73 replies to this topic

[Admiral Bolton]

I can only hope that, in the coming episodes, it becomes more obvious to non-book readers that it was meant to be Bran and Rickon up there.

[turdle]

Stanmore, on 19 May 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

I was talking to a second non-book reading friend yesterday and he came right out and said "they're not dead are they? It's those 2 orphan boys from before." Didn't see much point being mysterious with him when he'd already worked it out. The first non-book reader I spoke to was also there and he reiterated that he hadn't even realised that the bodies were supposed to be Bran and Rikon. He'd assumed Theon was just setting an example by killing two random children in their place. From my small sample group, if they were going for a suspenseful cliff hanger they failed.

yeah, i think if they really wanted to better sell the idea that they were dead, they should have done like in the books. have word of bran and rikons death reach someone, AND THEN show the bodies. that way people will view the bodies more as confirmation of their deaths.

even though i think they could have done a better job selling bran & rikon, i really don't think it's that big of deal if viewers don't believe it. just as long as they understand that the characters all believe it.

[Stanmore]

turdle, on 19 May 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

yeah, i think if they really wanted to better sell the idea that they were dead, they should have done like in the books. have word of bran and rikons death reach someone, AND THEN show the bodies. that way people will view the bodies more as confirmation of their deaths.

even though i think they could have done a better job selling bran & rikon, i really don't think it's that big of deal if viewers don't believe it. just as long as they understand that the characters all believe it.

That's true. A lot of the suspense comes from Cat's actions in the light of their "deaths". Even once we find out for sure that they're alive, watching Cat fall apart piece by piece is still very powerfu.

[Jerritus]

Sword of the Morning Wood, on 16 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

I have to admit, when I read the books the first time, I thought Bran and Rickon were killed but I re-read recently and it's incredibly obvious that they weren't if you read the books and actually pick up on what's happening instead of racing through to find out what happens next.

The wall-nut thing was poor writing IMO. Either Dagmer knew that the boys had been there because of the walnuts, in which case they'd obviously just keep hunting as they knew they were on the trail. If Dagmer didn't think the walnuts belonged to the boys, why would he pick them up. Obviously they stuck them in to make people think they actually caught Bran and Rickon. But I reckon the whole 'walnut thing' was very clumsy writing.

The wallnut thing was to fool Luwin that they found a clue as to where the kids were going, thus making it more believable to him that they had found and burned them.


Or at least that's how I saw it.

[House Snow]

turdle, on 19 May 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

yeah, i think if they really wanted to better sell the idea that they were dead, they should have done like in the books. have word of bran and rikons death reach someone, AND THEN show the bodies. that way people will view the bodies more as confirmation of their deaths. even though i think they could have done a better job selling bran & rikon, i really don't think it's that big of deal if viewers don't believe it. just as long as they understand that the characters all believe it.

I sort of agree with this.  I kinda think a similar thing was what was wrong with the Renly death scene too.  They should have shown Renly's death first and then had a scene later in the series where Mel gives birth to a shadow.  Perhaps too much foreshadowing on some of the death scenes.

[Rickon is FIERCE]

It's really a very subjective point.  For myself, I also thought they were dead when I read the books.  Happened to Ned when I never believed it would, why not his boys?  Plus I hadn't read far enough into the series to know that the basic rule is to ignore any claims of deaths that occur off-stage.  The gut reactions I've had to that and scenes like the reveal of Tysha's being exactly who Tyrion thought she was and not a whore after all, or the RW- moments when I felt surprised or shocked or sucker punched- are some of the things I like best about the series, so of course I think those gut and heart-wrenching moments are important to experience.  I don't see how anyone can appreciate or experience the full measure of this part of the story without feeling the air knocked out of him/her by the horror of Bran and Rickon's death at Theon's hand.  Or even moreso the murder of two innocent, completely insignificant (politically speaking) children.  Just isn't as powerful if your take is purely cerebral- just understanding how the people of Winterfell would feel, rather than feeling it oneself.  But again, that's just my preference.

I also think it's important to experience Bran and Rickon's deaths in a very visceral way because I believe we are meant to despise Theon at this point in the story in the books, which is why, although I like some of the Theon scenes in this season (like the confrontation with Balon), I wish they hadn't been included, because I think it's far too early for us to sympathize with or feel an understanding for Theon and his behavior.  Again, purely subjective based on my experience as a reader, but I really hated him and thought he was a total dick at this point in the story- hopelessly irredeemable- and then came Reek.  Far more powerful to go through that portion of his story and start to actually root for him in ADWD- for Theon, for God's sake- having come from despising him more than any other character.

[Rickon is FIERCE]

But I have to brag on myself for a minute, and say that although I believed they were dead, I knew Bran had to come back somehow because so much had already gone into his dreams and powers.  My theory was that he'd somehow come back as a face in a weirwood tree...

[Lord of Cheese]

Rickon is FIERCE, on 19 May 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

But I have to brag on myself for a minute, and say that although I believed they were dead, I knew Bran had to come back somehow because so much had already gone into his dreams and powers. My theory was that he'd somehow come back as a face in a weirwood tree...

Yes, iirc it was Jon who sees Bran in the weirwood tree. And the readers (quite a few i imagine, and me included) all thought it was Bran who had become part of the trees now that he was dead.

[Fengari]

This is the first time I think they really dropped the ball completely.

Even if it may have been doubtful in the books (I admit I was totally fooled, but with my rereads I understand people who are more attentive to detail may not have been) I feel it would have been much more powerful for the series if non-book readers had actually believed they were dead for a week, then start doubting it the next episode when seeing the bodies are unrecognisable. From what I have seen, very few of them are fooled. The opposite, some don't even realise the bodies were supposed to be Bran and Rickon.

I would have liked to see:
- Theon refusing to give up the chase even though the trace has gone cold
- Catelyn getting the message the boys were dead

And then the next episode:
- the bodies on display in Winterfell, maybe with someone (Luwin? Yara?) questioning if he had to disfigure them so they were not even recognisable anymore (for those who wouldn't ask that question themselves...)

With how they did it, I'm not even sure what they were aiming for. Having Bran mention the orphan boys, and showing them at the farm when Theon was there, really set the viewers up for not believing it an instant. So if we were not meant to believe it, what was the walnut for? Only to trick Maester Luwin?

[bikie]

not claiming to be the most hyper-aware book reader, but when I read this segment in the book, it one of my "comatose" moments where I just stared off in the distance at what GRRM had done to me... when I saw the Bran chapter later on in the book, I was shocked and confused...

I haven't spoken to a single non-book reader who thins they are dead... bran pointing out it is the place he sent the orphans is like a vegas splashy sign, telling the audience, "it's not them!!"

I think it was a major blown opportunity by the show to give the audience a great charge and further feeling of unpredictability in the show... I just don't see why they didn't leave it to the audience to recognize the farmer as the same one bran spoke to in the last episode... letting them put together it was this guy that bran sent the orphans too... why even bother feigning their death if you didn't give the audience any reason to believe in it?

it also shows you that if the producers of the show didn't trust the audience to remember the farmer from one episode before, it's no secret why they didn't give us the arya vs tickler scene in another season!!!

[dansnow]

For me that was the most shocking scene in all 5 books, the tv series didn't do it justice, way to obvious it wasn't Bran/Rickon.

[Rickon is FIERCE]

Quite right, dansnow, for me it was second only to Jaime's revelation to Tyrion that Tysha wasn't a whore after all, and all the implications that truth held for Tyrion.

[romantic]

CrypticWeirwood, on 18 May 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Dance: Rhaegar’s son Aegon, his head mutilated beyond recognition by Sandor Clegane

Great summary of deaths/fake deaths but it was Sandor's brother, Ser Gregor accused of doing this.

[MCSmarties]

Seems to me that the many people who think D&D botched Bran & Rickon's "death" fall into two camps:

• The bodies don't look anything like Bran & Rickon
  
• The bodies were too obviously fake (as in, don't look like dead bodies rather than don't look like a particular character)

Me, I think that scene was horrifying enough exactly as shown.
To the two points above, I would argue:

re 1. - just what would have been more "Bran and Rickon-like"? Westeros doesn't have plastic surgery, how else could Theon possibly doctor up the miller boys' bodies to make them more "accurate"? (churns my stomach just thinking about it) One thing the show could have done - but would have required some thought in much earlier episodes - is to include some McGuffin - dunno, a particular object (jewelry? pocket knife?) clearly shown to belong to the Stark boys, then have Theon prominently display it after the slaughter. Very cliche, though.

re 2. - The show is already pushing the envelope as it is, could they really get away with showing realistic! corpes!! of LESS-THAN-TEN-YEAR-OLD KIDS!!! on TV? Maybe I'm more squeamish than others, but I really, really did not want to watch a mutilated-yet-still-recognizable child's body dangling on a rope, thank you very much...

Edited by MCSmarties, 07 June 2012 - 05:29 PM.