Mr. Garrison Teaches Game of Thrones as History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFA4sCBaHok
You don't have to be a History Buff to get the Link between the Lannisters and Lancasters.
Posted on 03/30/2014 6:51:27 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
A young pretender raises an army to take the throne. Having recently learnt of his father’s beheading, the adolescent — dashing and charismatic and descended from the old kings of the north — vows to avenge him. Despite his youth, he has already won in the field and commands the loyalty of many of the leading families of the realm; he is supported in this war by his mother, who has spirited away her two younger boys to safety. Pitted against them is the Queen, proud and strong-willed, and more of a man than anyone around her, battling for the inheritance of her sadistic young son.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.co.uk ...
I’ve seen bits of it.
Utter garbage.
Why do people watch?
It’s also mainstreaming pornography.
Mr. Garrison Teaches Game of Thrones as History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFA4sCBaHok
You don't have to be a History Buff to get the Link between the Lannisters and Lancasters.
It is a rip off of the following:
1. War of the Roses
2. Lord of the Rings
3. The Hyborian Age by Robert E Howard
I had watched the series during the ‘free weekends’ my cable occasionally has. It was difficult to keep up when they were only showing 10 episodes per year.
This month, my cable has the entire 3 previous seasons On Demand. I have been marathoning the first 3 seasons and the storyline makes more sense now. I am about half-way through Season 3 in preparation for Season 4 which starts next month.
I find it to be very slow and boring. There aren’t enough good battle scenes and it is very predictable for me, who has yet to read any of it. I do not think Martin is anywhere near Tolkien. I think the homosexual (lesbian) sex in the series, which was surprisingly graphic enough, was to keep people watching. Charles Dance is really the only interesting character left. I have dropped HBO since last Spring.
I read that HBO bought the series only for the “red wedding” scene.
If you have a chance to watch them all, and can go back and watch the first season over, it’s pretty easy to tie everything together. That’s what I have done.
I’ve never watched an entire episode of the show; the only reason I watched what I did is ‘cause Carice van Houten (one of my modern favs) was nekkid.
I dumped HBO after “True Detective” finished; all of the “premium” channels are schlock.
Have any of you watched “Black Sails” on Starz ? I found it to be just as boring and hard to follow all the characters. I only watched it as long as I did for the Jessica Biel lookalike, Jessica Parker Kennedy, who is stunning.
That is what I have been doing for the last 2 weeks now. I am re-watching the entire series On Demand.
I also pulled up the official webpage to identify families and some individuals.
“Have any of you watched “Black Sails” on Starz ?”
I watch “White Sails” on Meteorz.
I had Starz free for several years but it ran out. This pirate show looked interesting so I considered pirate downloading it, but your opinion of it put me off.
I watched a couple of Starz series, they all seem to get canceled. “Boss”, I enjoyed a lot and was sorry to see canceled. I found the plot very interesting and I have a thing for Kathleen Robertson, who appeared nude every other episode.
“Camelot”, was stupid but had Eva Green. A few eps of “Magic City” before my Starz ran out, Olga Kurylenko. Never saw their acclaimed “Spartacus” other than certain lewd scenes made available on certain websites.
No HBO, never seen GOT, other than a certain scene of the blond dragon egg girl not enjoying her wedding night. But I feel like I should watch it due to the cultural significance it’s seemed to achieve.
nuff said
I’ve always thought of Westeros to be Britain before the last ice advance maximum. Put the Ice wall where Hadrian’s wall was later built.
Cancelling “Boss” was a disappointment. Got too close to the ugly reality of Chicago/Combiner politics. It had low ratings.
“Magic City” was OK, great period sets and costumes, but it seemed to lack a compelling storyline. The lead actor (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) was no James Gandolfini, whom I found boring, but the real star was Danny Huston. I’d rather he have been the central character, a full on psychopath. It was like he was channeling his dad, John, from “Chinatown.”
I’m waiting to see if “Penny Dreadful” is any good (it also has Eva Green), but it sounds like they put all the late 19th century horror stories into a big blender (though they admitted as such).
I have yet to watch GOT, but when I saw it had over 250 characters, that was just too much to take. You need a soap opera-style program (with 5 hour eps a week) over a period of years to begin to absorb all of that. I watch the remaining 4 soaps on the networks (General Hospital being one, where you have over 50 or so active characters, and having watched for about 12 years, I at least am familiar with the motivations, histories, etc.).
Huh? Cersei is no longer the queen and her father and brother (and lover) certainly seem manly enough. Other than that I suppose this is correct.
True enough. However, what finally turned me off the books, quite some time before the movie came out, was the absence of characters, after the death of Stark, who were honorable by the standards of their time.
We forget how utterly necessary a reputation (at least) for honor was to a medieval leader. There was no government, in the sense we think of it, only reciprocal vows of fealty and protection. A leader's power was quite literally based on his follower's belief that he was a man who would honor his vows to them, which was what led them to honor theirs to him.
Yes, Richard III probably bumped off his nephews in the Tower, something mentioned in the article. But that's precisely my point. By doing so, he lost the support of his followers, who abandoned him or turned against him, some of them on the field of battle itself.
GOT ignores the huge number of medieval men who did indeed behave honorably. One good example was John of Gaunt, ancestor of the Lancasters. He was regent for Richard II, who had succeeded at the age of 10. John could easily have usurped the throne, but remained loyal.
Another example was John of Bedford, himself a Lancaster, who loyally protected and served his nephew Henry VI, who succeeded his father as King while still less than a year old.
It seems to me GOT completely ignored the down-side, politically speaking, of a reputation for not behaving in a way seen as honorable by peers and vassals. To be sure, what that consisted of was often quite different from what we would consider it to be today.
Seems to me Martin projected the modern attitude of disdain and cynicism about personal honor back into the Middle Ages where it just didn't belong. Such men certainly existed, but they had to a considerable extent hide it. There were very real limits on what a medieval noble or king could do without destroying his own power base.
It’s also mainstreaming pornography.
***
Yep!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.