Illyrio recast

We knew it was coming.
Welcome to GOT family, Mr. Allam.

But… he’s not fat! :D

The casting is always so good the first time round, and we get attached to a certain face so quickly, that re-casting will always be painful. This was expected, but is still unfortunate.

The re-casting of Catelyn and Dany, in retrospect, seems a positive thing to me now. (I’m still not certain about Alliser Thorne, though; Derek Halligan really did look perfect.)

However, once again HBO seems to have done a great marvelous job re-casting. I remember this guy from “V For Vendetta”, and he was the best part! IMO, he was the only character that really stuck out in that movie, which I otherwise didn’t like much.

A shame about McNiece, but Allam is a fantastic actor. I completly forgot about him to my shame, now it seems such a waste having him in a such small part.
Oh well, England Prevails! ;-)

Oh wow, I liked McNeice as well, he was kind of perfect. But, this recasting is just as perfect! Although I wish Allam had a bigger part. :)

Nothing wrong with this dude. Nice re-cast. They’ll do their thing to make him fat (most likely).

Looks like we have two victims of V in the show now, Prothero and Lilliman.

And don’t forget, he was also General Arcadius in Krod Mandoon! :)

I wonder if they are going to fatten him up?

The guy did make a great villain in V for Vendetta though.

This is an odd choice. I loved his work in V for Vendetta and Speed Racer…but that doesn’t mean he’s suited for Illyrio.

Been a fan of Allam’s since he did Les Mis over twenty years ago, and he’s great in everything. Glad to have him on the show!

ok, and I’ll add a third and final one

Sure Illyrio was fat, but it’s not like his fatness was a plot point. You couldn’t make Sam skinny, and you couldn’t make Jaime fat, but Illyrio’s weight doesn’t matter. Give him a forked yellow beard and a couple fistfulls of gemmed rings to make him recognizable when Arya sees him with Varys under the Red Keep and it really doesn’t matter how heavy he is.

Lord Ned’s Head,

Oh, I agree completely. I feel like his size definitely shows his opulent lifestyle, and I would love for him to look that way in the show, but having lost McNeice, I’m happy they got a skilled actor over a merely fat actor.

ENGLAND PREVAILS!

Allum was very menacing in Ashes to Ashes.

Here’s a scene (ff to 3:37) that’s a bit Game of Thrones ish but in a 1980′s way ;)

Oh and it also has Kevan Lannister in it ;)

Well, cool.

My wife and I refer to him as “that guy who looks like Christopher Hitchens who’s in everything.”

JH: Well, cool.My wife and I refer to him as “that guy who looks like Christopher Hitchens who’s in everything.”    

He totally looks like Christopher Hitchens!

“Azhor Azhai is Not Great, How Prophey Poisions Everything” and “The Trial of Petyr Baelish.” by Illyrio Mopatis.

@possible alternative roles for McNeice: “Lord Lamprey” Manderly, maybe? He’s a good fit and it’s a small enough role (iirc).

Bleh, I forgot to make my point in the last post, which is IF Illyrio IS a good guy, casting a guy with a rep for playing smarmy bad guys is a brilliant casting choice.

ManBearSquid: Sure Illyrio was fat, but it’s not like his fatness was a plot point. You couldn’t make Sam skinny, and you couldn’t make Jaime fat, but Illyrio’s weight doesn’t matter. Give him a forked yellow beard and a couple fistfulls of gemmed rings to make him recognizable when Arya sees him with Varys under the Red Keep and it really doesn’t matter how heavy he is.    

I am dumb. Dumb Zack. I remember being extremely intrigued by that scene with Arya, clueless regarding the identities of those guys, assuming they must have had ill intent…but at some point you’d think I might have gone back and re-read it. Feel like a dope for reading this far without knowing who those mysterious figures were. Thank you, MBS.

I remember thinking how ominous they seemed, but in retrospect…seems rather clear they’re just working to restore the throne to Dany, which I’m eagerly anticipating.

I feel so out of place among you guys most of the time, lol.

Josh Parker,

nice pic…he looks the part to me..

Two are still puzzling me: Wonder who’ll they cast for Hodor and Ilyn Payne. And if they continue shooting the books, Victarion Greyjoy and Brienne of Tarth maybe challenging to find.

Syleonr,

Ah. How come I missed them. I must be blind.

When can we expect soundtrack news? I suppose SOMEONE will start doing it by the end of this year?

Wastrel,

Oh, and no, I don’t think Illyrio is a good guy. For one thing, he appears to be on Dany’s side against the rightful kings of Westeros (ideally Stannis, but anyone not Dany would do), which in my book makes him a villain. More importantly, even if he’s on the side you think is the ‘good’ side that doesn’t make him a ‘good guy’, anymore than being on the ‘bad’ side makes somebody a ‘villain’. The series is more complicated than that.

Wastrel: Wastrel,
Oh, and no, I don’t think Illyrio is a good guy. For one thing, he appears to be on Dany’s side against the rightful kings of Westeros (ideally Stannis, but anyone not Dany would do), which in my book makes him a villain. More importantly, even if he’s on the side you think is the ‘good’ side that doesn’t make him a ‘good guy’, anymore than being on the ‘bad’ side makes somebody a ‘villain’. The series is more complicated than that.    

But the “rightful kings” are only so because they stole it out from under Dany (well, Aerys) to begin with. Not that I’m objecting. Aerys clearly didn’t need that much power. And Viserys could have been even worse. Dany is different though, and seeing her claim her crown will be a wonderful moment.

Arya’s eavesdropping scene happens when Viserys is still alive, meaning they weren’t so much working for Dany, though…and anyone who knew Viserys’s true nature and still worked to restore the kingdom to him probably can’t be trusted *too* far…but I stick to the opinion that Arya’s scene with the schemers scheming is, at the very least, less obvious villainy than it initially appears.

Winter is cold: Grimtuesday,
Victarion is more complex. A psychopath, yes.Uncompromising, proud and stubborn. I thinksomething in the lines of Stephen Lang’s role in Avatar.    

Stupid is as stupid does in the next book, I fear ….

Zack,

The Baratheon/Arryn/Stark/Tully/Tyrell/Lannister/Everybody-not-Dornish-or-Targaryen rebellion is a fait accompli. I don’t think any claim of “rightful” rule that attempts to reverse that fait accompli can be legitimate. Dany is a villain because she wants to bring war and death (and inevitably pestilence and famine with them) to an entire continent merely because she believes that her toy has been stolen from her and she wants it back. A woman who cares more about what is owed her than about the welfare of the people cannot be good, and a theory that would legitimate the return of tyrannical, absolute regime in place of a regime based upon common consent, and imposed through bloody conquest by an alien people, cannot be a correct theory!

For there to be any rule of law, there must be clear and unambiguous succession to those with the strongest claim, and there cannot be endless claims of “oh, I’m the daughter of the king before the king before last, my claim would have been better than yours if it hadn’t been for…”. It’s not entirely clear who the legitimate king is: legally Tommen, but Stannis has a better moral claim; and if it’s Tommen, who should be the regent? Again, Stannis is the logical choice, but Cersei has her own legitimate clam as well. Stannis has the advantage that he would, as it happens, make the best king, but that’s beside the point.

Personally, the fear that the series is going to revert to proto-fascist type and annoint Dany as the Heroine due to her Superior Blood regardless of the cost is one of my biggest issues with the series. However, I still hope that Martin is going to find a way to subvert this somehow.

Wastrel: Dany is a villain because she wants to bring war and death (and inevitably pestilence and famine with them) to an entire continent merely because she believes that her toy has been stolen from her and she wants it back

Wow that’s something new and I never really thought about it that way. What an impact on the story if Dany turns out to be the villain and let’s say Stannis to be the big winner in the end (though I don’t really think that’s going to happen)

But the “rightful kings” are only so because they stole it out from under Dany (well, Aerys) to begin with.

You can make the argument that the Targaryens did it first. They took the the throne of the North from the Starks at Torrehen Square, from the Lannisters at the field of fire, etc. So some of these people have just as good claim as Dany, taking back what was their families first.

OldGran: Wastrel,
i don’t trust that Melisandre    

You know, I think GRRM has set that one up a bit, although I don’t like her either I have a feeling she’s going to be proved right in a lot of things ;)

Jackie MacPherson,

In GRRM’s world anything is possible. Dany, remember, has many enemies on route to get her and her little dragons too. However I think the dragons could come in handy on the wall, whether in Dany’s controll or not.

Ula Mišigoj,

don’t forget Jon Snow

Ula Mišigoj: Maybe not the right place for saying this, but it itches me .. I just wonder, who is going to be the GoT star after they do away with Sean Bean, and what role will they have     

Well for season2, I think we can expect big name actors and possible enhanced roles (accordingly) for any of the following characters, : Stannis, Davos, Blackfish, Melisandre, Qhorin Halfhand, Edmure

Asha could be a big name too, but her role isn’t important enough to become the “star” of the show.

But hopefully, by the time season 1 end, viewers will be attached enough to Dany, Tyrion, Robb, Jon, Arya, Catelyn and Samwell that some of them will have risen to “star”, if by “star” you mean the characters people care most about, thanks to both story and actor performance. Theon could also win over a lot of viewers at the start of s2.

As GoT get underway the need for a big name actor will not be as urgent because some of the actors already on board will catch fire. Like Tyrion, with his wicked smartmouth and penchant for whores, is sure to be a favorite. Iwonder if Peter is ready for the force of fanlove coming his way? He will forever be known as Tyrion. However I’m sure they will have no trouble getting big name actors for future seasons.

Zack,

I wouldn’t feel too bad about not recognizing Varys and Illyrio under Kings Landing. I certainly didn’t my first read. I think it was in my second read, maybe my third that I saw mention of the yellow beard and huge amount of rings (wasn’t there a tiger’s eye ring? I think that might be what piqued my curiosity) that I had to flip back and read a description of Illyrio, which matched perfectly. Varys is in costume, one that he ends up meeting Ned in later, but still, I think only the most perceptive or practiced readers are catching that right away.

Wastrel,

Ahhh Wastrel, your Socialist/Communist view of the world never ceases to make me laugh. Dany a facist?? Come on!

You hate Illyro because of his capitalist like tendencies, and therefore believe he must be on the wrong side.

Your trust in government is also amusing.

Wastrel: Zack,
The Baratheon/Arryn/Stark/Tully/Tyrell/Lannister/Everybody-not-Dornish-or-Targaryen rebellion is a fait accompli. I don’t think any claim of “rightful” rule that attempts to reverse that fait accompli can be legitimate. Dany is a villain because she wants to bring war and death (and inevitably pestilence and famine with them) to an entire continent merely because she believes that her toy has been stolen from her and she wants it back. A woman who cares more about what is owed her than about the welfare of the people cannot be good, and a theory that would legitimate the return of tyrannical, absolute regime in place of a regime based upon common consent, and imposed through bloody conquest by an alien people, cannot be a correct theory!For there to be any rule of law, there must be clear and unambiguous succession to those with the strongest claim, and there cannot be endless claims of “oh, I’m the daughter of the king before the king before last, my claim would have been better than yours if it hadn’t been for…”. It’s not entirely clear who the legitimate king is: legally Tommen, but Stannis has a better moral claim; and if it’s Tommen, who should be the regent? Again, Stannis is the logical choice, but Cersei has her own legitimate clam as well.     

All governments are corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Your belief that all of those with “legitimate claims” should win out is garbage.

People want Dany to rule, because from what we know of each of the characters, her values as shown in her actions, align most clearly with the majority of fans. In short if most fans were to elect a ruler of Westeros they would elect Dany, Tyrion would probably come in second, with Tywin‘s corpse a close third.

If Dany were a fascist, and she did conquer Westeros (fait accompli), would that make anyone who tried to overthrow her because she is a fascist, a villain?

On Six Feet Under: well, they DID bring in Kathy Bates and James Cromwell!

Abe: I’m sorry, have we met? I’m not sure where you’re seeing “communist” in what I said.

And yes, if Dany wins, it would be wrong to overthrow her by force, even if she’s not very good. Unless she’s incredibly, genocidally bad, in which case it’s still bad to overthrow her, just necessary.

The series, don’t forget, is founded on the Wars of the Roses (and Shakespeare’s version of them). And the motto of those is that while it may have been necessary to overthrow the tyranical Richard II, it’s still bad, and ultimately causes a century of slaughter and horribleness.

Josh Parker: Wastrel,Well, yeah, after SFU had already made a name for itself. (I just realized that the show’s initials look very nasty if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)    

Not to me. SFU is the name of my university!

Wastrel: Abe: I’m sorry, have we met? I’m not sure where you’re seeing “communist” in what I said.

No we haven’t met, and yes I went over board. Mostly for two reasons:

1.It’s Friday and I was in a slightly aggressive mood. (My apologies.)
2.You seem like the type of person who would not be overly offended, and up to the challenge. (I’m not looking to make enemies here, just get into a little spirited debate.)

My thoughts on your socialist/communist leanings come from the following:

1.Your rants against Murdoch, when it was announced that the BBC was out and being replaced by SKY.
2.Your negative views towards Illyrio, who I believe has capitalist tendencies.
3.Your dislike of Dany, and your referring to her as a proto-fascist.
4.There was just something in the tone of your posts over time that gave me the feeling. (Not communist, but definitely Social-Democratic if not socialist leaning.)

In truth, I think Zack did a pretty good job of arguing the pro Dany point of view. And as my aggressive mood has passed I’m not going to push things, as it really shouldn’t matter as this board is about the politics of ASOIAF and the upcoming show, and not about personal politics.

So my apologies again to you and the rest of the board. Now back to relevant discussion:

And the motto of those is that while it may have been necessary to overthrow the tyranical Richard II, it’s still bad, and ultimately causes a century of slaughter and horribleness.    

While this last quote may accurately reflect Shakespeare’s version of the War of the Roses, I strongly disagree with the premise for Westeros.

Dany is the best thing that could happen to Westeros, but it has nothing to do with her blood line, and everything to do with her strength, values and judgement as a leader.

Leaving an incompetent ruler in place only makes things worse as the problems of society continue to be kicked down the road. Sometimes strong medicine is what is needed. Sometimes you need to take the pain and suffering that come with it, knowing that in the end you will be better off for it.

Wastrel,
you said: “Dany is a villain because she wants to bring war and death (and inevitably pestilence and famine with them) to an entire continent merely because she believes that her toy has been stolen from her and she wants it back.”

To be consistent, you must admit in that case that Robb’s war was villainous, because he put millions of his countrymen at risk and cost thousands of them their lives and livelihood by prolonging a war that could have ended were he to simply swear allegiance to Joffery and give Winterfell to Bran (Yes, Tywin promised the freedom of Winterfells people, and would have called back GREGOR from his reaving). Same goes for Renly. Stannis gets a little credit in your worldview since at least he has reason to believe he’s the legitimate heir.

Anyway, I think both Robb and Dany have shown they are reasonably thoughtful persons and have done their best to minimize casualities and make moral choices. And of course, there is the fact that getting rid of a Tyrant may reduce future suffering/death. Also, unlike Robb Dany hasn’t actually started a war yet. I think it’s possible she’ll actually spend more time fighting the Others than her countrymen and regain the throne mostly politically. But we’ll see (well, I hope).

I think you might have a problem recognizing the effect of context in moral values. You can’t take some mideval value set and start filtering them through your own. Sorry, you can, but there’s no point. There are no universal and true moral values, there are just values that are prone to change towards the demand of the surroundings. Failing to recognize this, is plain stupidity that is very common with the simplest of people.

The moral value sets in Martin’s books are the most interesting thing. They are almost completely customized and the cultures are very diverse. He doesen’t take any sides as a writer. He just describes them. There’s no good or evil stamping found in there, and that’s the only timeless truth about people. Thing aren’t “this or that”. They usually are “this and that”. There are no good or evil men, since we are all created by the things that happen to us.

Sandor, Jaime, Tyrion, Catelyn, Arya or Sansa for example they all start from somewhere and end up somewhere else and become something different. That’s the amazing thing about the books, the sense of how a person is affected by his/her deeds and deeds done to him/her.

This debate is interesting. Just another point to throw into the mix:

Robert named an heir- “my son Joffrey”. Regardless of what Robert might have done differently with more information, that was his wish at the time. While it seems likely he would have named someone else- quite possibly Ned since he didn’t get on too well with his brothers!- we can’t say for sure he wouldn’t have decided the boy brought up as his son should be King anyway- Joffrey isn’t to blame for who his father is. Probably not though. Did Ned, for all his good intentions, commit treason by using different wording?

Or did he do right since Robert’s named heir technically doesn’t exist- he doesn’t actually have a son called Joffrey? Or does Robert claiming Joffrey as his despite the genetic truth- albeit not knowing said truth- make Joffrey legally his son anyway? Bearing all this in mind, who is Robert’s legal heir?

If we take the argument that Robert was King after Aerys’ defeat since all of Westeros eventually swore allegiance to him, Dany has no claim. Regardless of whether or not he is Robert’s legal heir, Joffrey was crowned King and the majority of Westeros eventually swore allegiance to him (technically including the North thanks to what Ned said at his trial, though Robb very clearly rescinded that). Tommen was definitely Joffrey’s heir. Does Stannis still have a claim?

Just to make it clear, I think these could be argued either way, they’re just interesting points should anyone wish to discuss them.

Lots of circular logic here, but I just want to say that, IMO, Dany is clearly not a villain. She is more of a protagonist that happens to have conflicting interests with some of the other protagonists. I would go so far as to say there really aren’t even villains OR protagonists in aSoIaF as those are storytelling distinctions that GRRM has, along with many other traditional storytelling tools, broken down in these books.

As D&D said quite nicely in the Making Of clip, no one is inherently good or evil, they all have their own goals and their own code. Just like in real life, depending on what perspective you view them from, they could be viewed as good or evil.

I hope nobody’s said this already, but Roger Allam is currently playing Falstaff in Henry IV pts 1 and 2 at the Globe over here in the UK and word is he’s fantastic! So I think he will be a wonderful Illyrio!!

Wastrel,
“userj: Renly was certainly in the wrong, yes. He was willing to have a war for reasons of his own personal ambition. Robb is debateable, in that he was fighting for secession, not succession. However, we don’t see massive popular demand for independence, we don’t see clear evidence that the Southern regime is or will be tyrannical toward the North, and it’s certainly far from clear that the war of secession can be fought and won quickly and unproblematically. So I think the balance is against him. Obviously, from a personal point of view it’s understandable, but personal vendettas should not override the interest of his subjects.”

If you believe this, then why do you single out Dany for your wrath (unlike all these others she hasn’t even begun her conquest of Westeros).

userj: I don’t “single anyone out”. It’s true that I didn’t add that I’d be disappointed if Robb or Renly won, but that’s because a) they’re not POV characters and b) having read the first four books… I somehow doubt they’re going to win.

Abe: I think that Robert has a legitimate REASON to want the Targs dead (although I don’t think it’s actually the reason that motivates him). However, murdering peaceful citizens of other countries is obviously prima facie wrong. It could perhaps be justified if the threat of war were sufficiently proximate and terrible? At the start of the books, it isn’t, in my view. However, it could be argued that by the end of AFFC, if there were a clear lawful sovereign in Westeros, they might have a right to assassinate Dany – she’s announced that she’s going to overthrow the rightful rulers by force, and she’s achieved a position of enough strength to be worrying.

I’d like to emphasise that if a character wanted to assassinate Dany and had no qualms about it, I’d not like the character. And if a character believed it was impermissable to assassinate her, I could accept that. But if the king said “I know it’s a horrible idea but it seems the only way to avoid an even worse outcome for my people”, I couldn’t bring myself to condemn them for it.

“Eradicating” more minor Targ, like every bastard and cousin, is less justifiable, because the threat is less.

—-

Regarding WWII: yes, I think the nuclear bombs probably were justified, and certainly COULD be justified by an argument of that kind in the right circumstances. There were only four options: persuade Japan to surrender, conquer Japan by force, surrender to Japan, or attempt to reach a consensual peace treaty that respected an Japanese zone of control. Surrendering wasn’t really a viable plan politically, given that the US was winning. If you look at the plans for Operation Downfall, the invasion plan for Japan, the losses to both sides would have been hideous beyond measure. Depending how hard the Japanese civilians fought, there would likely have been 0.25m-1m American losses, with Japanese losses perhaps ten times higher.

By contrast, the nukes won the war with only, probably, maybe as many as 150,000 killed overall including radiation sickness. [It's impossible to reall judge that one, since people do get cancer in old age anyway - officially, they're still counting people who get cancer in their nineties, sixty years after the bomb, as 'victims'. But even with the most generous counting possible, it's not more than 300k]. This is, of course, horrible. But a) it’s lower than even the American losses from Downfall, let alone the Japanese losses, and those losses mostly assume no resort of WMD (both Japan and America had chemical weapons, and Japan was developing biological weapons as well, iirc); and b) it’s not really that many compared to conventional bombing. The two largest conventional raids on Tokyo put together killed about as many people as the two nuclear strikes. The point of the nukes was psychological and symbolic – the promise of nuclear eradication if Japan did not surrender. The demonstrations were horrific in their loss of life… but not in themselves atrocities of exceptional size in a WWII context. It was less than half the dead of Kursk, for instance, or a quarter the dead of Kiev; it was around the size of the Battle of Lemburg (WWI), Budapest (WWII), or Normandy (WWII) (strange how only Normandy is remembered out of those three).

I think the only real alternative would have been peace. But a) I’m really not sure peace was attainable at that stage, and b) it’s not clear that giving Japan any control over China, or Indochina, or the Philipines, would have been a good idea in the long run. Even if they were peaceful, they were still blood-drenched tyrants. The nuclear bombs, for instance, cannot compete even vaguely with the Rape of Nanking, let alone the lesser atrocities. It might be said that China left to its own devices didn’t end up too well either, but I don’t think that US non-intervention would have helped: the Chinese would just have fought even more bloodily for freedom, and then probably still had their civil war anyway. [And to complicate things, Russia was occupying part of China at that point and probably wouldn't have gone away if Japan didn't].

Hmm, long answer. But yes, I do think the nuclear strikes were, if not correct, certainly reasonable responses to the situation, in terms of minimising overall suffering and death.