Game of Thrones - TV Series (NO BOOK SPOILERS)

[Imp]

The two new porn stars for season 4 are Samantha Bentley and Jessica Jensen.

NSFW Missandei pics, http://www.split.com.hr/galerija/no...jive-fotografije-sa-seta-igre-prijestolja/0#1

Turns out there are already a few on board playing various roles. Interdasting.

She's 11 in the show, closer to 12 really give how much time's elapsed. Discrete costuming and "she's an early bloomer" would seem to cover it.

Unfortunately for Maisie, it doesn't appear that she's growing any taller... Good for the show though.

 

[JEDI]

Why are the later GoT books popular? would have thought people would revolt.
Plotlines that suck start to outnumber the good ones:

Robb Stark + Catelyn Stark's story line sucked.

Spoiler

Catelyn's story line after the Red Wedding also sucks.

Daenerys story line after she captures the city also sucks. as well as Ser Jorah Mormont's.

Tyrion's storyline after Jeffrey's wedding seems bad as well.


Good storylines left: Jon Snow, and Aria

 

[Newbian]

I think you may have mistaken this thread for the book thread.

 

[AViking]

Why are the later GoT books popular? would have thought people would revolt.
Plotlines that suck start to outnumber the good ones:

Robb Stark + Catelyn Stark's story line sucked.

Spoiler

Catelyn's story line after the Red Wedding also sucks.

Daenerys story line after she captures the city also sucks. as well as Ser Jorah Mormont's.

Tyrion's storyline after Jeffrey's wedding seems bad as well.


Good storylines left: Jon Snow, and Aria

Book 4 is dry and boring. Things get better in book 5. Looking forward to 6.

One thing that I think is an important distinction between the books and the show is the age of the actors. When you see Rob stark act all noble as a 27 year old man he looks like a total idiot. In the books he's 15 and it's more believable and you aren't always screaming at him for being such a moron.

Rickon is 3
Bran is 7
Arya is 9
Sansa is 11
Jon and Rob are 15

Joffrey is 13
Myrcella is 8
Tommen is 6

Daenerys is 13

 

[Newbian]

Well they did kill off half the main story line in the show or so, robb and Catelyn, so they will have to introduce more to make up for it.

Plus with what we know is coming we still have at least one great season and we will have to see what happens after as they do get a lot slower.

 

[AViking]

There are A LOT of characters. Don't worry about the ones they killed. Plus unless they explicitly burn a body you can't expect it to be dead.

 

[Agent11]

I enjoyed the later books, my main problem was with Dany being a moron.

 

[AViking]

Been a while since I read the books. The starks were morons. What did Dany do that made her a moron? Bitch has Dragons!

 

[Newbian]

Been a while since I read the books. The starks were morons. What did Dany do that made her a moron? Bitch has Dragons!

Go read the book thread to see what she does.

 

[JEDI]

Book 4 is dry and boring. Things get better in book 5. Looking forward to 6.

One thing that I think is an important distinction between the books and the show is the age of the actors. When you see Rob stark act all noble as a 27 year old man he looks like a total idiot. In the books he's 15 and it's more believable and you aren't always screaming at him for being such a moron.

Rickon is 3
Bran is 7
Arya is 9
Sansa is 11
Jon and Rob are 15

Joffrey is 13
Myrcella is 8
Tommen is 6

Daenerys is 13

the show did a lousy job in portraying the age of Robb.
he looks like he's in his 20's.

Daenerys is suppose to be 13?!
hm.. can an actress over the age of 18 portray a 13yr old and still show full nude?

 

[Pheran]

FYI the character ages are meant to be different in the show. From the wiki:

The Stark Children Robb and Jon are 17 instead of 15. Bran is 10 instead of 7 and Rickon's age is increased from 3 to 6. Sansa 13 instead of 11 and Arya is 11 instead of 9.

The Royal children are older: Joffrey is 16 instead of 13, Myrcella is 12 instead of 8 and Tommen is 10 instead of 6. Daenerys is 16 instead of 13.

 

[AViking]

Yes and they did that to try to use older actors. However the story doesn't translate very well. I still think the show is pretty good overall (as long as it's been a while since you read the books or you haven't read the books) but watching my GF's reaction to the show was interesting since she kept facepalming at how stupid the Starks were. Rob stark is 27 in real life and he looks it. It's not believable at all that he's even 17. In the book since they are so much younger the storyline works.

 

[irishScott]

Yes and they did that to try to use older actors. However the story doesn't translate very well. I still think the show is pretty good overall (as long as it's been a while since you read the books or you haven't read the books) but watching my GF's reaction to the show was interesting since she kept facepalming at how stupid the Starks were. Rob stark is 27 in real life and he looks it. It's not believable at all that he's even 17. In the book since they are so much younger the storyline works.

Meh, that wasn't my impression at all. Haven't read the books, but the only Starks I've seen that acted blatantly stupid were Ned and Catelyn. Everyone else, it makes sense to me.

Arya is rebellious and smart, but still a kid.
Sansa is a naive teenage girl with delusions of grandeur about royal life and gets slapped in the face by reality.
Rob, whether 27 or 17,

Spoiler

inherits the rule of a major kingdom and goes to war with what amounts to a superpower, on his first day.

He did rather well considering he had exactly zero experience.
Brandon is a kid just caught up in circumstances making the best of things.

Catelyn, on the other hand, is extremely sharp early on and then makes the idiotic judgement that

Spoiler

somehow returning Jaime to the Lannisters with no one but her bodyguard to bargain will somehow return her daughters to her.

, a judgement that Rob can't believe and places her under house arrest over. Ned should have foreseen more treachery in King's Landing than he did, after all he turned down the throne and stayed away for a reason, but at the same time I can kind of buy him being the tragic idealist who's "buried his head in the snow" for decades and lost his edge.

 

[BladeVenom]

The deaths bookmarked,

 

[bononos]

FYI the character ages are meant to be different in the show. From the wiki:

The Stark Children Robb and Jon are 17 instead of 15. Bran is 10 instead of 7 and Rickon's age is increased from 3 to 6. Sansa 13 instead of 11 and Arya is 11 instead of 9.

The Royal children are older: Joffrey is 16 instead of 13, Myrcella is 12 instead of 8 and Tommen is 10 instead of 6. Daenerys is 16 instead of 13.

I'm curious as to why GRRM would choose such young ages for his characters. Since they were all so precocious, they could have been young adults instead of kids fresh out of puberty.

 

[Newbian]

I'm curious as to why GRRM would choose such young ages for his characters. Since they were all so precocious, they could have been young adults instead of kids fresh out of puberty.

I would assume because it was a lot like in history where young age was important such as getting married when so young.

That or he is a closet pedo and likes writing about it. :biggrin:

 

[irishScott]

I would assume because it was a lot like in history where young age was important such as getting married when so young.

That or he is a closet pedo and likes writing about it. :biggrin:

Kinda doubt the latter given that most of his children end up killing people who attempt to "abuse" them. 😀

But yeah, pubescent or barely post-pubescent marriage is one of the more common and ugly parts of history. Still goes on in places like Afghanistan.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I'm curious as to why GRRM would choose such young ages for his characters. Since they were all so precocious, they could have been young adults instead of kids fresh out of puberty.

because that's how things actually happened in history

shorter average life spans due to harder times meant you had to grow up faster, ie when a girl can start bearing children, she is no longer a child and becomes a woman

basically, he chose to have some younger characters to help illustrate that the world won't wait for you to be ready, he's not telling a fairytale

 

[T_Yamamoto]

FYI the character ages are meant to be different in the show. From the wiki:

The Stark Children Robb and Jon are 17 instead of 15. Bran is 10 instead of 7 and Rickon's age is increased from 3 to 6. Sansa 13 instead of 11 and Arya is 11 instead of 9.

The Royal children are older: Joffrey is 16 instead of 13, Myrcella is 12 instead of 8 and Tommen is 10 instead of 6. Daenerys is 16 instead of 13.

IRL, Maisie Williams (who plays Arya Stark) is 16 I do believe.

 

[Pheran]

I'm curious as to why GRRM would choose such young ages for his characters. Since they were all so precocious, they could have been young adults instead of kids fresh out of puberty.

From GRRM:

From what friends have told me, some of the kids have been aged up from how they're described in the books. Robb (Ned's eldest son) is definitely older, Daenerys seems quite a bit older. Are you okay with that? Was it just logistically necessary? Like you can't actually have someone Daenerys' age doing some of the things she has to do in the books?

Yes. It was logistically necessary. It was legally necessary, especially for something that's an international production. We filmed largely in Ireland, but also in Morocco and Malta. Each of those locations has its own laws and regulations that affect actors and age, and it's a largely American show, so that comes into play, too.

But also in some ways, I think it's realistic. I was basing a lot of the book into my research into the real world middle ages. Where they did not have the whole concept of adolescence that we have: this in-between period when you're not quite an adult but not a child. In most medieval cultures, there was childhood and adulthood, and you went from one to the other. There would be some rite of passage ceremony like the Jewish Bar Mitzvah or Catholic confirmation, which they took seriously in 1300, but not as seriously today. In 2011, we have the ceremonies, but we don't believe the person is an adult. But if you go back to Middle Age history, you find people doing things that they just wouldn't do today. You find kings who are 14 or 15 winning battles, squires who are 8 or 9 rushing into battle with the knights and holding their own. And girls, of course, were getting married at similar ages. So I reflected that in the books, but that becomes more difficult when you have to film it. What age are you going to use your actors? There were all these reasons for it then. Generally, I think it works just as well with the actors we chose. Also, we also have much longer lifespans than in the Middle Ages. Ned is in his mid-30s in the book, Sean Bean is, I believe, 51. (Note: Bean turns 52 the day of the series premiere.) But a medieval man in his mid-30s would be in some senses older than Sean Bean is today. He would've had a much harder life. It would have aged him more quickly. I think aging him up makes sense for who the character is supposed to be, and the experiences he's had.

Source: Interview: 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin

 

[GagHalfrunt]

because that's how things actually happened in history

shorter average life spans due to harder times meant you had to grow up faster, ie when a girl can start bearing children, she is no longer a child and becomes a woman

Shorter "average" life spans were due almost entirely to infant mortality rates. If a child lived to be 6 or 8 years old the average lifespan was pretty close to what it is now. In the middle ages in Europe average lifespan might have been 50 or so, but the average lifespan for a 10 year old was into the 70s. While kids marrying young was done among certain classes in certain places at certain times, it had little or nothing to do with shorter life spans or the need to grow up faster. Children of the upper classes were married (or at least engaged) early to cement alliances and to further the family needs. Children of the middle and lower classes married much later similar to the ages they marry now.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Shorter "average" life spans were due almost entirely to infant mortality rates. If a child lived to be 6 or 8 years old the average lifespan was pretty close to what it is now. In the middle ages in Europe average lifespan might have been 50 or so, but the average lifespan for a 10 year old was into the 70s. While kids marrying young was done among certain classes in certain places at certain times, it had little or nothing to do with shorter life spans or the need to grow up faster. Children of the upper classes were married (or at least engaged) early to cement alliances and to further the family needs. Children of the middle and lower classes married much later similar to the ages they marry now.

source? can't help but think you're pulling something out of the air here...oh wait you are

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/241864.stm

"However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties."

but maybe you mean aristocracy, but even then you'd be wrong, as life expectancy was only into the 60s (not 70s) if you managed to make it to 21, not merely just 10

then of course we also have lowered expectancies during times of war/pestilence (ie exactly what we have in GoT)

more goodness

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080220180752AAY3w8t

"Most adults died in their forties, and firty-year-olds were considered venerable indeed."

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

"Several sources on the internet argue that if a person could get through childhood and early adulthood, he could expect to live into the 60′s or even 70′s. That claim is not substantiated by the data I’ve found. It also seems like a specious argument to say that a person could live to be 64 IF he didn’t go to war, she didn’t have a baby, and nobody got sick. Each of those conditions was endemic to life in the Middle Ages. A calculation of average—whether median or mean—life spans HAS to take this into account. That’s like saying “all the men in my family would have lived to be 91 if they hadn’t all died of heart attacks at 63”. It also implies 1) that children aren’t ‘people’; and 2) that ‘people’ aren’t women—since pregnancy and childbirth were unavoidable for women in that era unless they were barren or nuns."

ggs

 

[GagHalfrunt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy


Classical Rome 20–30 At age 10, life expectancy an additional 35 to 37 years (total age 45 to 47) That's FIRST century.

Medieval Britain 30 At age 21, life expectancy additional 43 years (total age 64).

Life expectancy increases with age as the individual survives the higher mortality rates associated with childhood. For instance, the table above listed life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain at 30. A male member of the English aristocracy at the same period could expect to live, having survived until the age of 21:[19]

1200–1300 A.D.: 43 years (to age 64)
1300–1400 A.D.: 34 years (to age 55) (due to the impact of the Black Death)
1400–1500 A.D.: 48 years (to age 69)
1500–1550 A.D.: 50 years (to age 71).

During the early 1600s in England, life expectancy was only about 35 years, largely because two-thirds of all children died before the age of four.[26] The average life expectancy in Colonial America was under 25 years in the Virginia colony,[27] and in New England about 40% of children failed to reach adulthood.


Yawn.

But the place you got shot down for being unbelievably stupid was in the WHY, not in the HOW OLD.

Upper class married early for alliances, lower class married late because they worked through their adolescence. Period.

http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/...l;jsessionid=4D04C8E5A1CAAD84FCC5476E51333DC3

One common belief about the Renaissance is that children, especially girls, married young. In some noble houses marriages were indeed contracted at a young age, for reasons of property and family alliance, but in fact the average age of marriage was quite old--in the middle twenties.

Marriage statistics indicate that the mean marriage age for the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras was higher than many people realize. Data taken from birthdates of women and marriage certificates reveals mean marriage ages to have been as follows:
1566-1619 27.0 years
1647-1719 29.6 years
1719-1779 26.8 years
1770-1837 25.1 years


http://womenofhistory.blogspot.com/2007/08/medieval-marriage-childbirth.html


But what of young women who were not noble or royal - at what age did they marry and have children.

The consensus is that young women of middle or low status married and gave birth at a much later age for a number of reasons:

They did not need to marry for dynastic reasons.
They tended to contribute to the family income whilst they remained unmarried and still living within the family unit.
Girls were often employed in service for a “fixed” term before being paid out and released from service.
And in some cases, a “fee” was required to be paid upon the marriage.
“Church law forbade child marriage and allowed young brides and grooms to repudiate the marriage once they reached the age of puberty, which was officially set at 12 for girls and 14 for boys”

So, the most common age for a young woman of middle or low status to marry was from the age of 22 years old. Thus we can conclude that this young woman would have given birth to her first child before she was 25 years old.



So please go out and buy a clue. Marriage age had NOTHING to do with life expectancy and EVERYTHING to do with class. The rich married young for politics, everyone else married MUCH MUCH later. In fact, the upper classes had a higher life expectancy and married MUCH younger, the exact opposite of what your ridiculously uninformed nonsense would suggest.

 

[Newbian]

You know the show it taking too damn long when we have this kind of crap going on in the posts instead of talking about extra nudity they add for the show even if it is the bad kind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHYYJ8kmsnk

 

[Gooberlx2]

I enjoyed the later books, my main problem was with Dany being a moron.

Ditto. Sure, AFFC was drier and harder to get through than the others, but it was plot and character heavy, and sets up a lot of events.

Spoiler

AFFC, gloriously maxes out the reader's I-hate-Cersei-so-fucking-much-o-meter

Spoiler

Dany's quagmire is certainly explainable by her overly soft, charitable, motherly tendencies. She reverted to being an uncertain little girl when things got politically complicated and she got caught up in romance. Thankfully, events will have pretty much transformed her, I believe, back into a conquering Khaleesi. She's most successful when her goals are few and simple.

ADWD, to me, is the second most exciting book behind ASOS. There is so much that happens, plot-wise and action-wise. It's great. I can't wait for TWOW.