Game of Thrones begins....

[grumbler]

I haven't seen the scene in question yet, but don't understand why Berkut rejects the idea that the gutting of the stag was symbolic of Tywin's willingness to get his hands bloody over the struggle with the Baratheons.  Either the scene was completely silly and stupid and unrealistic and inspired by outside influences, like Berkut argues, or it is clever in demonstrating both how Tywin Lannister views the Baratheons and how he intends to deal with them using a visual suited to the medium.

What indicates that it was the former and not the latter?

[The Brain]

TV Tywin is a confused lord who is unable to tell the difference between tasks. Book Tywin is a ruthless and generally competent lord. There is no great mystery here, they just changed the character a bit for television.

[crazy canuck]

What indicates that it was the former and not the latter?

The dialogue for one.  He is dressing down his son for the way he dealt with Tyrion's capture and his confrontation with Stark over the issue.   Perhaps if it had been a wolf or a Fish.

Also, his grandson is the heir.  At this point why is there any imagary necessary of how he is going to deal with the Baratheons since that would mean gutting and skinning his own blood. You would have to know what happens to the heir for that scene to make any sense from the Marti perspective.

[Berkut]

I haven't seen the scene in question yet, but don't understand why Berkut rejects the idea that the gutting of the stag was symbolic of Tywin's willingness to get his hands bloody over the struggle with the Baratheons. 

Well, I don't reject that it is possible that is what they were going for, just think it is a bit silly and it doesn't work.

And as far as symobolism goes, the struggle is NOT with the Baratheons at all - at least not yet. At this point the struggle is with the Starks - they are the ones who have siezed Tyrion, and who Jaime attacked. As far as Tywin knows, there is no reason to have any dispute with any Baratheons yet.

I don't think the scene is at all an attempt for something as profound as the dead deer representing his enemies. Just an attempt by the writers to create a certain mental image in the viewers about Tywin - I just think it pretty much fails, and just seems kind of silly.

My wife was very much "Uhhh, why is he skinning that deer right here in our living room???"

[Berkut]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

[HVC]

I saw the scene in question and just thought he was trying to get into his sons head. Maybe i don't dive in too deeply, or you guys dive in to deeply

[Berkut]

Hehe - random blog post:

Sometimes, as I'm watching Game of Thrones, I like to imagine a conversation going on at GoT HQ that sounds something like this:

    "We have some information that needs getting across. We've got to have two characters talk to each other about stuff."

    "But this is HBO. The characters can't just talk. We've got to put either a sex scene or something gross in the background."

    "How about a chest-shaving scene? A corpse's neck being sewn up?"

    "No, no, we already used those two. How about a dead deer being skinned?"

    "Perfect! And then we'll have two whores perform oral sex on each other while another character monologues."

    "DONE."

[Slargos]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

It's an expedient way of telling the audience what kind of character they're watching.

Has dog: Is a good guy.

Is skinning a deer while dressing down his son: Is a bad guy.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the basis for your complaint. We have to make assumptions about what he enjoys doing in his spare time in order to explain why he skins his own deer, which is clumsy. However, the scene gives the viewer an immediate sense of what kind of story-character Tywin is. They could've had him hack the hands off a peasant, or spit on a black guy, or demand prima noctae at a scottish wedding. They went with skin a deer.

"Hey, that guy, he does not fuck around."

[Martinus]

My wife was very much "Uhhh, why is he skinning that deer right here in our living room???"

O. K... *backs away slowly*

[Berkut]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

It's an expedient way of telling the audience what kind of character they're watching.

Has dog: Is a good guy.

Is skinning a deer while dressing down his son: Is a bad guy.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the basis for your complaint. We have to make assumptions about what he enjoys doing in his spare time in order to explain why he skins his own deer, which is clumsy. However, the scene gives the viewer an immediate sense of what kind of story-character Tywin is. They could've had him hack the hands off a peasant, or spit on a black guy, or demand prima noctae at a scottish wedding. They went with skin a deer.

"Hey, that guy, he does not fuck around."

But...skinning a deer isn't a fundamentally bad thing though. It is a "down to earth/hick" thing. I expect to see Rambo skinning his own deer, not Tywin Lannister.

[Martinus]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

It's an expedient way of telling the audience what kind of character they're watching.

Has dog: Is a good guy.

Is skinning a deer while dressing down his son: Is a bad guy.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the basis for your complaint. We have to make assumptions about what he enjoys doing in his spare time in order to explain why he skins his own deer, which is clumsy. However, the scene gives the viewer an immediate sense of what kind of story-character Tywin is. They could've had him hack the hands off a peasant, or spit on a black guy, or demand prima noctae at a scottish wedding. They went with skin a deer.

"Hey, that guy, he does not fuck around."

This pretty much sums it up for me.

[Berkut]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

It's an expedient way of telling the audience what kind of character they're watching.

Has dog: Is a good guy.

Is skinning a deer while dressing down his son: Is a bad guy.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the basis for your complaint. We have to make assumptions about what he enjoys doing in his spare time in order to explain why he skins his own deer, which is clumsy. However, the scene gives the viewer an immediate sense of what kind of story-character Tywin is. They could've had him hack the hands off a peasant, or spit on a black guy, or demand prima noctae at a scottish wedding. They went with skin a deer.

"Hey, that guy, he does not fuck around."

This pretty much sums it up for me.

How odd, since you claimed the reason was something else entirely - that it was the means of showing that Tywin was willing to get his hands dirty.

Then you went with it was somehow symbolic of the Lion killing the antelope when someone threw that one out there.

Now slargos new idea that it shows that Tywin is a bad guy "sums it up for you".

Riiiggggght.

I think it is safe to say that you are just going to be a Timmay for the show at this point. Short of some perceived slight against gay people, of course.

[Slargos]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

It's an expedient way of telling the audience what kind of character they're watching.

Has dog: Is a good guy.

Is skinning a deer while dressing down his son: Is a bad guy.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the basis for your complaint. We have to make assumptions about what he enjoys doing in his spare time in order to explain why he skins his own deer, which is clumsy. However, the scene gives the viewer an immediate sense of what kind of story-character Tywin is. They could've had him hack the hands off a peasant, or spit on a black guy, or demand prima noctae at a scottish wedding. They went with skin a deer.

"Hey, that guy, he does not fuck around."

But...skinning a deer isn't a fundamentally bad thing though. It is a "down to earth/hick" thing. I expect to see Rambo skinning his own deer, not Tywin Lannister.

Since you seem to have missed it last time I explained this to you, I'll mention it again:

It's not about the act being bad or good, it's about the feeling a lot of people are going to get from the scene. If this were aired for a 1910 audience, they'd probably have to find something else since the act of skinning an animal would be far more natural for the audience than today. Add to this the subject of what he's talking about, and the complete lack of emotion other than determined boredom he's displaying, and the scene works perfectly.

But I suspect that no matter how many different ways I go about explaining the conclusion both I and Martinus seem to have drawn from this scene, you simply won't get it. And frankly, that's fine. This is not science, this is art and despite what Minsky would claim there is no one "true" appreciation of it.

Even if you're way off base.

[Martinus]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

It's an expedient way of telling the audience what kind of character they're watching.

Has dog: Is a good guy.

Is skinning a deer while dressing down his son: Is a bad guy.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the basis for your complaint. We have to make assumptions about what he enjoys doing in his spare time in order to explain why he skins his own deer, which is clumsy. However, the scene gives the viewer an immediate sense of what kind of story-character Tywin is. They could've had him hack the hands off a peasant, or spit on a black guy, or demand prima noctae at a scottish wedding. They went with skin a deer.

"Hey, that guy, he does not fuck around."

This pretty much sums it up for me.

How odd, since you claimed the reason was something else entirely - that it was the means of showing that Tywin was willing to get his hands dirty.

Then you went with it was somehow symbolic of the Lion killing the antelope when someone threw that one out there.

Now slargos new idea that it shows that Tywin is a bad guy "sums it up for you".

Riiiggggght.

I think it is safe to say that you are just going to be a Timmay for the show at this point. Short of some perceived slight against gay people, of course.

Slargos, unless I misunderstood you, your post says the same I did - the scene conveys the message that Tywin is not afraid to get his hands dirty. Do you understand what Berkut is blabbering about, as I don't get it.

[Slargos]

Note that my bitch such as it is, is not based on any demand for slavish loyalty to the book - I get that the different medium demands some different ways of conveying messages to the audience. For example, I had no problem at all with the conversation between Robert and Cersei, and thought it did a nice job of helping the viewer understand their relationship that needed to be explained.

So I get that the visual medium has some different needs. I just think that whatever the writer was going for when they said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Tywin was skinning this deer in graphic detail!", they didn't accomplish. The attempts to try to make it fit sound a lot like people trying to tell me that Sarah Palins comments about Mr Revere really are not exactly incorrect...

I wonder if they just found out that the actor in question knew how to skin deer, and decided to capitalize on it?

It's an expedient way of telling the audience what kind of character they're watching.

Has dog: Is a good guy.

Is skinning a deer while dressing down his son: Is a bad guy.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the basis for your complaint. We have to make assumptions about what he enjoys doing in his spare time in order to explain why he skins his own deer, which is clumsy. However, the scene gives the viewer an immediate sense of what kind of story-character Tywin is. They could've had him hack the hands off a peasant, or spit on a black guy, or demand prima noctae at a scottish wedding. They went with skin a deer.

"Hey, that guy, he does not fuck around."

This pretty much sums it up for me.

How odd, since you claimed the reason was something else entirely - that it was the means of showing that Tywin was willing to get his hands dirty.

Then you went with it was somehow symbolic of the Lion killing the antelope when someone threw that one out there.

Now slargos new idea that it shows that Tywin is a bad guy "sums it up for you".

Riiiggggght.

I think it is safe to say that you are just going to be a Timmay for the show at this point. Short of some perceived slight against gay people, of course.

Slargos, unless I misunderstood you, your post says the same I did - the scene conveys the message that Tywin is not afraid to get his hands dirty. Do you understand what Berkut is blabbering about, as I don't get it.

I think we're more or less considering the scene from the same viewpoint (even though we're using different words to describe it). Berkut, however, is in the other room watching the scene through the wrong side of a pair of binoculars.

Unless of course, he's just trolling.