Grail King Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Well being as a sceond or third person, I say no she did not:She looked intently into the flames, she then has a surprised look on her face, she grabs her lantern and her eyes expand and her face shows a WTF expression as the tents lighted up. Davos said looks as a party of 20, the whole problem here is D & D did not give second / third person viewers some guys crawling in snow with camouflage clothing into the camp, everything was orally stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cladinator Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I wouldn't look into too much. It doesn't matter. They just needed a reason to burn Shireen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everett Snow Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 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. Maybe failing to seduce Jon was what she meant by mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwesteros Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Well, in spite of being a member in good standing of the I Hate Melisandre club, I certainly wouldn't put it past her, but in this case I really don't think she started the fire. I don't doubt her ruthlessness or her manipulativeness at all, I just don't think she's the culprit here. She obviously does have magic and some sort of inner 'alarm system', but it seemed to me she came outside the tent simply because she sensed something was amiss. I thought she genuinely looked confused, then frightened as she realized what was happening. (Plus, we already knew Ramsay was on his way with 20 men who surely would have thrown the torches from horseback, being far from the tents when the tents caught fire. Part of Ramsay's strategy would of course have been to have his men surrounding the camp, giving rise to fear in Stannis's camp that they were being attacked from all sides at once.) The poor horse (horrible! I had to do the 'la la la la' through that) was obviously, IMO, hit by a torch that was meant for a tent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwesteros Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Damn double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRON BANK Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 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 hope shireen was still alive however she is probably dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerJeremiahLouistark Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 When you get the overhead shot you see tents all over camp start to burst into flame with no one around. Must have been long fuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langsax Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 there are times when we over think this stuff. Makes perfect sense for a couple of motivated guys to burn the camp. That works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitteh Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Well being as a sceond or third person, I say no she did not: She looked intently into the flames, she then has a surprised look on her face, she grabs her lantern and her eyes expand and her face shows a WTF expression as the tents lighted up. Davos said looks as a party of 20, the whole problem here is D & D did not give second / third person viewers some guys crawling in snow with camouflage clothing into the camp, everything was orally stated. Camo? Seriously? You want a Middle Ages-based fantasy world to have 20th Century camo fabric on it's characters? Seems the D&D haters are starting to jump the shark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebookless Man Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Because camouflage is a modern concept.... *facepalm* At least one tthing is made crystal clear with every word you type: you're the target audience. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinjinobrave Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Honeypot.The fact that it's the 4th one to pop up in relation to this episode, shows how stupid it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinjinobrave Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 there are times when we over think this stuff. Makes perfect sense for a couple of motivated guys to burn the camp. That works for me. How does that work for you when it's so retarded on so many levels?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daske Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I like the OP theory, but why the disbelief around 20 men doing this? It's pretty similar to some aspects of Finland's Winter War against the Soviets. Small fast-moving guerrilla forces used to the snowy conditions/extreme cold, and using it their advantage carrying out hit and run tactics against a much bigger but lower morale force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinjinobrave Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I like the OP theory, but why the disbelief around 20 men doing this? It's pretty similar to some aspects of Finland's Winter War against the Soviets. Small fast-moving guerrilla forces used to the snowy conditions/extreme cold, and using it their advantage carrying out hit and run tactics against a much bigger but lower morale force. A couple things: Stannis had no sentries? Stannis put all his supplies in one place? Stannis' supplies and horses for thousands of men could be set on fire by 20 men? All those tents and horses burnt up like they were doused in kerosine, despite the cold and wet that would occur in a snowstorm? They were stealthy while carrying torches? None of them were caught? Roose would let Ramsay, who he's just made Lord of Winterfell, go on a guerilla mission? I could go on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 The show lacks subtlety and the showrunners love Rambo Bolton. Therefore the most obvious answer is the correct one: Rambo and his commandos are solely responsible for the burning of the camp, as illogical as it may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Honeypot. The fact that it's the 4th one to pop up in relation to this episode, shows how stupid it was. Yah. There's a fine line between ambiguous ;plot development and really lazy stupid writing that leaves the viewers saying to themselves 'what the fuckity fuck? But that makes no sense!' The showrunners don't care, they want the show wrapped up in a bow and finished with as little effort as possible. Why did we see all those fires apparently starting all by themselves? For the same reason Ser Friendzone touched his beloved with no gloves. Coz they couldn't give two shits about consistency or realism. Still I like reading a good conspiracy theory and this ones not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.