Bronntosaurus Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I got this impression on my first viewing of "The Dance of Dragons," and found nothing to refute it the second time around. I'm not entirely convinced that Mel burned the camp instead of Ramsay, but consider the following: - There is no fire when Mel emerges from her tent. She stares at a tent for a moment, then it goes up in flames. - The ariel shot shows fires springing up at the same moment all over camp. No flaming arrows, no men bearing torches. The flames seem to start and spread unnaturally. - The flaming horse. First off, a horse isn't going to go up like that without being doused in oil. I doubt the Boltons could go oil up "hundreds" of horses without riling them up and blowing their cover. Also, we have seen Mel incinerate an animal in the novels-- Orell's eagle. - In the aftermath, it is apparent that the flames were very targeted and controlled. Most of the men are fine, but food, horses, seige weapons, etc are destroyed. - Mel has the motivation to do this. She knows it will make Stannis' situation dire enough for him to willingly sacrifice his daughter. - No Ramsay or any other Boltons shown. This doesn't mean they weren't the culprits, but the show has never missed an opportunity to give Ramsay screen time. As if to remind us to blame it on Ramsay, Davos estimates it was done by "20 men." How the hell did you know that, Ser Onion Knight? I could go on trying to establish that the Boltons coordinating this attack and carrying it out with such precision is unrealistic, or speculate as to what Mel saw in the flames in the opening shot, but I want to hear what you all have to say. As I said, I'm not 100% convinced this is correct, but I see it as very plausible. Finally, I think it opens up the door a couple of interesting possibilities-- someone encountering the real raiding party (I'm looking at you, Davos), and conflict between Stannis and Mel when the truth comes out (letting Mel head to the Wall?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordHodor Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Great analysis. You might be onto something here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Freypie Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I think it's honeypoting, but I agree it would be more logical than imagining 20 men could do that without any being catched. ps : + would be fun if they make Ramsay and his 20 men arrive in the already burned camp in next episode, and be all WTF !? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkbringer Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Funny, I logged on to post this topic then saw this. :drunk: . But yeah I can totally see this happening. It would be the only ounce of cleverness that coud possibly come from this plotline, the rest is so retarded. It woud have been forshadowed by Mel telling selyse about all her tricks for making fires etc. It would be a small portion of credibility for a deeply wounded show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSasoiaf Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 This would actually be great!!! I would be happy if the show would go this way. Please...make it happen!!!!! But I have to say I believe we are stuck with Ramsay "chuck norris" Snow..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eucratides_Megas Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 It's not a bad theory altogether, not quite crackpot, definitely fits the weird vibe I got from her exiting just as everything started lighting up in unison. If my choice is between believing Ramsay to be the king of the ninjas OR a notoriously devious ShowMel did it to get her talons on Shireen....I have to say ShowMel seems more logical. It's weird but I feel a little liberated. This show has been an exercise in eye-rolling and character assassination broken by uneven moments where it seems they accidentally got something right. Now I'm done trying to make excuses for it. It is awful, poorly written and barely thought out "adaptation" (in the loosest sense of a word already in quotation marks) that can go on a slow boat through every hell Westeros can provide. Aside from Stannis, the character's who's gotten pretty brutalized without much thought or care has been Mel. Her POV was a revelation, not only that she truly believes in Stannis, but even sweeter moments like her wanting to spare Davos more pain, her memories of likely being a slave girl sold in Essos centuries ago. What is she on the show? A horny, hot redhead who can't go two seconds without either trying to bang out a shadow baby or burn a little girl alive. *long sigh* Okay, liberating and depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eucratides_Megas Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I also read a crackpot theory that Shireen was really glamoured and she's still alive, hidden away. Mel just saw the snow would break in a vision but wanted the credit to go to her "king's blood magic". God, anything at this point would be better than what we're left with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashless Society Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 This is what I originally thought but knowing these showrunners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemiNymph Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 It could be but I don't think the show is so deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jet199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I guess they could have Ramsay saying that they raided the camp and then everything caught fire without them doing anything. But, yeah, the show usually shows things straight so it would be a surprise if they pulled something like that and managed to do it in a way that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jet199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Also I think the Mel actress said that this season that we see her be more human and making mistakes but as of yet we have seen the opposite so maybe there will be a Mel meddling reveal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fylimar Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 It was my first impression too. I have to watch the episode again, but it really looked like Mel was setting up the fires with her magic. She was so upset the last time, Stannis refused to give her Shireen, that it would fit. Burn down any menas of escape, food, shelter so that he has to do something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hound Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Then it would be disingenuous to show her surprised, like she appears when she's inside the tent and there have been zero build up on the possibility that she can just set things on fire like that (in the show, as in the book she sets on fire Orell's owl if I remember correctly). After all, she uses a torch to lighten up the pyres when burning Mance and Shireen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philpenn Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I'd guess the horse's blanket was on fire. Dumb dumb horses don't know stop, drop, and roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugdesh258 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 you can ponder this forever since nothing will occur to support or refute. The argument is only fueled by the sidebar discussion about how impractical what was seen on screen could have been done by Ramsey and 20 men. Most likely they did not want to spare a second of screen time showing Ramsey fleeing the scene with satisfied evil grin on his face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dofs Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Don't underestimate Ramsay and his 20 good men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGBeyondAsshai Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I also read a crackpot theory that Shireen was really glamoured and she's still alive, hidden away. Mel just saw the snow would break in a vision but wanted the credit to go to her "king's blood magic". God, anything at this point would be better than what we're left with. I would accept that gladly at this point. Mel manipulation all the way. It's better than what actually seemed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Campbell Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I got this impression on my first viewing of "The Dance of Dragons," and found nothing to refute it the second time around. I'm not entirely convinced that Mel burned the camp instead of Ramsay, but consider the following: - There is no fire when Mel emerges from her tent. She stares at a tent for a moment, then it goes up in flames. - The ariel shot shows fires springing up at the same moment all over camp. No flaming arrows, no men bearing torches. The flames seem to start and spread unnaturally. - The flaming horse. First off, a horse isn't going to go up like that without being doused in oil. I doubt the Boltons could go oil up "hundreds" of horses without riling them up and blowing their cover. Also, we have seen Mel incinerate an animal in the novels-- Orell's eagle. - In the aftermath, it is apparent that the flames were very targeted and controlled. Most of the men are fine, but food, horses, seige weapons, etc are destroyed. - Mel has the motivation to do this. She knows it will make Stannis' situation dire enough for him to willingly sacrifice his daughter. - No Ramsay or any other Boltons shown. This doesn't mean they weren't the culprits, but the show has never missed an opportunity to give Ramsay screen time. As if to remind us to blame it on Ramsay, Davos estimates it was done by "20 men." How the hell did you know that, Ser Onion Knight? I could go on trying to establish that the Boltons coordinating this attack and carrying it out with such precision is unrealistic, or speculate as to what Mel saw in the flames in the opening shot, but I want to hear what you all have to say. As I said, I'm not 100% convinced this is correct, but I see it as very plausible. Finally, I think it opens up the door a couple of interesting possibilities-- someone encountering the real raiding party (I'm looking at you, Davos), and conflict between Stannis and Mel when the truth comes out (letting Mel head to the Wall?). I nominate this for the honey pot conspiracy theory of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robasp2 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Your theory makes sense..If Christopher Nolan wrote the script.Well, this is just Ramsey the Rambo. So No need to theorize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kronosrx8 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Don't think this is very likely but it is certainly a better explanation than 20 good men somehow zipping in and out of there like the Flash. Maybe Mel saw their coming in the flames and this was the perfect opportunity for her to force Stannis' hand while having Ramsay's raiders taking the blame for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.