So what is HBO's strategy on the Jon Snow question?

[Sasha Steelsong]

Not only has Kit challenged the accuracy of the story, the story itself mentions that this does not immunize characters from being bumped off.

While I agree that this is the first time the cliffhanger applies to both readers and watchers, I don't see why that would be a sufficient motivation for the show to spread misinformation. I mean are D&D merely motivated by "hey, lets actually do a suspenseful cliffhanger because we haven't managed to so far?" I doubt it.

Furthermore, why are they not making it sound more like a cliffhanger? Why not give equivocal answers and ambiguous multiply interpretable statements? Instead the unanimous party line seems to be one that lowers and squelches the expectations that one would expect them to encourage if they wanted to get the maximum mileage out of this cliffhanger.

What would give them a better ratings boost? If people expect Jon to come back and keep waiting for it, or if people unexpectedly see it happen out of nowhere while they weren't expecting anything along those lines (by which time many may have given up on the show)?

Mostly I'm reminded of the X-files episode from years back where instead of the "the truth is out there" they had in the credits "believe the lie." The assumption from book readers is that Jon isn't dead - in part because there are a lot more clues in the book that this is just sort of a way-point for him thanks to the chapter we spent in Mel's head. Anything other than "he's dead" would be read as "he's alive" or "he'll be bacK" and somewhat disturbingly I think part of what they want us to feel is the hopelessness of the loss. Anything else would spoil the book as well and I think part of the reason they ended things where they did was precisely to give GRRM a little more time to get the next book out. There is a whole year and a whole season to shoot for hints to start leaking out that he's coming back/may not be totally dead/etc. and I think they are counting on that to keep people interested.

[ShadowKitteh]

I honestly believe that while reincarnating someone in another body would work in books it would not translate well on film.

All of the 'investment' people have in the character would disappear in my opinion

And yes i loved the hound - the scenes with arya were some of my show favourites.

:agree:

How on earth did she reach castle black so quickly by the way?

That seemed odd to me.

Apparently, she's borrowed Littlefinger's Wormhole™.

Gosh - Jon had a moment of despair, his situation is pretty grim, a watch that hates him, the southerners determined to kill each other and seemingly noone able to see the bigger picture. I couldnt blame him for that moment, it did not make him seem whiny to me.

:agree:

Jon won't stay dead, and Kit will be back. HBO has nurtured and made him a huge star. They're not going to piss off millions of fans by recasting that role.

[FantasyFan73]

Not sure if my link worked, but a while back they did an interview at oxford university (i had forgotten about it)

A question was asked about warging and kit said warging sounded fun, he would like to put himself into a wolf

as the laughter died down... the producer turned to him and said 'two words', season 6

[Coxy]

Wasn't there a story about seasons 5 and 6 being commissioned at the same time, and this being something unusual? Could this support the idea that some scenes for season 6 have already been shot, or that D&D had to ask HBO for a show of faith knowing what they had to do?

[Hajk]

Not sure if my link worked, but a while back they did an interview at oxford university (i had forgotten about it)

A question was asked about warging and kit said warging sounded fun, he would like to put himself into a wolf

as the laughter died down... the producer turned to him and said 'two words', season 6

Yes, I have seen the video (I even referenced it in the OP). It seems to be stated in a joking manner. Moreover it is hard to see how that trumps the direct evidence we have been getting from interviews recently. They have done very little work for this in the show. Warging is established for no Stark child except Bran, for example.

[Hajk]

Apparently, she's borrowed Littlefinger's Wormhole™.

Davos was already there and he left a day or so before her so it is not too surprising that she got there.

[FantasyFan73]

Yes, I have seen the video (I even referenced it in the OP). It seems to be stated in a joking manner. Moreover it is hard to see how that trumps the direct evidence we have been getting from interviews recently. They have done very little work for this in the show. Warging is established for no Stark child except Bran, for example.

Yup it was definitely tongue in cheek, but an odd thing to say nonetheless

And yes i may be clutching at straws :)

[ShadowKitteh]

It's not just a "moment of despair".

Sam asks Jon how he will be doing his job as a Lord Commander (guard the realms of men): "What you're gonna do?"

And Jon basically says: NOTHING, we stand no chance. Just hope (that they don't know how to climb the wall).

Sam is bringing up several points that could give hope to defend the wall:

• White Walkers are not invincible

dragon glass

valyrian steel

Jon refutes every point. Jon doesn't show any hope, inspiration or will to lead and fight.

And it is not just "a moment". It is the last description of his character before his last remaining friend (Sam) asks leave to abandon him, and he sends him away and gets stabbed. The build up for FTW feels more like suizide than mutiny.

Funny side note: the only show-reason for FTW, the unpoular decision to let the wildlings on the other side of the wall was made by one of the stabbers - Alliser Thorne. He gave the command to let them through the tunnel. He did have the power to keep the wildlings on the other side.

I think this happened because in ShowWorld, Jon and Sam don't know about the magic charm on the Wall, because Cold Hands never told them. Maybe we're just not there yet. Either they'll find that out somehow - Sam reads it in Old Town, and sends a raven, or the NW implodes because of Jon's assassination, and someone finds Horn of Joramun, blows it, the Wall comes down, and all bets are off.

[Moondancer]

I remember in an interview, people asked GRRM why he killed Ned, then Rob etc.

He said it was because no one would expect it. Then Rob because everyone would say "no way he can die now".

Also remember there was originally supposed to be a 5 year gap and the series was 3 books. Jon's story has not really advanced much other than filler (becoming LC etc). Would GRRM really have a 5 year gap and then boom kill him off.

Yes, the son rises in rebellion to avenge his father and succeeds - Ned/Robb represent the subversion of that particular narrative cliché.

I remember reading that GRRM planned from the start for Jon to be stabbed, "daggers in the dark" and other bits of the scene were written over 10 years ago, even longer. The gap wouldn't make any difference, in my opinion.

[Wouter]

Not only has Kit challenged the accuracy of the story, the story itself mentions that this does not immunize characters from being bumped off.

And how believable is that? So they are giving actors/actresses a raise to make sure they stay for s6 and (optionally) S7, but this "does not immunize them from being killed off"?

There is only reason to make sure the actors are available: they are needed to continue telling the story.

Of course Kit has to deny this piece of news too, he can't very well say "yes I'm totally not in S6 and yet I have been put under contract with a payraise - to do nothing."

[Mourneblade]

And how believable is that? So they are giving actors/actresses a raise to make sure they stay for s6 and (optionally) S7, but this "does not immunize them from being killed off"?

There is only reason to make sure the actors are available: they are needed to continue telling the story.

Of course Kit has to deny this piece of news too, he can't very well say "yes I'm totally not in S6 and yet I have been put under contract with a payraise - to do nothing."

That what I was getting at... They had those actors under contract for 5 years.... they had to extend them for 6 and an optional 7 and gave them a raise....

If Jon was leaving after 5 seasons... they had no reason to alter his contract.....since this was done AFTER season 5 was done shooting.

[ShadowKitteh]

This is one of the things that puzzles me the most.. Kit has been so firm in saying he's not returning to season six but surely we would get to see his funeral pyre if he was dead.

Professional actors make a living at lying. It's what they DO.

[Xarkar]

On the Inside the episode for E10, when D&D are talking about the FTW scene they mention Jon's name 4 times.

1 "the problem with Jon is he is not a cautious man"

2 "at the end of the day, Jon is his fathers son. He is an honorable man etc"

3 "this is obviously a big deal, the death of Jon Snow"

4 "and it did not work out well for Jon Snow in this case"

Not sure if it means anything at all, but when they first start talking about Jon, they do not use his surname. Then when they are talking about his death, they include his surname.

The tone of Dans void changes when he talks about Jon at the end as well.

Just seems odd to refer to Jon as Jon at the start and Jon Snow at the end.

[Mourneblade]

On the Inside the episode for E10, when D&D are talking about the FTW scene they mention Jon's name 4 times.

1 "the problem with Jon is he is not a cautious man"

2 "at the end of the day, Jon is his fathers son. He is an honorable man etc"

3 "this is obviously a big deal, the death of Jon Snow"

4 "and it did not work out well for Jon Snow in this case"

Not sure if it means anything at all, but when they first start talking about Jon, they do not use his surname. Then when they are talking about his death, they include his surname.

The tone of Dans void changes when he talks about Jon at the end as well.

Just seems odd to refer to Jon as Jon at the start and Jon Snow at the end.

They also use present Tense... IS instead of was... its a normal slip when you are thinking one thing but saying another....

[A_Cornered_Wolf]

Its the same thing that happened with Katee Sackhoff/Kara Thrace on the BSG reboot. They went as far to cast her in another show, had her say her goodbyes around the set, told media sources over and again,"Starbuck is really dead." And then she came back. Unless Kit signs a contract with a show on a competing channel that has filming going on at the time GoT would be filming I'd consider everything else smoke to sell the illusion of Jon's death.

[Skore]

I saw an interview with D&D about one of their first 'sounding out' meetings with GRRM and he asked them about Jon Snow's parentage.

To me that one point above all others means that it's an important question so we haven't seen the last of Jon.

[ShadowKitteh]

So now that Jon is dead who gets to keep Longclaw? Olly?

FUCK OLLY!!! (there needs to be a stabby emoji.) He's the only character that annoys the living shit out of me.

Mel needs to burn that emo kid to get Jon back. I'd be fine with that.

[Wouter]

Its the same thing that happened with Katee Sackhoff/Kara Thrace on the BSG reboot. They went as far to cast her in another show, had her say her goodbyes around the set, told media sources over and again,"Starbuck is really dead." And then she came back. Unless Kit signs a contract with a show on a competing channel that has filming going on at the time GoT would be filming I'd consider everything else smoke to sell the illusion of Jon's death.

That's an excellent example of show runners and cast lying to achieve a shock. Apparently it is something that Hollywood does, even if it may seem contraproductive in some respects.

The controversy helps to put the show in the spotlight though, that's for sure.

[The Citadel of Masyaf]

The answer to this question could be either way. If Jon comes back, it will likely be as unJon or Ghon/Jost (Ghost-Jon). Normally, the presence of Melisandre nearby and other factors would seem to point toward a revival of Jon, but the interview statements, combined with the nature of this season, open the possibility that he is permanently gone.

This could be a case where his fate in the books will differ from the show. In terms of his plot arc, there is still much unfinished. However, D&D have thrown away interesting things before, as seemingly is the case with the Iron Bank. They have made a huge amount of dubious decisions this season. Thus, it would not be totally out of character if they travelled even further from the Rubicon they already crossed. It would not be entirely unprecedented.

Melisandre's visions in the books point toward revival being the more likely fate in the books.

The debate of whether the overarching plot requires Jon's survival is impossible to resolve at this stage since no but Martin and the show producers can be entirely sure what exactly Jon's role might be in the upcoming books/seasons. It is possible that Jon plays a role in the books that includes travelling very far north, possibly as un-Jon, Cold Jon, or warged into Ghost, while show producers decided to just scrap post-assassination Jon. Alternately, they could have Melisandre revive Jon.

[Astromech]

Professional actors make a living at lying. It's what they DO

I would suggest a healthy dose of skepticism regarding everything D&D and Kit say concerning Jon's fate in the show.