Follow TV Tropes
With the finale having dropped earlier this week, is it fair to say that Game of Thrones ending had so many Chekhov's Guns misfired? I also feel like it was literally a Gainax Ending. I'd almost say that with Game of Thrones cultural importance, and the fact so many fans are mad beyond reason, its a combination of Chekhov's misfiring and Gainaxing, to the point your audience abandons you...almost a Game of Thrones Ending.
Not sure if this is the place to discuss that. None of that is going on the main page. tropes now have sub-pages.
Chekhov Guns misfired belong in Aborted Arc. Gainax Ending is stuff like The Sopranos finale not something that comes with a "Where Are They Now?" Epilogue essentially.
In light of the four first episodes of S05 being leaked, we should think about how to handle this.
So far, in the sub-pages I've commented out all the examples from the (officially) yet unreleased episodes and put a note to them. I'd say everyone should be free to add examples from the leaked episodes, as long as they stay commented out until the actual release. Other ideas?
I don't think they should be there at all. If they're there and commented out, it basically means that people watching the show on HBO basically can't edit without fear of unavoidable spoilers.
That said, I say they can just make the recap pages and go willy-nilly on those.
IMHO as long as the leaked episodes recap section is all spoiler marked, there should be no problem
I disagree. We should wait for official release of each episode like we do with pretty much every other show with early release/leak?
^^ Recap sections are supposed to be spoilers off.
Honestly, just let people trope the episodes there. Non-leakers (like myself) can just avoid them, but it seems genuinely wasteful to not let people trope things they will have seen for a month entirely. No one's spoiled that doesn't want to, leakers get to trope, and when I do see the episodes, I'll have complete recap pages waiting for me.
I wonder what everybody thinks of the new episodes...http://tinyical.com/2VRY
Am I allowed to refute the entries on these pages which say Jaime raped Cersei? Based upon what Alex Graves, the director of the episode, and the actors themselves have said about this scene, the notion that Jaime raped Cersei is just fan interpretation. Officially, it's a consenual rough sex scene.
I don't want to go posting this on these pages and start an all-out war. But in terms of what has been said by the creators of the show, the "Jaime raped Cersei" posts on these pages are false.
She was crying and saying no, the writers can be called into question in this one. Especially as the Unfortunate Implications citations have stated, they have a history of inserting more sexual violence when there wasn't any before.
Yes, but they came out and said it wasn't a rape scene. Word of God said it wasn't a rape scene. So I don't think it's right that it's still referred to as a rape scene on this website, no matter how people interpret it.
If she said 'no', it's rape. That's what rape means. Word of God can't change that.
What the writers say doesn't matter if it is in complete contradiction with what is portrayed onscreen. If tomorrow they add that Walder Frey is a black woman or that the sky is pink in Westeros we shouldn't be taking it into consideration either.
It's not a rape scene. If any of you would actually do some research into the scene, you would realize it's not a rape scene. This scene was part of a much longer sex scene. So to repeatedly call it a rape scene is soundly false.
I've seen the episode, and I know the definition of "rape". What more research is needed? And please don't tell me about the books, because this isn't the books.
Your interpretation of the scene doesn't make it fact. What's fact is that it's not a rape scene. And this isn't just me saying it, but also Alex Graves and the actors themselves. So to allow these entries which state that Jaime raped Cersei to stand is promoting a falsehood about the show and the characters.
Yeah, watching the scene Cersei seems to go back and forth in her mind about it. I don't think the scene can be classified as either until we hear more from the characters on their feelings on the matter.
I recognize this is a divisive real life issue, but we also need to remember these are two fictional characters in a scene designed to catch people's emotions so we can't look at it truly until we see what direction the writers go in from here.
'Going back and forth in her mind' does not equal 'consent'. If a woman refuses, and the man does not stop, that is rape. Full stop. The show runners may not have intended to write a rape scene, and may not want to admit that they did, but that *is* what is on the screen, because Jaime had sex with Cersei after she refused to do so, which is the objective definition of rape.
What you are saying is still an assumption and still incorrect. Just because you think it's a rape scene doesn't make it a rape. Do you think if enough of you get together and keep screaming that it's a rape scene that it does become a rape scene? Because it doesn't work like that. Word of God has said it's not a rape scene. No matter how you personally feel about it, it's officially not a rape scene. So I don't think it's right that people here call it as rape scene as though it's absolute fact.
^Put it like this: Remember the red wedding? If the producers kept insisting "That was all ketchup, nobody got hurt!" We would be ignoring Word of God.
If a scene looks, sounds and feels like rape to 99% of the viewers, we calls it like we sees it, Word of God be damned.
You can call it whatever you want. You're still wrong.
Word of God doesn't work like you think it does. If the show runners declared that Joffery was a wise and heroic king that we were meant to root for, would you accept that, or would you say that they were clearly wrong, because their claim was not supported by anything actually shown on screen?
Incidentally, the Word of God is that it 'became consensual by the end'. Even setting aside that this doesn't match what's on the screen, and is an ugly justification of rape along the lines of 'dressed like that, she was asking for it', that still fundamentally implies that it was not consensual at the outset—i.e., rape.
Just for the record, we base our troping activity on what is shown in the work. Word of God is secondary.
But you guys are still wrong. You're basing this all on your personal perception of the scene, which is a wrong perception. And to say that what Word of God has to say is secondary is ridiculous. That's like you saying that Kate and Sawyer from Lost were in love with each other based on the work of the show, when Word of God said they weren't.
No matter what you guys personally think about the scene, the idea that Jaime raped Cersei is wrong. You need to understand that, and stop promoting it at this website as though it's a concrete fact.
I'm going with sloppy writing and Death of the Author
Rape unless an Author's Saving Throw (that is, in-universe patch) or recut mends it at some point.
It's wiki policy. Sometimes Word of God ends up saying something different from what happens in the work. You may not like it but that's how we work. If you don't like it please head over here and argue for it. You are not convincing anybody here and it's not the proper place anyhow.
You have allowed your personal bias to get in the way of facts. You're completely wrong. It's not a rape scene. Word of God has stated that it's part of a longer sex scene that had been cut short. You're promoting a falsehood on this website by allowing these biased entries to stand.
There is a forum thread now.
This entry relies on audience interpretation, so it's not a good example of a trope being deliberately used. Personally, I don't think it applies. Here's a video of the exchange: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I40tnoYRFrY
Melisandre is smirking at Renly as she makes the "salt and smoke" claim. When Renly cracks wise, her smile wilts. Not the reaction of someone who's amused in spite of herself. Instead, she looks annoyed when she turns away.
She's clearly unamused by his contempt and insolence
The main series page looks about ready for a split. It went past the 400,000 character limit a while ago, and it's policy to split pages that go beyond 400k.
Several of the Wham Lines don't fit the description:
You could argue that "Now!" in "You Win or You Die" was a Wham Line, but no matter.
I added the visual ones to Wham Shot, and the third blast to Wham Line (it's definitely a Wham Moment, which I think is a Missing Supertrope, and it's more of a line than a shot).
I'm still somewhat confused about the last scene in And Now His Watch Is Ended. There's definitely a point somewhere where the mood shifts from "Daenerys is making a hard choice to buy her new army" to "someone's about to get fried," but where exactly it is is hard to pin down.
I also dispute A Golden Crown. The way "You will have a golden crown, that men will tremble to behold" was delivered, it left no room for no doubt that something bad was about to happen to Viserys.
I'd say "Unsullied!" works as a Wham Line. In universe, everyone (except, ironically, the guy she's about to set on fire) reacts to it like it is. To the audience, even if there are hints that she knows that the guy is saying, it was just conjecture.
I believe I added something to this effect on the Discussion for the character page, but Littlefinger is kind of a tough call on Adaptational Villainy, although he is indisputably way more personally unpleasant on the show.
Spoilers- In the books, there is an Adapted Out character named Jeyne Poole, who was one of Sansa's friends at Winterfell, and in one of the earlier books, Littlefinger comments that he will "take care of her". When she next appears, she has whip scars on her back and has been given to Ramsay Bolton (practically the dictionary definition of torture enthusiast) as part of a plot in which she is made to pose as Arya. The implication is that the whip scars came from being "trained" in one of Littlefinger's brothels prior to that.
Also, it is indicated that Littlefinger provides "boys" for one nobleman who is homosexual. It isn't clear if the guy is an ephebophile or a pedophile, but it sounds questionable.
On the other hand, in the books, we see Littlefinger's interaction with servants, and he is very pleasant to them, if condescending, so I would imagine that on the whole, to the extent he interacts with them, he comes across as a Benevolent Boss.
But yeah, book!Littlefinger has some involvement in selling people to extremely sick individuals/supplying prostitutes to sick individuals.
I will admit that I can't really see him making the kind of threats to his staff that the tv version does, but that's more an issue of being more personally pleasant (and not wanting to get his hands dirty) than being less evil (no question though, tv!Littlefinger is a way more unpleasant guy than his book counterpart).
I believe that the whip scars are found after Jeyne has been in Ramsay's keeping for a time. I think the much more clear implication is that Ramsay whipped her (or had her whipped), not Littlefinger.
So without that, there's only the providing "boys" for a customer, which runs into Deliberate Values Dissonance, given that men marry 12-year-olds in perfectly respectable society in Westeros. It's a far cry from regularly sending women to be tortured to death.
Littlefinger is clearly a "villain" in both book and series, though he seems to be much more mustache-twirlingly evil in the show. I think it's a matter of how hard we push the adaptational villainy/heroism tropes. Should we put these gray cases in, like LF, Cersei and Tywin, or just leave the entries to cases where a character clearly moves from one side to the other?
Season 3 is certainly not a Bittersweet ending. To quote the page.
"the Bittersweet Ending happens when victory came at a harsh price, when, for whatever reason, the heroes cannot fully enjoy the reward of their actions, when some irrevocable loss has happened during the course of the events, and nothing will ever be the same again. A Bittersweet Ending is still ending on a high note, but one that is mixed with sadness and nostalgia. Often, such endings are the result of the plot making a completely happy ending impossible."
Season 3 is not a happy ending with some sadness, it's the exact opposite, it is a supremely depressing ending with Dany's happiness at the end, which honestly against Ep 9 and 10 is painful Mood Whiplash.
EDIT - Also, "Another way to think of it is that if the story's main conflict is resolved in favor of the protagonists, but at great sacrifice, it's a Bittersweet Ending, and a Downer Ending requires the heroes to fail, and the conflict to be resolved in the favor of the antagonists." The latter is precisely what happened.
If we want to get super-technical, the series isn't over yet, so there is no ending. Of course there's no "victory at a high price" because the characters have not succeeded or failed yet.
I propose removing all ending tropes until the series has actually ended. Only at that point can we assess the success or failure of the characters.
The season ended, the major storyline concerning the war has ended.
I'd vote on bittersweet, the game of thrones, murderous at it may be, is a sideshow compared to a zombie apocalypse, the Night's Watch ceases to be an Ignored Expert and their storyline ends in an uplifting note, Davos and Gendry could have been killed, and it seems the writers were aiming for a positive conclusion with Danny's Gandhi-esque Friend to All Living Things finale. Mixed elements
The storyline ends hopeful with them sending out the ravens to ask for aid and they're seemingly gonna get it, but earlier in the season there was the off-screen battle Sam missed out on where they got crushed by the White Walkers, and of course the incident at Craster's Keep. Compared to Jon living and their request for reinforcements, still rather negative. There are indeed mixed elements, but as a whole things were on the down.
Robb's and Catelyn's story arc had a DownerEnding. Same with Arya's. Dany's is uplifitng, while the rest of the arcs (Jon, Sam & Gilly, Stannis & Davos, Bran & Rickon) end in a bittersweet note. All and all, I think we can call this a BittersweetEnding. Just like the other two seasons. Also, the storyline concerning the War, while major, is by no means the main storyline.
The trope definitions are based on the work ending, not the storyline, and from the debate here, it seems that when a storyline ends can be subjective. I move that we remove the ending tropes until the work ends, and then assess whether the work's ending is a downer, bittersweet, or what.
Robb, Catelyn, Talisa, and most of Robb's bannermen in Season 3. From Sacrificial Lion. After 3 seasons, The story has progressed very far to consider these major characters an example anymore, unlike Ned and Robert whose demise established early on an Anyone Can Die setting. The ruthlesness of the ultimate responsible had been already made clear too, I'd add. You win or you die.
Quoting specifically from trope description "If their death is key to the story (such as a political assassination), then it ceases to be a "sacrificial" character and becomes plot relevant."
Renly would still qualify because he's built up as a major player in season 2 and his abrupt death serves to show the power of Stannis' faction, introduced in the same season.
With the new season, I think we should split up the examples into offsite pages for each season, like with How I Met Your Mother.
I suppose you meant examples subpages. Offsite means that it's outside the wiki entirely. But no, I think we should keep them based on alphabetical order. There's already a very complete episode Recap page, besides. The standard for splitting is when a page gets over 400,000 characters, unless the individual folders are getting too big by themselves. Probably best for now to split up each folder into single letters.
I agree with Morgenthaler. Splitting pages based on season always ends up extremely messy. The standard split for alphabetical order is the way to go.
This would only be Leaning on the Fourth Wall if it's a change from the source material. In the books, it's a pretty common theme that names and legends are embellished. For example, Arya notes that Harrenhal's Hall of a Hundred Hearths only has 70-some hearths. The idea that the Iron Throne is composed of a thousand swords is just another example of embellished legends.
That. Also, I think it is sort of a joke in that while Littlefinger plays it off as a joke about the Iron Throne not fitting the hype, he's so obsessed with it that he actually counted the number of swords.
Considering that https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7655725056/h7030FDAB/ is apparantly how Martin visualized the Throne, I say it still counts.
At first glance, Bran Stark appears as a -1 Super Weight given the status of his legs, but wouldn't his abilities as a warg qualify him for a higher weight class?
Kind of agree. It's a bit like calling Professor X a -1.
On the other hand he's still in a rather vulnerable How Do I Shot Web? stage, needing other people to protect him/coach him. Perhaps for the moment he is, and when his powers develop a bit he'll move very quickly up the scale.
I wonder, would Berric (post-resurrection) be a 2 or a 3?
Informed Ability: Jaime and Loras are both described as some of the best swordsmen in the Seven Kingdoms, yet we've never seen them win a fight.
Doesn't Jaime quickly besting -and delivering a Moe Green Especial to- Jory count as a win? Right before his tied fight with Lord Stark.
Yeah, I was thinking about that a little while ago, so Jaime's ability is apparently represented after all.
I'd disagree that's evidence, though. Jory wasn't shown to be particularly competent. That's not really seeing them fight in the capacity of "best swordsman in Westeros".
Seeing Jaime beat someone in a swordfight is evidence that he's a good swordsman. Informed Ability is about when the only evidence we have for a trait is people talking about it.
Before the thrashing Brianne gives him in season 3, which was a case of Worf Had the Flu, we never actually see him lose a swordfight, either.
Honestly, that fight was all the more impressive to me. The guy was actually winning despite having his hands tied, and being both malnurished and probably atrophied. Brienne only started winning when it was clear that Jaime had run out of stamina.
The Camp Gay trope has been removed to describe Loras (despite what Captain Crawdad claimed, Renly was never mentioned in the entry—he's listed as a Straight Gay). It seemed to me that Loras might at least be a borderline example because he's portrayed in a more stereotypical manner than Renly was (besides the latter's squeamishness over the sight of blood).
There have been complaints by LGBTQ viewers that Loras, who is the only notable non-heterosexual character currently on the show, is being reduced to gay stereotypes in Season 3. In real life, I would imagine that a lot of us would suspect a man who looked and behaved like Loras may not be straight. Renly, on the other hand, would probably not alert most people's "gaydar."
So my question to everyone is, if Loras isn't a Camp Gay, then is he a Straight Gay, despite the noticeable differences between how he and Renly are depicted on the TV series?
Well, Loras certainly has some effeminate traits, such as the way he dresses, but he's not your stereotypical lisping,fancy and girly gay guy. Yes he has some fem traits but he grew up around strong,domineering women. But I don't think he's camp, his character is much more than that. He's a badass knight, he loves, he grieves, he's both arrogant and compassionate. He's a well-rounded character. Just because he likes fancy clothes (like the rest of his house) and is less masculine than Renly (who grew up in a grim houshold of warriors and military men) that doesn't mean he is camp. He's a Straight Gay with some fem tendencies.
It seems to be a Watsonian versus Doylist thing going on — From the viewers perspective both Loras and Renly is Straight Gay, but in the hyper-masculine world of Westeros they are both concidered obviously gay — see Jaimies talking watching Renly grow up at court for example.
Loras isn't a good example for either trope. Camp Gay is one extreme side of the spectrum, and Loras isn't anywhere near that. Even within the culture of Westeros, there could be much campier gay characters than Loras. Varys would be a much better example (as I recall someone suggests that he has a taste for boys in spite of his castration). Even Lancel acts more like a stereotypical gay man than Loras, and he's pretty overtly straight.
If people want to make criticisms of the show or its characterizations, they're still free to write reviews or add appropriate YMMV tropes.
Why is this in the epic movie category?
I don't think the show is an example or an aversion. There are many promiscuous characters and monogamous characters. Loras and Renly are in a monogamous relationship, and when Loras is single he has a fling. Their homosexuality has no effect on their promiscuity one way or the other.
I wholly agree. That's like saying that Tyrion is an example of "All Dwarves Are Promiscuous", which is clearly ridiculous.
About the entry under Adaptational Induced Plot Hole, (where Loras Tyrell being specifically called out as the only Tyrell male son and the problems that brings regarding the Kingsguard and Inheritance) it doesn't fit the same trope, but doesn't the same situation apply to the Lannisters? Jamie is in the Kingsguard, Cersei married into the Barathons, and in season 3, Tywin specifically tells Tyrion he will never inherit Casterly Rock.
Who will inherit Highgarden and Casterly Rock? Another Lannister cousin? I can't see Tywin being cool with that.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, I just saw that trope on the page and thought of this.
Heh, I was going to start a topic here on this exact subject, but you beat me to it. Yes, exactly. Making Loras the heir of Highgarden does change things from the book, but Tywim/Jaime already set a precident that an heir might forsake his inheritance for romantic reasons in spite of his father's wishes. If Tywin can't prevent his son from joining the Kingsguard, it's no plot hole to say that Mace couldn't either.
But I did point out in the entry which has now been deleted that Renly would not have a Kingsguard if Mace Tyrell didn't support his claim to the throne. Mace is dumb, but he's not dumb enough to endanger the continuation of his own House. As much as he would want to see his grandson on the Iron Throne, it would not be worth the sacrifice of his sole male heir.
I can imagine him telling Renly something along the lines of, "If you marry Margaery, I will help you become king and provide you with armies, money and the Reach's resources, but Loras cannot be part of your Kingsguard. He is my only son and heir, and I cannot afford to lose him, as I'm sure you can understand." If Loras does not produce legitimate children, the main branch of House Tyrell would cease to exist since Margaery's offspring would be Baratheons.
I think part of it can be explained by saying that Loras will have an older brother as soon as he needs one. Unfortunately, the show doesn't really have the ability to populate as large of a cast as is found in the novels.
Another thought, looking at the kingsguards assembled by pretenders to the throne- such as that of Renly as well as the one of Aegon shown in A Dance With Dragons- they seem to be more informal than the official Kingsguard.
What I mean, is that while like the official Kingsguard, they are a group of knights loyal to that person and are called a kingsguard, there isn't really much if any mention that joining means vowing celibacy or giving up lands/titles.
Does the show ever explicitly say that Loras is a member of Renly's kingsguard? Brienne asks to become a member, but I don't remember Loras being described as such.
Hmm, I'm not sure, and that is a good point.
Also, looking at the Wiki of Ice and Fire's pages on the "Rainbow Guard" (what Renly's Kingsguard is called in the books), it really seems like it simply didn't have the requirements of the Official Kingsguard, so there wouldn't be an issue with Loras joining it, even if he was the only/oldest son.
Brienne herself is (in the books) her father's only living child, and apparently one of the other knights, Bryce Caron, was already the head of his House, since everyone else died of an epidemic.
So, being a member of Renly's Guard doesn't seem to have any impact on inheritance/titles. Also, while I'm not sure how much can be judged due to Westerosi gender roles, but there seemed to be an expectation that Brienne could retire and marry at any time she wanted (and there's no indication that any of the other members were prohibited from marrying).
Edit- One thought that strikes me, is that the pretenders to the throne either have unconvential kingsguards or don't have them, because they still have the one in Kings Landing to deal with if/when they gain the throne. At that point, they would demand allegiance from those members; if they did pledge loyalty, then that ruler now has a Kingsguard; if not, they can execute those members and replace them with new ones. It is only at that point that a new ruler would need to demand celibacy and forsaking of lands and titles from their loyal knights.
Edit2- Condensed things a bit.
Referring to her brother, Margaery tells Littlefinger, "The place of a Kingsguard is by the King's side." Loras is also one of seven knights (yes, I counted them all) who accompanies Renly to the parley with Stannis. So yes, Loras is definitely part of Renly's Kingsguard.
But I see Hodor's point that Renly's version of the white cloak may not have had as many stringent rules as the official order.
Does Theon's "Greyjoy who ran" speech count as Tearjerker? His whole rant about how people are always telling him how lucky he was to be prisoner to the Starks is kind of sad, but I suppose it would also count as him being a whiny little noodle. Does it fit with Narm, or Tearjerker, or YMMV, or what? What do you guys think?
I agree, I think Theon is a tragic villain and I did feel some sympathy for him. It still belongs in the YMMV tab, though.
I think that the entry for Dull Surprise should be deleted since it is insulting to both Emilia Clarke and Kit Harington. Both have reasons to act like they do. Kit for example plays a character who has been brought up as a bastard who never really belonged anywhere no matter how much his siblings loved him. Because of that he has become sullen and doesn't let his emotions show too much. Whoever wrote that there's no excuse for him to not show as much open emotion as other characters probably doesn't understand the character all too well.
Surely there is a trope for that passive-agressive "Tell X that I like..."-game that Tyrion and Joffrey played during "Blackwater". Does anyone have a clue?
A quick search turns up Tell Him I'm Not Speaking to Him, which looks about right
Removed: Examples for composite characters. This list is going to be growing exponentially, the further the show gets. It might make more sense to just put this information with the characters themselves, just to save space.
I don't think this is true. First off, Dinklage isn't buried in the middle of the credits in the first season, he has the "and... as" credit, which is a typical place to find a big-name actor in a role that isn't the lead. Without Sean Bean's Ned Stark, the "main character" of the first season, Dinklage and Tyrion are the next highest on the ladder. It doesn't have anything to do with Dinklage winning an Emmy. It's the way the books were written and the way the star power of the show was already set up.
So, does GRRM just hate Idealism and Heroes? To each their own of course, and the show is great, but I think its a fair question when so many people with good intentions have to make up the piles of bodies for everyone else with a crippling backstory and sociopathy to step over. Just saying.
This is a place to discuss the trope page, not the work itself. You ought to visit the forum or write a review.
What happened to the 'Eldritch Abomination' trope?
As I recall, there were three Watch men in the book's intro; one of them (Will) hid in a tree and was caught by the Others, the other (Gared) stays with the horses and later turns up south of the Wall. However, I can't remember if that's how it plays out in the series.
Ah, yeah that's right. It was Gared who survives in the books and gets executed. It's still an adaptation induced plot hole, since it changes the survivor to Will, who still comes face-to-face with the Others as he did in the books. I'll re-add it and fix the details.
"Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane" is used in the novel series, but is it used in-universe? It seems that the "general public" does not believe in the White Walkers and some are skeptical about dragons. One character even says, "It was hundreds of years ago, who knows what really happened."
It seems clear that in Season 2, the more skeptical characters will be set straight about the White Walkers and dragons.
I removed the following, which was re-added with no explanation given:
Reason: The concept of swearing doesn't exist in Westeros the way it does in real life, and Robb's just quoting an oft-repeated speculation about Tywin.
To elaborate on the above: the reason he uses the word "shit" is that, in Westeros, there really isn't any other word for it. "Defecate" or "poo" would just sound wrong. It's the way it's phrased when the smallfolk speak of Tywin, and it wouldn't make sense for Robb to say it any other way. So he's not using the word for dramatic effect; he's using it because it's the normal word to use.
I'm wondering if we could discuss how to handle the inserts from the books. While they do add substance sometimes, there often is an element of "but in the books, this was different/better" to them, and that seems a bit past the point. I love the books as much as the next person, but this entry is about the TV show after all.
As a person who added a fair bit of them: They are an artifact from earlier seasons, when the Recaps for the show were also proxy recaps for the book series. This was never official policy—basically I was the only person trying to make it so—but it made sense to me because episodic television is simply way easier to recap than Doorstopper novels. (And, now that a single page for both continuities is no longer possible, we're still debating how to possibly do a Recap or Synopsis for the books that consists of original content and not just copy-pasting chapter summaries from other wikis.)
Does this justify them? Probably not. Can they be removed? At least some of them can. Just saying that once there was a method to the madness.
I just completed a major overhaul of the Recaps for this series. All episodes now have summaries. I'm also hoping to position these Recaps to serve not only the show, but the books as well, since (so far) the TV show only drops minor details and sometimes even adds material. As such I have included useful bits, backstories and (on occasion) even quotes from GRRM when suitable.
The end result, though, is that the summaries are now Doorstoppers in their own right: most of them are over 1500 words. If anyone would like to go through and try to slim them down, that would probably be for the best. There's also no clear division at this point between what the written summaries cover and what the "Tropes Used In This Episode" section covers, resulting in a fair bit of redundancy between the two. In the name of George of House Martin, the First of his Name, called "The American Tolkien," and the love you bear him, I call upon all able-minded tropers to assist in the matter of addressing this beast of a Recap page. Thank you.
Removed these. I think it's YMMV if the trope is actually invoked, especially looking at it from the view of a non-book reader, who won't have the appendices to check who the relevant people are and might need other means to tell them apart (such as names). In addition, it gets very spoilery if we put in every character who has been renamed and not even appeared on the show yet.
I agree. This is just One Steve Limit, which is a common storytelling custom, not Viewers Are Morons.
I would disagree - the One Steve Limit trope itself is Viewers Are Morons, or at least it shows that the creators of the works aren't challenging themselves. Both the examples above would've been easily understood in context.
I've removed these. I think these are pretty Square Peg, Round Trope. Most of these aren't really "bands" or teams of people working together at the same time, like the trope is supposed to be. Also, a lot of these tropes don't fit the characters at all if you weren't trying to force a position in the band onto them. For example, Jorah Mormont is The Evil Genius?
Are we to take the bolded words in the introduction to mean that no tropes which also feature in the books should be mentioned on this page? That seems like it will make for a pretty sparse page. And it also leaves TV viewers who haven't read the books at a disadvantage.
No. The way it was originally phrased was something along the lines of: "and 'featured in the series' does not mean 'featured in the books so they'll have to show it at some point, right?'" but that was deemed too clunky. The basic idea is that if it hasn't been shown onscreen, it doesn't appear on the page, no matter whether it was in the books or not. Example: series!Shae is markedly different from book!Shae, so tropes applying only to book!Shae should not be added.
Maybe this is just Fan Wank, but I'm a little concerned with how we on the wiki plan to characterize the relationship between Renly and Loras. I can see all sorts of Fan Dumb coming up later concerning Renly's Arranged Marriage to a woman (Margaery Tyrell) and how this is an Out-of-Character Moment, Weiss & Benioff are pissing on homosexuals, why can't you leave our Straight Gay alone, blablablah. I want to head that shit off at the pass.
Here's the facts: Renly and Loras are lovers. Ladies and Gentlemen, this concludes the factual portion of our program.
There's plenty of speculation to go around. Did either of them sleep with women before they met? Did they want to? Does Loras ranks 6 on the Kinsey Scale? Does he rank 1, with Renly being his Brokeback Mountain? We don't know. Even drawing in material from the books, there's no evidence either way; Loras is certainly broken up about losing Renly, but that's consistent with their ongoing relationship, not with sexual orientation. Speaking of which, there is no sexual orientation in Westeros; if you're highborn, you get married and have children, period, because you need an heir. This is a fact inherent to any feudal society, and you can't contravene it just because there used to be dragons. Nor, might I add, does GRRM try to. But fans might.
Obviously, we've got at least 9 months before the relevant episodes air. But simply put, this could explode, and I hope we responsible tropers can either keep the natter off the pages, or—preferably—come up with a way to include in the trope & character pages that fans need to be okay with Renly and Loras not acting the way modern homosexuals would. Why should they?—they aren't modern, and frankly they aren't homosexual either. They just happen to fuck each other.
I agree with you, especially as it concerns the realism of the medieval setting, but the one thing I can see being problematic as you lay out the situation is that most of the tropes regarding same-sex couples/lovers/fuckbuddies/whatever are designed from a modern perspective. Does this mean we shouldn't use them? I would argue no. Renly might not be Straight Gay in exactly the modern sense, but that is the most useful way we have to describe his characterization. For this reason, I don't think we should exclude tropes relating to their homosexuality just because it could blow up later. If that happens, we'll deal with it, cut the natter, and move on with things. Until then, it's still important in characterizing Loras and Renly that we discuss their relationship.
Also, as to not knowing definitively, AfterElton.com does have some Word of God on the subject: "Renly is “gay in the books, too,” says George R.R. Martin, the author of the bestselling novels. . . .“I never meant to make it a mystery,” Martin says. “I like to handle things subtly. I couldn’t ever actually say, ‘such-and-such is gay,’ because, as I’m sure you know, the word wasn’t invented until the 60s. And I’m talking medieval times, and I’m not going to say, ‘so-and-so is gay.’ But I thought it was pretty clear in context.”"
So he is using modern terminology, and out-and-out saying they're gay, not bi or poly or fluid or some no longer existent medieval expression of sexuality. This could shape our discourse a bit.
Not sure if this is actually in opposition to what you were saying or completely compatible, but I thought I'd put my two cents in.
The only problem I had with it was it lacked the subtly of the books. When Ser Loras' reacted to Renly's death I felt that was the intended "yes they were an item" confirmation. For me at least his reaction was the exact moment I realised that the two were an item and he'd literally snapped because of grief. That was the moment it went from context to reality in my mind. I think the series has taken a more direct approach give Renly more screen time, give us more insight into his motives and ultimately make his death more dramatic in the long run. Be interesting to see if it works but the character has been awesome so far, especially when he called out Robert's War Is Glorious outlook.
Hey, I'd love the help of some more experienced Tropers than myself : is there a trope in the "x always spoil" that would fit for the iPhone/iPad app ? 'Cause that app spoils things like Ned's death, Cersei's prophecy that is one of her motives and other things that don't come to mind right now.
Wait, we have an iPhone app?
Could we agree to some kind of disclaimer as to new citations? So far, a vast majority of the listed tropes could be taken almost word for word from their corresponding A So Ia F listings and the series thus far seems very canon compliant. How do we go about adding citations without being redundant?
I'd like to delete the spoilers from the books, that are currently in the article. It's really annoying for someone like me, who hasn't read them, to be constantly spoiled.
For example, the entire "Foreshadowing" section should be deleted, because none of this happened in the series so far, so we don't know if it really is Foreshadowing.
I just had to remove a huge spoiler from the Trivia section that was only halfway-covered. Seriously people, this page is supposed to be about the TV series, not the book. Don't add (or even allude to) later plot developments until they actually play out on-screen.
It's a bit of nitpick as the dynamic of the couple will undoubtedly grow towards her considering him her "sun and stars" but why did they make Khal Drogo's first night with Dany blatant rape? I thought it showed a rare softer side to the big guy when he was gentle on the first night in the books, it just seems they did this to make her life seem even more hopeless and make Drogo more savage. Both of which are are unnecessary given future events.
I think the show just took out Drogo's extra flip flop (from nice, to rough, to nice again) since there's only ten episodes to fit in over six hundred pages worth of content, and to avoid confusing the audience.
They did it to give Dany more Character Development. She turns the tables and uses the one weapon she has to seduce him. It works.
It might work, but if they want to make up character development they should write an original series, not alter someone else's work because they think their way is better.
Because of the Thread Mode under it. If someone can think of a way to re-add this in a way that doesn't sound like the wiki arguing with itself and still fits the trope, feel free.
Well, removing Rule of Cool entirely was unjustified - map is still awesome, but pointless.
He pointed out why it's not pointless, making it not just Rule of Cool. That calls the example into question and removing it is entirely justified.
Do you have a reason why it's still only Rule of Cool?
"Lord Arryn's son has been renamed to "Robin", out of fear that he would be confused with King Robert Baratheon (after whom he was flat-out named)."
But that's a plot point. "Robert! The seed is strong!" How will we have our misunderstandings that lead to everyone dying if they aren't named the same?
Cut it down to only "The seed is strong!"?
Which is exactly what happened. The sentence was ambiguous enough in its own right ; on the other hand, the following scene was not so subtle about Gendry being Robert's son, and being right after it, may induce people in understanding more quickly.
Please stop re-adding Hey Its That Guy to the main page. It's already in Trivia.
So I've made this Game Of Thrones page due partly to the interest in the series and to help make sure the main A Song Of Ice And Fire page doesn't get any more crowded that it already is. If George ever releases those next three novels that page is going to be huge. Feel free to update it over the coming months. But the series is still a long way off (spring 2011) so this is more me just setting it up for future edits.
edit: This wasn't supposed to be a reply, sorry!
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?