TV: Game of Thrones | Season 8 (Final) | Part X -TV talk ONLY -NO Books, Spoilers, NO LEAKS

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
My opinion is just the opposite. The acting chops on Joffrey weren't quite there.

Jack Gleason (Joffrey) just naturally has that look and attitude of someone who's a complete :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Whereas, as I said previously, the actor playing Ramsay was too over-the-top at times, which comes across as acting
 
Last edited:

Whiplash27

Quattro!!
Jan 25, 2007
17,343
66
Westchester, NY
Jack Gleason (Joffrey) just naturally has that look and attitude of someone who's a completely ****

Whereas, as I said previously, the actor playing Ramsay was too over-the-top at times, which comes across as acting
Jack Gleason is such a nice guy if you ever seen anything he's ever been involved with outside of acting. He does have a bit of that douchy look, but he played that role to perfection. He is the perfect little sadistic shit that you just can't stand every time you see him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Make

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,089
9,350
My opinion is just the opposite. The acting chops on Joffrey weren't quite there.
Jack Gleason (Joffrey) just naturally has that look and attitude of someone who's a completely ****

Apparently, Jack Gleeson is the complete opposite of Joffrey in real life. According to people who worked with and have met him, he's really kind and gentle. He even brought coffee and pizza for his security guards. He also retired from acting at the peak of his fame to double major in Theology and Philosophy, which is the opposite of what Joffrey would've done (i.e. milked the fame and used it to work as little as possible). For such a kind and thoughtful young man to play a vile despot so believably that people think that the latter just comes naturally to him must take some pretty good acting chops, IMO.

If none of that convinces you, I present a GIF of Gleeson cuddling a puppy:

3c1dddd8-2c31-4067-9048-8bf9b81874c3-200.gif
 
Last edited:

Whiplash27

Quattro!!
Jan 25, 2007
17,343
66
Westchester, NY
I was thinking about the main character deaths on the show. You can see where just about all of them allow certain characters to remove influence from someone of higher rank, insight conflicts, or to push someone to a new locale. A lot of the deaths can actually be figured out by logic if you knew from the beginning who the major characters would end up being in the story. Some are a bit more difficult.

It's interesting to realize that a character like Renly was essentially designed to have Stannis lose at Blackwater (due to the Tullys aligning with the Lannisters), get Margaery married to Joffrey, and Brienne off to Cat and then with Jaime. He really didn't accomplish a whole lot on his own. You have Dany's entire first season arc as a way to go from being subject to Drogo and Viserys to being the main leader. Ned needing to die in order for his kids to have their own separate arcs. Robb's really the toughest one, just seemed to be because Robb was OP and to show that his stupid mistakes would come back to bite him against an OG like Tywin.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
I was thinking about the main character deaths on the show. You can see where just about all of them allow certain characters to remove influence from someone of higher rank, insight conflicts, or to push someone to a new locale. A lot of the deaths can actually be figured out by logic if you knew from the beginning who the major characters would end up being in the story. Some are a bit more difficult.

It's interesting to realize that a character like Renly was essentially designed to have Stannis lose at Blackwater (due to the Tullys aligning with the Lannisters), get Margaery married to Joffrey, and Brienne off to Cat and then with Jaime. He really didn't accomplish a whole lot on his own. You have Dany's entire first season arc as a way to go from being subject to Drogo and Viserys to being the main leader. Ned needing to die in order for his kids to have their own separate arcs. Robb's really the toughest one, just seemed to be because Robb was OP and to show that his stupid mistakes would come back to bite him against an OG like Tywin.
In hindsight, Robb's downfall is pretty obvious all throughout season 3. Even though he had won every pitched battle, he had been losing the war since the end of season 2 and was a terrible politician that blundered his way to first a strategic defeat and then his actual assassination.
 

Whiplash27

Quattro!!
Jan 25, 2007
17,343
66
Westchester, NY
In hindsight, Robb's downfall is pretty obvious all throughout season 3. Even though he had won every pitched battle, he had been losing the war since the end of season 2 and was a terrible politician that blundered his way to first a strategic defeat and then his actual assassination.
He screwed up in handling Jaime (the entire negotiation, letting his mother off the hook & then killing Karstark), marrying Talisa, also sending Theon to the Iron Islands. He could have even been smart enough to make an alliance with Stannis after Renly died and make an even stronger attack on KL or at least made it more difficult for Tywin to reinforce it. Anyway, Robb's downfall doesn't really do a lot to change the course of most of the characters in the story like others.... actually I guess the main thing that comes out of it is Bolton power in the north, which eventually gets overthrown anyway which leads to Sansa being in charge of Winterfell rather than Robb I guess.
 
Last edited:

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
He screwed up in handling Jaime (letting his mother off the hook & then killing Karstark), marrying Talisa, also sending Theon to the Iron Islands. He could have even been smart enough to make an alliance with Stannis after Renly died and make an even stronger attack on KL or at least made it more difficult for Tywin to reinforce it. Anyway, Robb's downfall doesn't really do a lot to change the course of most of the characters in the story like others.... actually I guess the main thing that comes out of it is Bolton power in the north, which eventually gets overthrown anyway.
Those are his major individual mistakes, but he also had no overall strategy since his father was killed. In season 2 his only real goal was to try and cut Tywin off in the Riverlands and free Riverrun from being under siege, but that isn't an overall war strategy, it's short term objectives. What exactly was Robb trying to accomplish in season 2 and season 3 with his rebellion? If it was independence, season 2 would have been the smart time to cut a deal for the North and Riverlands to break away from the crown while the Lannisters were on the retreat and facing imminent doom with first a Baratheon/Tyrell alliance, and later Stannis attacking King's Landing. They missed the opportunity though, allowed the Lannisters to regroup and form an alliance with the other most powerful house, and had no real plan or options.
 

Whiplash27

Quattro!!
Jan 25, 2007
17,343
66
Westchester, NY
I was more thinking about what impact Robb's death had on the long game of the story. I guess the best I can get to is that Robb dies -> Boltons gain power in the North -> Sansa recruits Jon to retake Winterfell -> BotB -> Rickon dies (no more male Stark heirs since Bran excuses himself) -> Jon KitN -> Jon goes to Daenerys. I guess in essence Robb & Rickon needed to die in some way in order for Jon to become King in the North. As such, all male Starks from page 1 needed to either give up authority at WF (Bran becoming TER) or die in order for Jon to become King in the North. Hence why up to this point only the females + Bran survive.
 
Last edited:

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
I was more thinking about what impact Robb's death had on the long game of the story. I guess the best I can get to is that Robb dies -> Boltons gain power in the North -> Sansa recruits Jon to retake Winterfell -> BotB -> Rickon dies (no more male Stark heirs since Bran excuses himself) -> Jon KitN -> Jon goes to Daenerys. I guess in essence Robb & Rickon needed to die in some way in order for Jon to become King in the North. As such, all male Starks from page 1 needed to either give up authority at WF (Bran becoming TER) or die in order for Jon to become King in the North. Hence why up to this point only the females + Bran survive.
I agree, Robb dying definitely opens up the opportunity for Jon to step in and become not only the leader against the dead, but the leader of the entire North.
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
Those are his major individual mistakes, but he also had no overall strategy since his father was killed. In season 2 his only real goal was to try and cut Tywin off in the Riverlands and free Riverrun from being under siege, but that isn't an overall war strategy, it's short term objectives. What exactly was Robb trying to accomplish in season 2 and season 3 with his rebellion? If it was independence, season 2 would have been the smart time to cut a deal for the North and Riverlands to break away from the crown while the Lannisters were on the retreat and facing imminent doom with first a Baratheon/Tyrell alliance, and later Stannis attacking King's Landing. They missed the opportunity though, allowed the Lannisters to regroup and form an alliance with the other most powerful house, and had no real plan or options.

I don't think there was any "deal" to be cut here, other than acquiring and exchanging hostages. The expected outcome at that point in time would have been for Renly's faction to win and claim the Iron Throne, and he showed no interest in leading a 'broken' Kingdom. Renly would have to regroup and consolidate his hold after winning, but eventually they'd march on the North to put down that rebellion, much like how Robert/Ned crushed the Greyjoy rebellion after defeating the Targaryan's. The North could probably hold an army from marching up the neck, but there'd always be the option of a naval landing and their allies in the Riverlands would be completely exposed again.

Really Rob's best chance would have been to crush the Lannisters in the current conflict then create a united North-Riverlands-Vale-Iron Islands alliance to make it too costly for the Kings Landing/Southern alliance to wage war. Everyone says it was a mistake sending Theon back home, but really he only had vague warnings from his mother not to trust Balon Greyjoy. From his perspective and from that point in time I'd say it was the correct choice for him to make, rather Balon's the one who ****ed things up deciding to settle a petty grudge against dead men and attack the Stark's instead of the Lannisters - both of whom were largely undefended on the coast and one being far wealthier than the other. As I had just said any breakaway from Kings Landing required a unified effort, but never mind Tywin needing to "divide and conquer" Balon starting his second rebellion against the thrown voluntarily chose to attack the other rebel faction.

I think what it all comes down to though is for the show I just don't think Dan and David were very good at this medieval war stuff. Like with GRRM you get the sense that he's a legit history enthusiast and maybe even a bit of a war gamer, but D&D don't have much of a grasp on any of this stuff but maybe just read some wikipedia over the weekend and say 'hey that part's cool lets put it in the show' - I'm looking at the wall of bodies part from the Battle of the Bastards.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
I don't think there was any "deal" to be cut here, other than acquiring and exchanging hostages. The expected outcome at that point in time would have been for Renly's faction to win and claim the Iron Throne, and he showed no interest in leading a 'broken' Kingdom. Renly would have to regroup and consolidate his hold after winning, but eventually they'd march on the North to put down that rebellion, much like how Robert/Ned crushed the Greyjoy rebellion after defeating the Targaryan's. The North could probably hold an army from marching up the neck, but there'd always be the option of a naval landing and their allies in the Riverlands would be completely exposed again.

Really Rob's best chance would have been to crush the Lannisters in the current conflict then create a united North-Riverlands-Vale-Iron Islands alliance to make it too costly for the Kings Landing/Southern alliance to wage war. Everyone says it was a mistake sending Theon back home, but really he only had vague warnings from his mother not to trust Balon Greyjoy. From his perspective and from that point in time I'd say it was the correct choice for him to make, rather Balon's the one who ****ed things up deciding to settle a petty grudge against dead men and attack the Stark's instead of the Lannisters - both of whom were largely undefended on the coast and one being far wealthier than the other. As I had just said any breakaway from Kings Landing required a unified effort, but never mind Tywin needing to "divide and conquer" Balon starting his second rebellion against the thrown voluntarily chose to attack the other rebel faction.

I think what it all comes down to though is for the show I just don't think Dan and David were very good at this medieval war stuff. Like with GRRM you get the sense that he's a legit history enthusiast and maybe even a bit of a war gamer, but D&D don't have much of a grasp on any of this stuff but maybe just read some wikipedia over the weekend and say 'hey that part's cool lets put it in the show' - I'm looking at the wall of bodies part from the Battle of the Bastards.
Tywin's war council at the end of season 1 is suggesting they approach Robb and cut a deal since they are surrounded by enemies and need to save their army to hold onto what they have, and Tyrion correctly points out that Robb won't come to the table because he's winning and he's angry about Ned being executed. The possibility was definitely there to go try and cut a deal prior to the Tyrells joining with the Lannisters. Being named, and accepting, King in the North really limited Robb's options for alliances with the Baratheons as well.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Stannis would not have made an alliance with Robb

Yeah, I was really unimpressed with that whole aspect of the story line

Their common and most formidable enemy were the Lannisters

The fact they didn't band together and face that common enemy was frustrating to watch
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Stannis would not have made an alliance with Robb
He would have if Robb was still just Warden of the North and Lord of Winterfell. As soon as he was declared King, uncompromising Stannis would never have made an agreement.
 

Whiplash27

Quattro!!
Jan 25, 2007
17,343
66
Westchester, NY
Other than the Tyrells all of Renly's bannermen declared for Stannis once he was assassinated.
Yes, but add in the Starks and if Stannis could have kept the Tyrells around and it would have been a ridiculous force. Also, Renly was married to Marge at that point, not sure if the Tyrells would have ben able to join the Lannisters if not for Renly's assassination. Would have been pretty pointless too if that strong of a power was coming at KL to overthrow Joffrey.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Other than the Tyrells all of Renly's bannermen declared for Stannis once he was assassinated.
The Tyrells were like half of Renly's force though, and Renly's support for them relied on Margaery Tyrell becoming queen.
 

Emperoreddy

Show Me What You Got!
Apr 13, 2010
129,830
75,219
New Jersey, Exit 16E
It’s amazing how different season 1 is just by the nature of being focused on characters that don’t survive the season.

Watching in hindsight it’s almost cringe worthy watching Ned make mistake after mistake over the course of the season once you learn how the rules of the game actually work.

Even if he just told Robert the truth about his kids before he finally died it could have saved his life.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,017
11,677
It’s amazing how different season 1 is just by the nature of being focused on characters that don’t survive the season.

Watching in hindsight it’s almost cringe worthy watching Ned make mistake after mistake over the course of the season once you learn how the rules of the game actually work.

Even if he just told Robert the truth about his kids before he finally died it could have saved his life.
Doesn't Robert go on the hunt before Ned figures out the truth? And by that point he is destined to die anyway?
 

Emperoreddy

Show Me What You Got!
Apr 13, 2010
129,830
75,219
New Jersey, Exit 16E
Doesn't Robert go on the hunt before Ned figures out the truth? And by that point he is destined to die anyway?

Yeah but he is still alive when he returns. Ned could have told him at his bedside, and Robert would have lost hit shit before dying.

Instead he keeps it to himself and lies in the letter with the “true heir” nonsense to spare his friend the news.

It’s one of the few times Ned is deceitful, and it predictably blows up in his face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->