It was decidedly more interesting than episode 1 as we actually saw the characters interacting and thus developing "in situations relevant to the story"… Collin Farrell remains the hi-light… so I guess I hope he's alive, although that twist made everything far more interesting so if if he's dead they played it well. I…

It's not so bad if you watch "under the influence."

I thought weeds was excellent until they started with that tunnel and the Mexican Politico… first few season were great. IMO.

They don't care WHY we watch… only THAT we watch

So 2 hours… to get to "ya… nobody is out"… good silly fun… but WTF? nobody knows anymore than they did before and they all still stuck.

Good catch… Mine was that I nodded off at the same time as the old guy in the car… Casper was it?

Esp. an HBO show… this is not their first Rodeo… they have earned the right to play the long game. That said they have also set their bar rather high.

within a proper context I'm sure these will work out to be interesting characters… But as you say keeping them separate created more a "sneak peak" scenario which I assume was supposed to hook us… But all I could think when skippy was on on his suicidal bike ride is "I hope the twist here is that he crashes and, well……

Checkmate.

can't lie… this made me laugh…

I was a little nervous he was gonna punch the kid… he was more clever than that.

I suspect I will find the same… also, I think HBO has earned itself more than a one and done viewership… I will see where I am after 3 episodes…

I just think that Matthew and Woody were more interesting characters… with out trying very hard at it. here they seemed to be stretching for intrigue… Ferrell was the highlight… I expect that to continue.

I'll give it 3 episodes. I like the cast, but Vince Vaughn will have to convince me he can pull this role off. My biggest issue is that it seems to have been a series of out of context "look how F***ed this is" scenarios… I expect they will fill in context over time, but this is not intriguing from the jump like…

To say the show doesn't seek to make moral points is not the same as saying there is no moral significance to characters and their development. Stannis did sell his soul I don't think the show was making a point about general fanaticism, but it was progressing the character, his destiny playing out different than he…

" What soldiers would follow such a fool?" - The ones with nowhere to go.. and fanatics… which as you saw was very few. Yes he's a tragic figure… and in the end he was not dumb… he was resigned to his "destiny" even once he realized what that destiny really was… he sold his soul for melted snow… and as you pointed out…

Ya… "King Tommen" It "still sounds weird" to him… HAHA.. what a chump…

It almost hilarious that you are correct and yet… the idea of Tommen even thinking "I'm going to sieze my uncle's land" is unimaginable.. can't even seize the floor tiles outside his room… can't seize his lunch… certainly couldn't seize the High (shoeless commoner) Sparrow… But yes… it would be within his "rights" as…

That is funny… Yes, game of thrones can be quite "Meta" that way… we get frustrated with the monotony of Arya doing Monotonous chores… instant empathy and relation to character and her problems… the good thing is that the acting and dialogue is such that we can go through this and be frustrated without losing…

on the contrary.. I feel like "Stannis the human being" died with Shireen… the rapid descent from there was fantastic. And the best part of all is that the snow DID melt… and as soon as his prayer was answered the true "cost" of his sacrifice came swift and unrelentingly. Those were probably my favorite scenes from…