House Mosse Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 11 hours ago, Nerevanin said: I know that he is very young in the books and it's understandable that he isn't a POV. But in the state in which the books are now, if we take everything Manderly says, as true, Rickon is shaping up to be of big importance in the books. While in the show he was playing second fiddle to Bran, Jojen, Hodor, Meera, Osha and the wolves and then he was brought back to be immediately killed. You can hardly call that important. 10 hours ago, Nerevanin said: If Wyman makes his plan work, Rickon will be the key element to unite the North against the Boltons or the Crown. Rickon may be more of a pawn than player but he would be quite important. Of course Rickon might just want to stay with his wildling friends and so he would indirectly influence the events too. Of course, we don't know. But what I am saying is that I think that Rickon's role in the books will be considerably bigger than in the show. It will happen the same way in the books (probably), only it will work better in the books because the books have made us think he is going to be an important piece on the board. I don't know if any of you guys watch Filip Molena's post episode commentaries on the New Rockstar's Youtube channel, but they are pretty good, and he lays this out in the Episode 3 commentary when Rickon shows up as a prisoner with Shaggydog's severed head in tow. At that point he called that Shaggydog's head was really Shaggydog, and that Rickon would die pointlessly. Someone was hinting at it above with a link to the wikipedia entry for Shaggy Dog Story. Basically, the term "shaggy dog story" refers to a story that goes on and on for ages, with all sorts of info, and you think it is going to go somewhere and mean something, but in the end it is pointless. I don't know if this expression is in general use in the US because Molina describes it as a screenwriting term, but in England we have this expression as part of general language. The point is, the Rickon story line is a shaggy dog story. In the books, Wyman Manderly sends Davos on a quest to find "his liege lord", and we all think something exciting is going on and have visions of Rickon showing up with a Northern army at his back. When in fact it is all a big nothing. He was never a major character and he never will be. He will just die. In this case he serves as device for Ramsay to get to Jon, but no more. I suppose one might also call it a Red Herring, but that wasn't the name of the Direwolf. However, it doesn't work so well as a shaggy dog story in the tv show because there was no build up to make us think that Rickon was involved in anything, but it makes sense, and shows that this is from Martin and not just made up by the Showrunners, even if they didn't set it up so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrid Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 His purpose on the show was to be exactly what he was. Arrow fodder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamSongs Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Fodder to gain an emotional alliance between Jon and Sansa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mosse Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 11 hours ago, Xarkar said: They had to eliminate him from any potential claim to WF over Sansa / Jon etc. Bran, who is the 3ER hasnt been seen by anyone and likely will not make a claim for WF. So that means Rickon is next. With him dead, and Bran out of the picture, they make Jon KitN and Sansa something else 11 hours ago, Future Null Infinity said: ^ this is exactly my idea since the day I heard about Rickon's death, storywise, Rickon is barring the road of Jon to become KitN, so it must be eliminated from the plot It won't make Jon King in the North. He is bastard born (or a legitimate Targaryan, but no one knows that at this stage), but either way he is not the Stark heir. It makes Sansa the Lady of Winterfell, and if one was to argue that the concept of The North as an independent kingdom is still valid, as Rob's heir that would make her Queen in the North. This was an episode about women becoming ruling queens. Jon SNOW may be her right hand man, but he is heir to nothing (apart from maybe the Iron Throne). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosta Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 14 hours ago, Forlong the Fat said: This is exactly my thought. I think they may well have filmed scenes with him and found they were not up to show standards. or at least found in editing that the show was better without them. It wouldn't be the first time a child actor turned out not to be up to the task of playing a more mature character. i felt this EXACT same way about the actor playing sweetrobin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Lyanna Mormont Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I think, on the show, his purpose was to set the battle into motion, nothing more. What I'm interested in is knowing what this means for the books. Possible outcomes: * Bran comes back south of the Wall and rules Winterfell. * Robb's will is found and Jon rules WF. In either scenarios Rickon is not needed, but hopefully he'll just stay in Skagos and not die. Or go to Bear Island and marry Lyanna? Ok, it probably wouldn't work in a medieval like society... * Bran takes over BR's place, Jon goes somewhere and Rickon rules WF. It seems that on the show, they only care about the battle with the WW and who's going to sit on the IT, just look at all the plots they dropped or combined... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerevanin Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 6 hours ago, House Mosse said: It will happen the same way in the books (probably), only it will work better in the books because the books have made us think he is going to be an important piece on the board. I don't know if any of you guys watch Filip Molena's post episode commentaries on the New Rockstar's Youtube channel, but they are pretty good, and he lays this out in the Episode 3 commentary when Rickon shows up as a prisoner with Shaggydog's severed head in tow. At that point he called that Shaggydog's head was really Shaggydog, and that Rickon would die pointlessly. Someone was hinting at it above with a link to the wikipedia entry for Shaggy Dog Story. Basically, the term "shaggy dog story" refers to a story that goes on and on for ages, with all sorts of info, and you think it is going to go somewhere and mean something, but in the end it is pointless. I don't know if this expression is in general use in the US because Molina describes it as a screenwriting term, but in England we have this expression as part of general language. The point is, the Rickon story line is a shaggy dog story. In the books, Wyman Manderly sends Davos on a quest to find "his liege lord", and we all think something exciting is going on and have visions of Rickon showing up with a Northern army at his back. When in fact it is all a big nothing. He was never a major character and he never will be. He will just die. In this case he serves as device for Ramsay to get to Jon, but no more. I suppose one might also call it a Red Herring, but that wasn't the name of the Direwolf. However, it doesn't work so well as a shaggy dog story in the tv show because there was no build up to make us think that Rickon was involved in anything, but it makes sense, and shows that this is from Martin and not just made up by the Showrunners, even if they didn't set it up so well. That interesting with the "shaggy dog story" term, I've never heard it before (but as I'm not a native english speaker, it's understandable, I guess). I suppose that GRRM know the expression as well. Now the question is whether Rickon will really be a shaggy dog story as the name of his direwolf hints, or if it will be the other way round - that it looks like it will be a shaggy dog story, while in fact it won't be it, if you get what I mean. This seems exactly like the play with words that GRRM might like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLion Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 On 6/20/2016 at 4:05 AM, Sir Matthis Light said: Putting R+L into the equation, its sad that Ned only has one living son now and hes more then likely not gonna procreate, if he even can. Actually, I think this is the point of Rickon. GRRM has promised us a bittersweet ending and Rickon's death assures it. Even in the Stark's moment of triumph in this episode, the male Stark line, which had apparently endured for thousands of years, has now ended. Rob is dead, Benjen is undead. Bran seems unlikely to ever have children, both because of his transformation into the 3ER and because of his physical injuries that left him paraplegic. And most of us believe that Jon's father is a Targaryn rather than a Stark. For those of us that believed that eventually things would return to the status quo ante, that hope is now gone. Whatever the outcome of the coming war with the White Walkers - whoever survives - the world afterwards will be fundamentally transformed from the old order of things. Maybe the outcome will be as simple as Lady Sansa will rule in Winterfell and pass the Stark name onto her children, but even that is a fundamental change from what has been done in the past. It struck me as poignant and ironic that even as Sansa pronounced Ramsay's fate - that his house will end and his name will fade - she could have been pronouncing that same fate on House Stark. Even more ironic if by some chance Sansa is pregnant, so that there could be a male Bolton heir. While Rickon lived, the hope of a happily ever after with a Stark always ruling in Winterfell remained. With his death, the course is set for something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camara Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I always imagined Rickon to be the King of the North in the end of the books. All the other Starks are occupied with their plotlines. That can still happen but now with Bran on the move again it's possible Bran will be the King instead, and possibly be Brandon the Builder through mental time teleport/interference? Bran goes to the past to help in the fight against the Others, laying the foundations for things needed for the Second Long Night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleRickon Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 hour ago, SilentLion said: Actually, I think this is the point of Rickon. GRRM has promised us a bittersweet ending and Rickon's death assures it. Even in the Stark's moment of triumph in this episode, the male Stark line, which had apparently endured for thousands of years, has now ended. Rob is dead, Benjen is undead. Bran seems unlikely to ever have children, both because of his transformation into the 3ER and because of his physical injuries that left him paraplegic. And most of us believe that Jon's father is a Targaryn rather than a Stark. How was the male Stark line unbroken for thousands of years? There are the wildling stories, the raider king who fathered a Stark and got killed by him, and there is the time they were down to the women (George, please give us the She-Wolves of Winterfell soon) who fought, endured and then continued the line. And it's not even that unusual for the north, think Mormont. Is it possible that the fictional medieval universe is more friendly to women as the real modern universe, as in the former it's just an "unbroken line" of Starks and nobody cares if it was always the male line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holymoly Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Frosta said: i felt this EXACT same way about the actor playing sweetrobin... At least he got bitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chequered Raven Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 23 hours ago, W1NT3RF3LL said: That was the first thing I was thinking when he was running, I was screaming run like Jaguar Paw!!! Yes, this came to my mind as well. But JP was the main character of a movie. Rickon was not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayura Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Actually, wasn't it the whole point of having Rickon "Red Herring" Stark? I don't think he will have a nicer future in the books either. There was also the "shaggy dog story" foreshadowing after he named his dog "Shaggy", leading some of the readership to think Rickon would actually not be that important and would have a crappy death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amyzing1 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Did I miss something or did they never recognize Rickon's greensight? In S1 there were 2 distinct episodes where he exhibits it to Bran and this is never resolved in the TV show. Was that purely for the audience? It feels so unresolved for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 6 hours ago, SilentLion said: The male Stark line, which had apparently endured for thousands of years, has now ended. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Brandon_Stark_(the_daughterless) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemore Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Rickon was never an important character, he was just motivation for Jon to get angry and go to battle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drayrock Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 On 6/20/2016 at 2:29 PM, UnreliableNarrator said: One thing that really gnawed at me this season was Rickon Stark. What was the point of bringing this character back? For all Jon's and Sansa's waffling about reclaiming their home this season his captivity seemed an afterthought, even with the high probability of his death. Did anyone mention Ned Stark's trueborn heir to the Lords they were petitioning? The ones who disparaged them for being a Snow and a Bolton? I can't decide if Brienne knew he was a hostage or forgot how succession worked when she kept saying Sansa was the rightful Lady of Winterfell. Were we supposed to care as an audience? Could we have been lead to believe he MIGHT survive, or care if he survives, to build some suspense? Surely if he had a speaking part or a few scenes it might have helped! But I guess we wouldn't have the warts, fingers-up-butts, or Tyrion and Missandei at the Seinfeld diner. The real shame is that compared to the books he had a bit of characterization and a decent scene or two with Bran. He served a nice purpose in setting apart the Starks from the southern lords. The way Rickon was filthy and wild-haired and climbed trees with the miller's son, contrasted with how Joffrey and Mika interact, nicely illustrated how the Stark's and Lannister's ruled their smallfolk. Its not near as bad as Stannis or Jaime, but seems like wasted potential. Does anyone else get the sense D&D are sloppily tying up loose ends via unsatisfying deaths? It makes you worry about poor Gendry and Jorrah... I think it's meant to be a bit of a symbolic loss. Realistically Rickon is the last true heir for the Starks. Bran is not setting up a white picket fence or getting wifed up anytime soon. So despite not knowing the character all that much, the audience cares because we have been conditioned to care about these large houses, their pride, and their trueborn heirs and the status that comes with this title (Loras, Jaime, etc). Technically House Stark is now dead. It's pretty good irony imo because despite the fact that we know house pride shouldn't matter at this point and is going to be the death of man (house pride definitely will be the death of the Lannisters); we still care and want a true born Stark to a degree. Despite knowing Jon will be a great leader and is more "Stark" than almost any of his siblings, one of the voices in your head is.... but he's a bastard and not a true born heir. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself here but it was a heavy moment realizing the family line of true born Starks had been extinquished after ruling for thousands of years if only to see something so great and strong fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyll41 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm just sad because I kept hoping to see Rickon riding a Skagosi Unicorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Lyanna Mormont Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 4 hours ago, amyzing1 said: Did I miss something or did they never recognize Rickon's greensight? In S1 there were 2 distinct episodes where he exhibits it to Bran and this is never resolved in the TV show. Was that purely for the audience? It feels so unresolved for me. I think on S1 they were being more faithful to the books and once they realized it wasn't going to be possible, they decided to simplify or cut some storylines. I still believe that it will be Rickon ruling WF because Bran will become Bloodraven and therefore will stay north of the Wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chib Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 17 hours ago, Sigrid said: His purpose on the show was to be exactly what he was. Arrow fodder. best comment of the thread lol. It is safe to assume that Rickon will be killed off in the book soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.