That would be Orys Baratheon - some people should read the appendix more carefully before they get all hoity toity I think he was the first Baratheon king, who started the Baratheon dynasty way before the Targs subdued them all. EDIT: maybe Tywin included him to emphasise Tommen's 'Baratheon' heritage?
Some people should get their facts straight before correcting other people ;-)
Orys Baratheon was a Valeyrian Bastard (possible brother of Aegon) he was never a King only a Lord and he was never killed and replaced by his brother.
While the Storm Kings date back 1000's of years their House name was Durrandon not Baratheon.
Orys Baratheon married the last Storm Kings Daughter and took their Stag Sigil and their House Words as his own but House Baratheon only stretches back 300 years and the first Baratheon King was Robert.
Orys the First may well have been an ancient Storm King or possibly more likely an ancient King of the Rock but he's not a character that has ever been mentioned in the books or elsewhere till now.
Speaking of King Robert, am I reading too much into Tywin referring to him as such instead of "your father" when describing the three different kings to Tommen?
Speaking of King Robert, am I reading too much into Tywin referring to him as such instead of "your father" when describing the three different kings to Tommen?
Yeah I remember thinking it a bit odd that Tywin didn't refer to Robert as Tommens father.
Orys the First may well have been an ancient Storm King or possibly more likely an ancient King of the Rock but he's not a character that has ever been mentioned in the books or elsewhere till now.
The other option is that Orys I was indeed a Targ King and the show has just renamed him*. If so the most likely would be Aenys I who reigned briefly (5 years rather than the 1 Orys reigned for) and was then succeeded by his Brother.
Given how Aenys would be pronounced it was probably a good idea
*They have already wiped out a generation of Targs inc King Jaehaerys II so a name change is small potatoes.
I think the girl who plays Shireen is doing a great job. I find myself really liking the character while in the books I kinda ignored her. Plus she isn't being folowed around by that irritating jester. The portrayal of Selyse has been good also imo.
Considering the shock over the Jaime/Cersei scene, I do wonder how people will react over the fate of Shae and Tywin.
Wait, what? The Hound is an ass-hole who goes back on his word and steals things? How shocking!
Wait, what? The wildlings are viscous people who raid villages? Get out of here!
...
Sandor Clegane is not a cuddly anti-hero who just spouts cheeky one-liners and eats chicken. He's essentially a terrible person who knows how the world is. I'm glad the show reminded us of that. Same with the wildlings- Ygritte and Tormund in particular are still wildlings and therefore, raid villages and kill villagers. They've grown up in a culture where this is the norm, and where people beyond the wall are their enemies. Anyhow, why are people getting angry about Ygritte killing the young boy's father? She murdered the old guy in 3x09 without any remorse. Sure, different circumstances, but it does show it's not exactly a stretch in Ygritte's character to commit this murder.
I hate how generically 'bad' the Thenns are, and how they're throwing the Free Folk in with them. Of course, they're not perfect and I would expect some raiding, but the reason I loved the Battle of Castle Black in the books was that I wasn't sure who to support. I could understand what the Night's Watch were fighting for, but I could also understand what the wildlings were fighting for, and they were both legitimate causes.
Yeah, the Thenns aren't exactly deep and complex characters, but we do need someone to root against in the upcoming battle, in which both sides have characters we empathise with. Yes, you can still empathise with the wildlings. In the books, they raid villages and Mole's Town, and yet you still supported the wilding's cause in the books. The only difference is we get to see these raids in the show, and also get more of an insight into Ygritte and Tormund's characters in the upcoming battle.
Wait, what? The Hound is an ass-hole who goes back on his word and steals things? How shocking!
Wait, what? The wildlings are viscous people who raid villages? Get out of here!
...
Sandor Clegane is not a cuddly anti-hero who just spouts cheeky one-liners and eats chicken. He's essentially a terrible person who knows how the world is. I'm glad the show reminded us of that. Same with the wildlings- Ygritte and Tormund in particular are still wildlings and therefore, raid villages and kill villagers. They've grown up in a culture where this is the norm, and where people beyond the wall are their enemies. Anyhow, why are people getting angry about Ygritte killing the young boy's father? She murdered the old guy in 3x09 without any remorse. Sure, different circumstances, but it does show it's not exactly a stretch in Ygritte's character to commit this murder.
Yeah, the Thenns aren't exactly deep and complex characters, but we do need someone to root against in the upcoming battle, in which both sides have characters we empathise with. Yes, you can still empathise with the wildlings. In the books, they raid villages and Mole's Town, and yet you still supported the wilding's cause in the books. The only difference is we get to see these raids in the show, and also get more of an insight into Ygritte and Tormund's characters in the upcoming battle.
I'm not against them showing the raid (I briefly mentioned that in the post you quoted), but my main problem is how badly developed the Thenns are. I didn't mind the rest of the scene too much until nearly every TV-only viewer seemed to strongly hate Ygritte for it.
As with the Hound, I just thought it was badly handled in that episode. It just seemed lazy when there could have been alternatives. After all, in the books the Hound welcomes the opportunity to stay somewhere for a while (I know the canon is different but there seems to be less ambiguity in the show, and this goes both ways e.g. Cersei and Tyrion losing a lot of their negative qualities).
I'm not against them showing the raid (I briefly mentioned that in the post you quoted), but my main problem is how badly developed the Thenns are. I didn't mind the rest of the scene too much until nearly every TV-only viewer seemed to strongly hate Ygritte for it.
As with the Hound, I just thought it was badly handled in that episode. It just seemed lazy when there could have been alternatives. After all, in the books the Hound welcomes the opportunity to stay somewhere for a while (I know the canon is different but there seems to be less ambiguity in the show, and this goes both ways e.g. Cersei and Tyrion losing a lot of their negative qualities).
That's fair enough, I agree with you on the Thenns. I would have liked to see the more complex Thenns from the book, but I was just saying I think we need a completely villainous force in the upcoming battle. Sure, they're not complex but I think they're very memorable and terrifying as villains, so in my opinion they suit their purpose for the TV series.
I can't remember that Hound scene from the book, but I find it interesting how you pointed out Cersei and Tyrion's loss of negative qualities. I do agree they've humanised Cersei more to flesh out her character, but she's still a dark character- two episodes ago, she stopped food being given to the poor just to spite her son's wife. It'll also make her spiral into madness and paranoia following her father's death more shocking. Same with Tyrion. I think they are just delaying his descent into darkness, similar to what they did with Arya- she was killing people in book 2, whereas in the show, it's only in recent episodes that she killed her first man. I just think in series 2 of the show they needed clear protagonists for the show to continue in the absence of Ned Stark, so they delayed the greyness of characters such as Tyrion and Arya until much later.
That's fair enough, I agree with you on the Thenns. I would have liked to see the more complex Thenns from the book, but I was just saying I think we need a completely villainous force in the upcoming battle. Sure, they're not complex but I think they're very memorable and terrifying as villains, so in my opinion they suit their purpose for the TV series.
I can't remember that Hound scene from the book, but I find it interesting how you pointed out Cersei and Tyrion's loss of negative qualities. I do agree they've humanised Cersei more to flesh out her character, but she's still a dark character- two episodes ago, she stopped food being given to the poor just to spite her son's wife. It'll also make her spiral into madness and paranoia following her father's death more shocking. Same with Tyrion. I think they are just delaying his descent into darkness, similar to what they did with Arya- she was killing people in book 2, whereas in the show, it's only in recent episodes that she killed her first man. I just think in series 2 of the show they needed clear protagonists for the show to continue in the absence of Ned Stark, so they delayed the greyness of characters such as Tyrion and Arya until much later.
Arya killed in season 1 when she was escaping. A stable boy. When the hound asked "That the first man you killed?" her answer "man, yes" as the previous kill was a boy.
Arya killed in season 1 when she was escaping. A stable boy. When the hound asked "That the first man you killed?" her answer "man, yes" as the previous kill was a boy.
Yes you're right. I should have specified premeditated kills in my post, as the stabbing of the stable boy was in self defence and therefore, doesn't really show a darkness within Arya's characters. It's still only in recent episodes (where she murders the Freys and Polliver) that we are finally seeing Arya's greyness as a character.
I've realized reading these threads over the last couple of years that I must be a lot less sensitive than many of the shows fans. I've read all the books, so i'll notice difference whilst watching and sometimes question the choices made - but overall I'll end an episode either entertained or not. Then i'll come on DS and find out that there's some almighty row going on about (in my opinion) trivial things.
As far as i'm concerned the books are the books and the show is the show, i'm not expecting them to be the same. In fact, I'd say that a lot of the stuff after ASOS could do with rewriting and i'm happy that they've started already. I found the darkening of Jamie and the Hounds characters a little unnecessary but then the whole point of the series is that it's a story with few clear cut 'good' and 'evil' characters. If, like me, you see the world as many shades of grey rather than black and white then you appreciate a narrative where 'good' people do evil things and vice versa.
In terms of the graphic violence, torture and sexual content, i'm obviously just far far more desensitized to this stuff than the rest of the posters. For me it's all just a bit of fun and helps make the portrayal of a middle ages style world more realistic to me. I don't know how anyone that can sit through a Saw movie, can watch Gladiator or watches internet porn (something like 85% of men) can be shocked by GOT . . .
I've realized reading these threads over the last couple of years that I must be a lot less sensitive than many of the shows fans. I've read all the books, so i'll notice difference whilst watching and sometimes question the choices made - but overall I'll end an episode either entertained or not. Then i'll come on DS and find out that there's some almighty row going on about (in my opinion) trivial things.
As far as i'm concerned the books are the books and the show is the show, i'm not expecting them to be the same. In fact, I'd say that a lot of the stuff after ASOS could do with rewriting and i'm happy that they've started already. I found the darkening of Jamie and the Hounds characters a little unnecessary but then the whole point of the series is that it's a story with few clear cut 'good' and 'evil' characters. If, like me, you see the world as many shades of grey rather than black and white then you appreciate a narrative where 'good' people do evil things and vice versa.
In terms of the graphic violence, torture and sexual content, i'm obviously just far far more desensitized to this stuff than the rest of the posters. For me it's all just a bit of fun and helps make the portrayal of a middle ages style world more realistic to me. I don't know how anyone that can sit through a Saw movie, can watch Gladiator or watches internet porn (something like 85% of men) can be shocked by GOT . . .
I've realized reading these threads over the last couple of years that I must be a lot less sensitive than many of the shows fans. I've read all the books, so i'll notice difference whilst watching and sometimes question the choices made - but overall I'll end an episode either entertained or not. Then i'll come on DS and find out that there's some almighty row going on about (in my opinion) trivial things.
As far as i'm concerned the books are the books and the show is the show, i'm not expecting them to be the same. In fact, I'd say that a lot of the stuff after ASOS could do with rewriting and i'm happy that they've started already. I found the darkening of Jamie and the Hounds characters a little unnecessary but then the whole point of the series is that it's a story with few clear cut 'good' and 'evil' characters. If, like me, you see the world as many shades of grey rather than black and white then you appreciate a narrative where 'good' people do evil things and vice versa.
In terms of the graphic violence, torture and sexual content, i'm obviously just far far more desensitized to this stuff than the rest of the posters. For me it's all just a bit of fun and helps make the portrayal of a middle ages style world more realistic to me. I don't know how anyone that can sit through a Saw movie, can watch Gladiator or watches internet porn (something like 85% of men) can be shocked by GOT . . .
Well as the show is called Game of Thrones, and has more or less the same characters and plots in it, I can't help comparing it to the books, I'm sure I'm not alone.
I know they have to play around with the characters a bit, because obviously there are way too many of them for TV, but it infuriates me when they have a scene, that is described in the book in detail, and then corrupt it for no good reason other than prurience. That's two scenes now, that have morphed into rape in the show, that were not rape at all in the book. It spoils it for me when that happens far more than non-existent characters appearing in the show (Ros), name changes (Asha, Vargo Hoat), or scenes that just don't exist in the books (the hound robbing that decent family).
I sat through Gladiator, I don't remember any particularly bad bits in that, and I sat through the first Saw film, just the once, I didn't feel the need to see any more of them. However, I'm not particularly shocked by GoT, or its gritty mediaeval realism, I just don't like the gratuitous altering of scenes that are established in the book. I didn't like the overdoing of the Theon torture last season either, there is very little directly mentioned of it in the book, I know they had to show something in the TV series, but the way it was done was excessive, and really not at all entertaining. I did quite a lot of fast forwarding last year.
I suppose as GRRM is involved with the television series as well as writing the books and has told the producers how it ends, they can get to the same place by a different route.
I am reading AFFC currently and have not seen this episode yet, but if it is different to the books I am happy about that. I find that the first time I watch these episodes its like a visual bullet point list of what happened in the books. The second time I enjoy it much more and it feels more like watching the other series, where I hadn't read the books.
There is also the possibility that now GRRM can look back on his work along with the producers, they can improve on it. Going by AFFC they are going to be hard pressed to get two series out of that and ADOD. If its just one they will be ready in 2015 to film TWOW just as he publishes it.
GRRM has said TWOW will go much further north and explain what that place is all about. As some characters are way ahead of others, we may even be seeing some TWOW in this series. Its going to get a lot more mixed up now I feel.
Another excellent episode! Only sad thing is this looks to be the end of the delightful Olenna Tyrell I gather she doesn't feature in the books after Tommen's wedding and it looks like in the show she's left earlier than that .... shame.
Yes I'm assuming that because GRRM is closely involved with the show that any deviations from the novels have been sanctioned by him.
I'm not sure what on earth they're doing with Bran & co with the mutineers at Craster's Keep but I guess they have to keep the Bran story line going.
Well they sort of meet them in the book as well. The Mutineers are following Bran and Co so Coldhands goes back and kills them. Bran warged into Summer then eats their bodies.
Another excellent episode! Only sad thing is this looks to be the end of the delightful Olenna Tyrell I gather she doesn't feature in the books after Tommen's wedding and it looks like in the show she's left earlier than that .... shame.
I could see them having Olenna return to the Capital when things start going wrong for the Tyrells.
GRRM may end up doing the same in the books of course.
Seems the "leader" White Walker in the episode was initially named as The Night's King (the legendary Commander of the Nights Watch that fell in love with an Other) on HBO Go but the Info was then removed.
So just a cool name the show decided to use in a different context or a big reveal that the Night's King in the book was real and is still around in the current time?
We already have one former Commander of the Nights Watch hanging around north of the Wall, not sure if GRRM would have a second one or not
Oh and that young boy who survived the Village attack saying what a great archer he was, I think we can all guess where that is heading.
Sorry if I'm being really dense - but what exactly was the spoiler?
That the White Walkers actually turn the baby boys they take from Crasters into White Walkers.
It was probably the most popular theory and it's hinted at in the books with Craster's Wives calling the WW Craster's Sons but there was never any confirmation that this was what actually happened.
It could have just been a superstition that the Wives had developed over the years and in reality the WW just ate the babies (the other most common theory of what happened to them) or did something else to them.
That the White Walkers actually turn the baby boys they take from Crasters into White Walkers.
It was probably the most popular theory and it's hinted at in the books with Craster's Wives calling the WW Craster's Sons but there was never any confirmation that this was what actually happened.
It could have just been a superstition that the Wives had developed over the years and in reality the WW just ate the babies (the other most common theory of what happened to them) or did something else to them.
Oh, ok. Though I thought that anyone that was killed by a White Walker was turned into one anyway? I thought that was the whole logic of Jon Snow allowing the wildlings to cross the wall as he was worried that they would eventually just add to the undead army. So it didn't twig with me that it was anything significant.
Comments
Some people should get their facts straight before correcting other people ;-)
Orys Baratheon was a Valeyrian Bastard (possible brother of Aegon) he was never a King only a Lord and he was never killed and replaced by his brother.
While the Storm Kings date back 1000's of years their House name was Durrandon not Baratheon.
Orys Baratheon married the last Storm Kings Daughter and took their Stag Sigil and their House Words as his own but House Baratheon only stretches back 300 years and the first Baratheon King was Robert.
Orys the First may well have been an ancient Storm King or possibly more likely an ancient King of the Rock but he's not a character that has ever been mentioned in the books or elsewhere till now.
Yeah I remember thinking it a bit odd that Tywin didn't refer to Robert as Tommens father.
The other option is that Orys I was indeed a Targ King and the show has just renamed him*. If so the most likely would be Aenys I who reigned briefly (5 years rather than the 1 Orys reigned for) and was then succeeded by his Brother.
Given how Aenys would be pronounced it was probably a good idea
*They have already wiped out a generation of Targs inc King Jaehaerys II so a name change is small potatoes.
Considering the shock over the Jaime/Cersei scene, I do wonder how people will react over the fate of Shae and Tywin.
Wait, what? The wildlings are viscous people who raid villages? Get out of here!
...
Sandor Clegane is not a cuddly anti-hero who just spouts cheeky one-liners and eats chicken. He's essentially a terrible person who knows how the world is. I'm glad the show reminded us of that. Same with the wildlings- Ygritte and Tormund in particular are still wildlings and therefore, raid villages and kill villagers. They've grown up in a culture where this is the norm, and where people beyond the wall are their enemies. Anyhow, why are people getting angry about Ygritte killing the young boy's father? She murdered the old guy in 3x09 without any remorse. Sure, different circumstances, but it does show it's not exactly a stretch in Ygritte's character to commit this murder.
Yeah, the Thenns aren't exactly deep and complex characters, but we do need someone to root against in the upcoming battle, in which both sides have characters we empathise with. Yes, you can still empathise with the wildlings. In the books, they raid villages and Mole's Town, and yet you still supported the wilding's cause in the books. The only difference is we get to see these raids in the show, and also get more of an insight into Ygritte and Tormund's characters in the upcoming battle.
I'm not against them showing the raid (I briefly mentioned that in the post you quoted), but my main problem is how badly developed the Thenns are. I didn't mind the rest of the scene too much until nearly every TV-only viewer seemed to strongly hate Ygritte for it.
As with the Hound, I just thought it was badly handled in that episode. It just seemed lazy when there could have been alternatives. After all, in the books the Hound welcomes the opportunity to stay somewhere for a while (I know the canon is different but there seems to be less ambiguity in the show, and this goes both ways e.g. Cersei and Tyrion losing a lot of their negative qualities).
That's fair enough, I agree with you on the Thenns. I would have liked to see the more complex Thenns from the book, but I was just saying I think we need a completely villainous force in the upcoming battle. Sure, they're not complex but I think they're very memorable and terrifying as villains, so in my opinion they suit their purpose for the TV series.
I can't remember that Hound scene from the book, but I find it interesting how you pointed out Cersei and Tyrion's loss of negative qualities. I do agree they've humanised Cersei more to flesh out her character, but she's still a dark character- two episodes ago, she stopped food being given to the poor just to spite her son's wife. It'll also make her spiral into madness and paranoia following her father's death more shocking. Same with Tyrion. I think they are just delaying his descent into darkness, similar to what they did with Arya- she was killing people in book 2, whereas in the show, it's only in recent episodes that she killed her first man. I just think in series 2 of the show they needed clear protagonists for the show to continue in the absence of Ned Stark, so they delayed the greyness of characters such as Tyrion and Arya until much later.
Arya killed in season 1 when she was escaping. A stable boy. When the hound asked "That the first man you killed?" her answer "man, yes" as the previous kill was a boy.
Yes you're right. I should have specified premeditated kills in my post, as the stabbing of the stable boy was in self defence and therefore, doesn't really show a darkness within Arya's characters. It's still only in recent episodes (where she murders the Freys and Polliver) that we are finally seeing Arya's greyness as a character.
As far as i'm concerned the books are the books and the show is the show, i'm not expecting them to be the same. In fact, I'd say that a lot of the stuff after ASOS could do with rewriting and i'm happy that they've started already. I found the darkening of Jamie and the Hounds characters a little unnecessary but then the whole point of the series is that it's a story with few clear cut 'good' and 'evil' characters. If, like me, you see the world as many shades of grey rather than black and white then you appreciate a narrative where 'good' people do evil things and vice versa.
In terms of the graphic violence, torture and sexual content, i'm obviously just far far more desensitized to this stuff than the rest of the posters. For me it's all just a bit of fun and helps make the portrayal of a middle ages style world more realistic to me. I don't know how anyone that can sit through a Saw movie, can watch Gladiator or watches internet porn (something like 85% of men) can be shocked by GOT . . .
Could not have put it better!
Well as the show is called Game of Thrones, and has more or less the same characters and plots in it, I can't help comparing it to the books, I'm sure I'm not alone.
I know they have to play around with the characters a bit, because obviously there are way too many of them for TV, but it infuriates me when they have a scene, that is described in the book in detail, and then corrupt it for no good reason other than prurience. That's two scenes now, that have morphed into rape in the show, that were not rape at all in the book. It spoils it for me when that happens far more than non-existent characters appearing in the show (Ros), name changes (Asha, Vargo Hoat), or scenes that just don't exist in the books (the hound robbing that decent family).
I sat through Gladiator, I don't remember any particularly bad bits in that, and I sat through the first Saw film, just the once, I didn't feel the need to see any more of them. However, I'm not particularly shocked by GoT, or its gritty mediaeval realism, I just don't like the gratuitous altering of scenes that are established in the book. I didn't like the overdoing of the Theon torture last season either, there is very little directly mentioned of it in the book, I know they had to show something in the TV series, but the way it was done was excessive, and really not at all entertaining. I did quite a lot of fast forwarding last year.
Hell, above and beyond the books.
Just a bit. I didn't like that episode, would go so far as to say that I thought much of it was rubbish
All that cr@p at Crasters Keep. I suppose Jon Snow is going to get to meet Bran again now, when he attacks the deserters.
And wtf was Vargo Hoat, sorry, Locke, doing at Castle Black?
I am reading AFFC currently and have not seen this episode yet, but if it is different to the books I am happy about that. I find that the first time I watch these episodes its like a visual bullet point list of what happened in the books. The second time I enjoy it much more and it feels more like watching the other series, where I hadn't read the books.
There is also the possibility that now GRRM can look back on his work along with the producers, they can improve on it. Going by AFFC they are going to be hard pressed to get two series out of that and ADOD. If its just one they will be ready in 2015 to film TWOW just as he publishes it.
GRRM has said TWOW will go much further north and explain what that place is all about. As some characters are way ahead of others, we may even be seeing some TWOW in this series. Its going to get a lot more mixed up now I feel.
I'm not sure what on earth they're doing with Bran & co with the mutineers at Craster's Keep but I guess they have to keep the Bran story line going.
Well they sort of meet them in the book as well. The Mutineers are following Bran and Co so Coldhands goes back and kills them. Bran warged into Summer then eats their bodies.
I could see them having Olenna return to the Capital when things start going wrong for the Tyrells.
GRRM may end up doing the same in the books of course.
That was explained last week.
His mission from Roose was to find out what Jon knew about the location of Bran and Rickon and then kill Jon for good measure.
http://io9.com/this-accidental-game-of-thrones-spoiler-just-changed-1568796246/all
So just a cool name the show decided to use in a different context or a big reveal that the Night's King in the book was real and is still around in the current time?
We already have one former Commander of the Nights Watch hanging around north of the Wall, not sure if GRRM would have a second one or not
Oh and that young boy who survived the Village attack saying what a great archer he was, I think we can all guess where that is heading.
Sorry if I'm being really dense - but what exactly was the spoiler?
That the White Walkers actually turn the baby boys they take from Crasters into White Walkers.
It was probably the most popular theory and it's hinted at in the books with Craster's Wives calling the WW Craster's Sons but there was never any confirmation that this was what actually happened.
It could have just been a superstition that the Wives had developed over the years and in reality the WW just ate the babies (the other most common theory of what happened to them) or did something else to them.
Oh, ok. Though I thought that anyone that was killed by a White Walker was turned into one anyway? I thought that was the whole logic of Jon Snow allowing the wildlings to cross the wall as he was worried that they would eventually just add to the undead army. So it didn't twig with me that it was anything significant.