previous post. Both had the end of protecting someone else. This did not, which to me makes a big difference. Jaime is a flawed person for sure but he always seemed consistent to me and following a code of sorts.

Anyways, we'll see how it plays out in the next episode. Hopefully they don't show it again in the summary.

[JackSlack]

It's also interesting that both Film Crit Hulk and Todd Van der Werff have noted that the rape is utterly forgotten in the episode after. (Hulk claims it "barely plays into the subtext.)

Hulk has charged this proves the scene was purely to shock. Van der Werff thinks it shows the crew didn't realise how the scene played, and thinks this makes it even worse. ("It's one thing to depict a rape. It's another to not even know you've included it.")

[Avistew]

Yeah, it was like it never happened. Except for the viewers.

Spoiler for yesterday's episode:

Jaime (paraphrasing): You think I could kill my brother?
Audience: Well, you /did/ rape your sister.

Jaime(paraphrasing): I promised to get her kids back, and she's death but my oath still stands.
Audience: Oh, right, sister-raper, because not keeping your promise, /that/ would be bad.

I've decided to pretty much pretend it didn't happen. As far as I can tell, the show itself is.

[Lord Hosk]

Im a little confused by one of the divergences they are taking from the books right now.

In the books there is no "special ranging north of the wall to kill the traitors" there is no need for it Mance was a man of the watch he knows that the watch is tiny in number. Jon knows that Mance knows that, it has appeared on screen they have the discussion in season two when Mance captures him. Even if mance wasnt formerly a man of the watch, they send raiding parties south ALL THE TIME and they have encountered men of the watch frequently they know how few they are. When the wildlings get to the fist of the firstmen Mance counts the bodies and says something to the effect of "well Mormet lost the majority of his rangers here, castle black cant have more than a hundred stewards and builders left.

So what point is there to this ranging if everyone knows how few the watch are in the books and in the show?

[Master Gunner]

It's probably just so the producers can stretch for time, and they can revisit that story line (if only for a couple scenes) every episode or two without putting themselves too far ahead plot-wise.
I haven't read the books, so I don't quite know how things go down there. But I'm guessing that Mance, knowing how few there are at the watch, would have already attacked Castle Black by this point (it's been at least a few weeks since last season, if Jon is up and walking again from being a human pincushion). Instead they want Mance's attack to line up with closer to the end of the season.

[Lord Hosk]

It's probably just so the producers can stretch for time, and they can revisit that story line (if only for a couple scenes) every episode or two without putting themselves too far ahead plot-wise.

Mance is moving a army of "a hundred thousand men" most of whom are on foot. That takes a lot of time.

[Avistew]

My guess is that they wanted to tie off loose ends, and they left one with the guys there. Also, they apparently couldn't pass up an opportunity to show more rape and beating up women >.>

[Lord Hosk]

My guess is that they wanted to tie off loose ends, and they left one with the guys there. Also, they apparently couldn't pass up an opportunity to show more rape and beating up women >.>

Yeah that was rather disturbing.

As was the women chanting in a haunting fashion rather than weeping for the lost son.

[Avistew]

I enjoyed this episode more. It still had a bunch of the "tying loose ends" and it still featured rape, not in progress, but implied going on inside the tents, about to happen on a few occasions, having happened, etc. But it seemed to me to be a step in the right direction compared to the previous two. It had a bunch of violence and it seems to me a lot of the disturbing stuff from the previous episode (and this one) was meant to make people happy when the characters who did it got what was coming to them. To me it still seems like cheap shock value stuff, which is annoying because the story and characters should speak for themselves.

I really enjoyed how Lysa was shown. (Cat's sister, not sure about the spelling right this second). Despite not appearing for several seasons, she immediately gets you to go "oh, that woman" and her characterization seemed very faithful to the book to me. It also finally revealed to us what happened before the first episode of the first season, albeit in such a way that my husband completely missed it and only got out of the scene "she's really crazy and Littlefinger is an asshole". Mind you, both true things.

About the part with Arya and the Hound, I was a little bit surprised: I thought in the book by that point she had stopped naming the Hound in her prayers and was noticing that fact. Not that I think this goes against the spirit of her story at all. I actually have been enjoying their scenes a lot. Not much happens plot-wise, but unlike some other "nothing is happening" filler that has been in the show, the scenes seem to add a lot of character development to me.

So basically, the scenes at the Eyrie and with Arya and the Hound I thought were really great and showed how you can have good character development whether a character hasn't been seen for years and comes back as needed, or has been sticking around even when they're not advancing the plot a huge deal.

I'm a bit curious about Cersei in this episode. (mild spoilers about the books)She was way too friendly, both to Margaery, who she hates with a passion in the book, and with Oberron. While I get it that she adores her children, and I think the show has shown that very well, and I understand she worries for her daughter, she's always been more the kind to make threats. I guess it's probably one of her games she's playing or something but I'm not quite sure. She's supposed to hate the idea of Margaery being with her son, and here she is shown "offering" it and then "convincing" her father when he really should be the one doing the convincing.
I understand not wanting to compromise her daughter's safety, but I could totally see her still finding a way to threaten Oberron if anything happens to her daughter, rather than telling him "tell her her mom misses her". Is she trying to get him to her side against Tyrion?

Anyway, all in all I enjoyed the episode. Not a huge fan of the above the wall stuff, and Danaerys could not have been in the episode at all for the difference it would have made, but some good stuff as well.

Oh, and I enjoyed the Pod/Brienne dynamics. Even though their "pairing" happened slightly differently than it did in the books, I'm glad it was kept. It's always nice to see more of either character.

Did Jaime appear at all in the episode?

[Elomin Sha]

He did. He was standing at the coronation for about 3 seconds. Still given top credit during the title sequence.

[Lord Hosk]

My wife said kinda the same thing at the end of the episode "So nothing happened?" She then followed it up with Other than a new king being crowned, and Bran made hodor kill that guy, and all those rapists got killed, and the women of craster were set free, and Creepy guy married and boned creepy lady... I guess a lot happened it just wasn't done in a interesting way"

[Master Gunner]

Is she trying to get him to her side against Tyrion?

That is entirely correct. Cercei's goal is to make sure that Tyrion is executed. As such she's trying to become closer and more sympathetic to the three judges (Tywin, Oberron, and Margaery's father) to make sure they side with her. All three are also well aware of this - hence why Margaery made the "sister" remark, despite Cercei's earlier threats if she did that again.

[Drecon]

Is she trying to get him to her side against Tyrion?

That is entirely correct. Cercei's goal is to make sure that Tyrion is executed. As such she's trying to become closer and more sympathetic to the three judges (Tywin, Oberron, and Margaery's father) to make sure they side with her. All three are also well aware of this - hence why Margaery made the "sister" remark, despite Cercei's earlier threats if she did that again.

Ah, that explains a lot. Completely missed that.

[Lord Hosk]

Is she trying to get him to her side against Tyrion?

That is entirely correct. Cercei's goal is to make sure that Tyrion is executed. As such she's trying to become closer and more sympathetic to the three judges (Tywin, Oberron, and Margaery's father) to make sure they side with her. All three are also well aware of this - hence why Margaery made the "sister" remark, despite Cercei's earlier threats if she did that again.

Ah, that explains a lot. Completely missed that.

Thats what she was hoping for...

[Kortanios]

Im a little confused by one of the divergences they are taking from the books right now.

In the books there is no "special ranging north of the wall to kill the traitors" there is no need for it Mance was a man of the watch he knows that the watch is tiny in number. Jon knows that Mance knows that, it has appeared on screen they have the discussion in season two when Mance captures him. Even if mance wasnt formerly a man of the watch, they send raiding parties south ALL THE TIME and they have encountered men of the watch frequently they know how few they are. When the wildlings get to the fist of the firstmen Mance counts the bodies and says something to the effect of "well Mormet lost the majority of his rangers here, castle black cant have more than a hundred stewards and builders left.

So what point is there to this ranging if everyone knows how few the watch are in the books and in the show?

My guess on why they added that special ranging is that they want to show Jon being an inspiring leader to the men of the Nights Watch. Given that in the books he shows off his leadership skills during the battle against the wildlings south of the wall and against Mance, it seems logical to me that when they show him not being in a position to be the leader by default in those battles, they need to show him being a successful leader of sorts before. It becomes even more apparent (in my opinion) that this is setting up his role as a leader in the battle against Mance and as a result him being chosen as Lord Commander, as there has already been discussion about selecting a new Lord Commander in the show.

[Darkobra]

And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know!
In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws.
And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours!

[Master Gunner]

Just...damn. Dinklage was amazing in this episode.

[Darkobra]

He truly showed his claws!

[Avistew]

I really enjoyed this episode. My husband thought it was filler. He said the actors were amazing but everything seems to just be setting up for later stuff and they ended it at the wrong time.

I kind of agree with the last part. I think it would have worked better to end it after the fighters had been picked. But I understand why they stopped it where they did, as well.

Another thing my husband didn't get was Shae. His reasoning was : either she loves him, and she doesn't want him to die, regardless of how much he hurt her... or she doesn't love him enough to care if he dies or not, and then why would she care that he called her a whore and get revenge in that way?

I couldn't help him as her motives in the show aren't known to me (they seem to differ from her motives in the books).

More on that in spoilers: I thought that maybe they wanted to set up the betrayal to be worse by making it look like Shae loves Tyrion, which she doesn't seem to in the books (he loves her, but she only cares about getting as much money and as many pretty things as possible) but it seemed to be less bad than in the books, less humiliating for Tyrion, there wasn't as much "making fun of him" on the part of the audience, more hatred than ridicule. I felt it had less impact, despite a great performance from the actors.

Anyway, I enjoyed this episode much better. I wish episodes 3 through 5 had been more similar to it. I still think it would work better if they focused on less stories per episode. This episode could have been just the trial for instance. We keep seeing snippets here and there and not even remembering what happened last snippet with these characters. It works way less than in the books because in the books we spend a whole chapter with a character, rather than a couple minutes like in some of the scenes in the show.