Søren

Well, I hope he doesn’t die. There’s this weird movement in dramatic television – Game of Thrones is in the exact same boat – to get rid of the archetypal protagonist. I don’t understand it at all. It really takes away all of the focus and central development, because splitting time between seven despicable (or even some marginally good characters, in the case of Game of Thrones), means I don’t really invest in anyone’s well-being.

For example, take Ned Stark in Season 1. He dies, and it’s sad, but the biggest problem with his death is that all of the mystery and plot was focused on his actions as he tried to [earnestly] maneuver himself around the Capital. When he died, it was less that I was sad for him, more that I was concerned for the show.

And lo and behold, the show totally lost focus from then on. He was an anchor holding together so many disparate elements, and without him, the show feels like it’s bit off more than it can chew. It’s why Tyrion was so good in Season 2 – he sort of took the reigns from Ned about halfway through and then we finally had a protagonist again. But by the end of that season, back to square one. Even Firefly, which featured an ensemble cast, clearly put Mal forward as the binding element, the character to look to and follow throughout the series.

Even Deadwood, despite it’s huge cast, used Bullock (and then Swearengen) to centralize the story a bit. Or Tony Soprano in The Sopranos. Or Pullo and Vorenus in Rome.

Josh

I think that you’re right. The death of Ned in the books was basically George R.R. Martin saying, “Oh, you thought this would be a traditional fantasy narrative? Think again, mofos.” And in the show it does fit into this idea of getting rid of what we think of as the “Television Protagonist.” In my opinion, Game of Thrones has more than enough interesting pieces to hold my interest. Maybe it’s because I read the books, I dunno.

And while I see your point, I can’t help but disagree about the outcome. This movement is exactly the kick in the pants that television needed. It’s why people are calling this the “New Golden Age of TV.” It’s bold and interesting, this idea that we can center a show around someone we aren’t supposed to like. I mean, this isn’t even new. I don’t side with Macbeth either, but he’s still interesting to follow. Breaking down archetypes has long been a sign of renewed artistic initiative, and it’s something that we should encourage.

Søren

Here’s the deal, though. I don’t think that’s why they’re calling this the New Golden Age, by the way – it’s more of a quality assessment than anything else (also something I disagree with).

But check it out. Deadwood does follow this new trend, despite my earlier comment. But what Deadwood does is first build every character up around Bullock and flesh them out so much that when attention and focus is taken from Bullock, as it certainly is in later seasons (Swearengen turns from antagonist to protagonist in later seasons), we don’t mind because everyone else is still just as interesting (if not more so – Bullock was definitely not my favorite character, but I think that’s a testament to everyone else in the show being more engrossing).

When it comes to Game of Thrones, I haven’t read the books… I wonder if that is the difference. I’m evaluating it entirely on its TV show merit (as I think one should; a show shouldn’t come with a 2,000 page required reading supplement). So basically it boils down to this: a protagonist kicks things off. Breaking Bad did this well with Walt (and Jesse, to some extent). While that’s going on, give all of the other characters time to shine and grow so that when you subvert the trope by de-protagonist-ing him, we continue to give a shit about everyone else. That was the hump I don’t think Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones ever got over. By the way, Parks and Rec did the same thing; it picked up in Season 2 because everyone else was way more fleshed-out and so Leslie could take a backseat.

Again, this is all opinion… But it’s the best I’ve got because there’s clearly something off-putting that’s throwing my perception out of whack with everyone else.

This is part of what was wrong with the Matrix sequels, too, by the way. Neo was our “in” as an audience. He becomes godlike by the second movie, and so we lose our “in” – but the rest of the cast isn’t fleshed-out enough to pick up the slack.