HBO's Game of Thrones

All non-Nolan related entertainment discussion. Join the fun!
Posts: 18802
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1500s England

Posts: 328
Joined: January 2019
Doesn't look good for a SW film directed by Sapochnik :cry: :cry: :cry:
I understand that D&D tell the director how they feel about his choices, they're the showrunners. They can't just let every episode break the rules of the show. And in the end, they've left Sapochnik break them completely twice (both piano sequences).
As for the Dothraki's charge, I think it would have been amazingly ballsy to do it the Sapochnik way, but I think people would have got mad if a character that was there since the pilot had died off-screen (look at what was said about Ghost, before people noticed he was in th trailer for the following episode.)
In the end, this looks like Pizzolato+Fukunaga: they debate, they fight, but the final product is eventually the best of both. Sometimes tensions can be productive.

Posts: 18802
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1500s England
I still hope Sapochnik directs that Star Wars film.

Posts: 328
Joined: January 2019
https://www.indiewire.com/2019/06/game- ... 202150977/
Sapochnik talks about The Bells:
“I felt like there was this thing of this bloodthirstiness that exists in the fans, for revenge, for this payback that is personified by Dany. I just wanted to get to the core of what that actually means. Because even though the characters that don’t exist in the end, what you’re looking for, as an audience member, is death and destruction."
[...]“I think that I am complicit, and part of, a society that embraces violence as entertainment, and it’s messed up,” said Sapochnik. “Here I am doing the fifth – I don’t even know how many – but there are a lot of battles. At some point, you’re like, ‘Why am I being participatory in this? Why am I creating this for people to see? Isn’t there enough bloodshed and horrible stuff going on in the world?'”
[...]
“I’m meant to direct you towards caring for a character you know well,” said Sapochnik. “What I wanted to get to in King’s Landing was the idea that every single fucking one of these characters matters. Not just the characters, but the extras, and the people you don’t know, and all the people you’ll never see, and never know about. They all matter. That’s maybe me, or maybe that’s Dan and David [Weiss and Benioff], I don’t know. But it was something that evolved out of the need, or my desire, to not just add to the equation of violence in television, but rather to at least propose, ‘Think about it.'”

Posts: 3969
Joined: January 2012
He didn't account for the fact that the audience does not like to look at themselves and how they mostly want to avoid having to deal with the fact that they cheered for senseless violence against the people from KL the second Dany decided to go for the throne in season 1. The audience was mainly under the false assumption that the story would find a situation where the violence was justified, when Martin was a conscientious objector and has written the books in a way that condemns violence (the characters might think they're righteous but the author knows better). Eddard Stark was the most noble guy in this story because he wanted to avoid bloodshed at all costs. Giving the audience what they had asked for whilst pushing their face in it was the most satisfying thing the show has ever done and that it was right at the end of the story meant that there would be no possibility ever of 'well, here's why she was right to do that'....because the story does not believe that war is justifiable and certainly not a war of conquest that Dany is waging.

Seeing the Internet lose its mind over this was great to behold, especially the people who thought that Dany was some big neoliberal liberator (I laughed a lot when people thought that Dany would somehow bring about a more democratic system when Dany has never made a secret of the fact that the ONLY way her quest would end would be with her in charge of everything because dragons).
She had murdered a rape victim in season 1 but because of the uplifting music after the dragons hatched people thought that she was some sort of benevolent saviour? Mirri Maz Duur had decided to kill Drogo and his newborn son to save other civilizations from destruction but what does Dany do? She is upset because Mirri does not see her as some sort of saviour and how Mirri is not grateful to her for what she did when in reality Dany had been fine with whatever Drogo had mentioned in his war speech (destroying cities, enslaving and raping people). THAT'S where the entire thing comes from: Dany has one opinion of herself, her goals and methods and she expects everyone else to be understanding of all of it because of her oh so obvious benevolence.
Yet she also threatens the Thirteen in Qarth with fire and blood and destruction unless they help her, she locks up her handmaiden in a vault to starve to death after which the remaining Dothraki sack the city and steal a ship for Dany.
She fed Meereneese nobles to her dragons in retribution for Ser Barristan's death without knowing their guilt or innocence. She threatened to burn down the slave cities entirely once she came back from Vaes Dothrak where she had violently overthrown the Khals when she had the opportunity to not use violence at all but to flee with Jorah and Daario. She had also threatened to return Meereen to the dirt in a discussion she had with Hizdar in the fighting pit.
While she has temporarily imprisoned her dragons after she had been given actual evidence of Drogon having killed a child, when she freed them later the audience should have maybe thought about whether Dany was now willing to accept such situations going forward. The answer lies in season 8: 'What do dragons eat anyway?' 'Whatever they want'. Dany is not going to reign in her dragons at all anymore.
The season 3 'Mhysa' moment is also an instance of the audience being lured in by the hopeful music and it's also a point that is important in the end Dany sees the slaves love her like a saviour and when the people in KL do not do the same (because they are not slaves and while they generally might not like Cersei they might not particularly care who sits on the throne) in her mind that means they are supporting Cersei and hence her enemies because in her experience in Essos the slaves overthrew their oppressors.

The audience just did not want to admit to themselves that they did not pay more attention to Dany's reflex of going for violent solutions to most problems and that they did not question Dany's methods and decisions more often in the past. The villain is the hero of their own story, which is most likely why Dany's story is removed from all the others for most of the show and the books.

Posts: 7138
Joined: August 2012
Image

Posts: 54052
Joined: May 2010
Location: House of X
Ruth wrote:
June 23rd, 2019, 8:26 pm
Image
:lol:

Posts: 41843
Joined: May 2010
Batfan175 wrote:
June 23rd, 2019, 5:50 pm
He didn't account for the fact that the audience does not like to look at themselves and how they mostly want to avoid having to deal with the fact that they cheered for senseless violence against the people from KL the second Dany decided to go for the throne in season 1. The audience was mainly under the false assumption that the story would find a situation where the violence was justified, when Martin was a conscientious objector and has written the books in a way that condemns violence (the characters might think they're righteous but the author knows better). Eddard Stark was the most noble guy in this story because he wanted to avoid bloodshed at all costs. Giving the audience what they had asked for whilst pushing their face in it was the most satisfying thing the show has ever done and that it was right at the end of the story meant that there would be no possibility ever of 'well, here's why she was right to do that'....because the story does not believe that war is justifiable and certainly not a war of conquest that Dany is waging.

Seeing the Internet lose its mind over this was great to behold, especially the people who thought that Dany was some big neoliberal liberator (I laughed a lot when people thought that Dany would somehow bring about a more democratic system when Dany has never made a secret of the fact that the ONLY way her quest would end would be with her in charge of everything because dragons).
She had murdered a rape victim in season 1 but because of the uplifting music after the dragons hatched people thought that she was some sort of benevolent saviour? Mirri Maz Duur had decided to kill Drogo and his newborn son to save other civilizations from destruction but what does Dany do? She is upset because Mirri does not see her as some sort of saviour and how Mirri is not grateful to her for what she did when in reality Dany had been fine with whatever Drogo had mentioned in his war speech (destroying cities, enslaving and raping people). THAT'S where the entire thing comes from: Dany has one opinion of herself, her goals and methods and she expects everyone else to be understanding of all of it because of her oh so obvious benevolence.
Yet she also threatens the Thirteen in Qarth with fire and blood and destruction unless they help her, she locks up her handmaiden in a vault to starve to death after which the remaining Dothraki sack the city and steal a ship for Dany.
She fed Meereneese nobles to her dragons in retribution for Ser Barristan's death without knowing their guilt or innocence. She threatened to burn down the slave cities entirely once she came back from Vaes Dothrak where she had violently overthrown the Khals when she had the opportunity to not use violence at all but to flee with Jorah and Daario. She had also threatened to return Meereen to the dirt in a discussion she had with Hizdar in the fighting pit.
While she has temporarily imprisoned her dragons after she had been given actual evidence of Drogon having killed a child, when she freed them later the audience should have maybe thought about whether Dany was now willing to accept such situations going forward. The answer lies in season 8: 'What do dragons eat anyway?' 'Whatever they want'. Dany is not going to reign in her dragons at all anymore.
The season 3 'Mhysa' moment is also an instance of the audience being lured in by the hopeful music and it's also a point that is important in the end Dany sees the slaves love her like a saviour and when the people in KL do not do the same (because they are not slaves and while they generally might not like Cersei they might not particularly care who sits on the throne) in her mind that means they are supporting Cersei and hence her enemies because in her experience in Essos the slaves overthrew their oppressors.

The audience just did not want to admit to themselves that they did not pay more attention to Dany's reflex of going for violent solutions to most problems and that they did not question Dany's methods and decisions more often in the past. The villain is the hero of their own story, which is most likely why Dany's story is removed from all the others for most of the show and the books.
Image

Dany also kind of forgot about The Iron Fleet. You forgot to mention that.

Posts: 3969
Joined: January 2012
Allstar wrote:
June 24th, 2019, 12:46 am
Dany also kind of forgot about The Iron Fleet. You forgot to mention that.
You kinda forgot that the Inside the Episode stuff is at best PR material to promote the show, not detailed analysis of the content of the show.

Posts: 260
Joined: June 2017
Batfan175 wrote:
June 25th, 2019, 1:18 pm
Allstar wrote:
June 24th, 2019, 12:46 am
Dany also kind of forgot about The Iron Fleet. You forgot to mention that.
You kinda forgot that the Inside the Episode stuff is at best PR material to promote the show, not detailed analysis of the content of the show.
that sentence wasn't so much self-promotion as it was self-destruction though

Post Reply