[Spoilers] Rant & Rave without Repercussions - First We Take King's Landing Edition

[Cron]

14 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Also odd, there's a scene where Jon suposedly tries to give Long Claw back to Jorah. Too bad Brienne didn't try to give back Oathkeeper to the Starks, instead of a Lannister.

(1) There's a scene where Jon tries to give Longclaw back to Jorah???  If that's true, I consider it absurd.  Why would Jon do that?  He knows perfectly well that Jeor didn't want Jorah to have it, and he DID want Jon to have it, so this is how he handles what was entrusted to him???  If so, I don't like it.

(2)  Great, great point about Oathkeeper.  Can't believe this never occurred to me.  Surely, Brienne should have offered the STEEL to Sansa, presumably to give to Jon.  The pommel has a lion's head, and is very inappropriate for a Stark, to say the least, but clearly, Ned's steel should have been at least offered to be returned to Stark hands.  If Sansa and/or Jon then told Brienne "No, you keep it, you serve Starks, that's good enough and Jon already has a Valyrian steel sword" then so be it, but clearly Brienne should have made the offer, and we should have seen the scene, as it would be WAY too important for us to not see and know about.  (Note that Brienne would have had no conflict about this, either.  In addition to the fact that the steel was wrongfully taken from Starks when Ned was wrongly executed, Jaime gave Oathkeeper to Brienne in perpetuity.  It is hers to do with as she wants, so far as Jaime is concerned, and it was HIS to do with as he wanted when he gave it to Brienne)

[A Ghost of Someone]

5 hours ago, Cron said:

This is a really interesting point, and might be a continuity error, but I just took it to mean Oldtown is really isolated, and the Citadel itself is filled with self-absorbed people who are training and studying dusty old books, not following current events. In fact, my guess was that the Citadal is pretty insular, with not many people going in or out very much at all.  They've got their noses stuck in books, not hanging out at bars for gossip about current events. 

Note that over in eastern Westeros, the King's Road runs nearly the length of the continent, about 1,000 miles, from King's Landing to Winterfell (maybe even further in one direction or both, I'm not even sure), so it's reasonable that travel, trade and information are VERY common and active.  This also explains how Tyrion knew.  He was in King's Landing, the very seat of political power and knowledge, and of course Varys' little birds know a LOT.  Oldtown, on the other hand...wow.  Talk about "off the beaten path." I wasn't surprised Tyrion knew (at all), but while I was mildly surprised the Citadel didn't know, I was not shocked, especially since, as I recall from Sam, we know that no letter was sent.

At least on the show anyway but yeah. The   Masters seem to be determined to stay on top of things ,even the physical details of noble births. We would think in a realm that knows Sansa married Ramsay Bolton. That the Citadel would have learned of Nights watch commander's death a while back.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The whole thing of the Citadel not knowing about Jeor was just plain sloppy! For several seasons they have people know about it and mention it, even as far as Essos, but the Citadel didn't yet know in the S6 finale. And it's jarring too. If I was a TV-show only watcher, but a fan who watched and rewatched the series on DVD, that "oh, Jeor is dead?" would just lift me out of the moment. It's different from a loose thread. A loose thread like Alisser going to KL with the wight hand (which is addressed in the books - Tyrion makes fun of Alisser in the throne room) and then not being included as a scene and forgotten... it's annoying on a rewatch and you suddenly realize "oh, that's right, what the hell happened with that?", but it doesn't take your mind away from the scenes not showing it, because those scenes aren't about Alisser in KL with the wight hand. But something that has been repeatedly addressed at the Wall, Craster's, KL, the outback of Essos for several seasons, and then so sloppily readdressing it as if nobody knows yet is annoying as you watch it.

The problem is that D&D only knows how to write scenes, they have no clue how to write a story.  The reason the citadel didn't know was because they were doing a Brazil rip-off scene about beaucrats, and it would be funny in that scene if the officious and serious individual was ill-informed. 

It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense in the context of the story being told, because they are alwaysing willing to sacrifice story integrity if they can have their funny scenes.

 

[Queen of Procrastination]

20 hours ago, TheSlayerofLies said:

Someone on reddit claimed that he has an "in" with someone who works for a VFX company routinely used by the show, and he stated that there will be a sunset scene in the finale.  

Don't know how reliable the info is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.  After all, the video we saw of Dany looking out to sea as Jon approaches her (filmed in Gaztelugatxe) was purposely filmed later in the day. 

ETA: That post was made on the 18th of October and the scene I'm referring to was filmed on the 22nd. Perhaps this adds more credence to his claim Lol

Oh god! I hope this is not true and it's just someone who wants to make himself important on the internet . I'm in the minority here, because I would be ok with a Jon Dany relaionship, but this sounds like they are doing it in the most cheesy way possible. Boatsex+ sunset.. Will we also get red roses flying in the sky? 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

The problem is that D&D only knows how to write scenes, they have no clue how to write a story.  The reason the citadel didn't know was because they were doing a Brazil rip-off scene about beaucrats, and it would be funny in that scene if the officious and serious individual was ill-informed. 

It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense in the context of the story being told, because they are alwaysing willing to sacrifice story integrity if they can have their funny scenes.

 

Agreed. It's actually somewhat (stress on "somewhat") watchable if I watch GoT as separate cut youtube clips. Even within one episode in the same location, it's better to watch it all as separate clips than together.

[Queen of Procrastination]

1 hour ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

The problem is that D&D only knows how to write scenes, they have no clue how to write a story.  The reason the citadel didn't know was because they were doing a Brazil rip-off scene about beaucrats, and it would be funny in that scene if the officious and serious individual was ill-informed. 

It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense in the context of the story being told, because they are alwaysing willing to sacrifice story integrity if they can have their funny scenes.

 

Oh I agree. Many scenes are quite nice if we take them seperately, but they are usually not connected well. To give on example I liked the scene in which Davos confronts Mel and Liam Cunnigham acted it phenomenally, but it came many episodes too late and lost weight because of that. They also sacrifce their story and character development for "epic" or "shocking" scenes like the did it with the whole Arya getting stabbed scene. 

[Meera of Tarth]

15 hours ago, Cron said:

(1) There's a scene where Jon tries to give Longclaw back to Jorah???  If that's true, I consider it absurd.  Why would Jon do that?  He knows perfectly well that Jeor didn't want Jorah to have it, and he DID want Jon to have it, so this is how he handles what was entrusted to him???  If so, I don't like it.

(2)  Great, great point about Oathkeeper.  Can't believe this never occurred to me.  Surely, Brienne should have offered the STEEL to Sansa, presumably to give to Jon.  The pommel has a lion's head, and is very inappropriate for a Stark, to say the least, but clearly, Ned's steel should have been at least offered to be returned to Stark hands.  If Sansa and/or Jon then told Brienne "No, you keep it, you serve Starks, that's good enough and Jon already has a Valyrian steel sword" then so be it, but clearly Brienne should have made the offer, and we should have seen the scene, as it would be WAY too important for us to not see and know about.  (Note that Brienne would have had no conflict about this, either.  In addition to the fact that the steel was wrongfully taken from Starks when Ned was wrongly executed, Jaime gave Oathkeeper to Brienne in perpetuity.  It is hers to do with as she wants, so far as Jaime is concerned, and it was HIS to do with as he wanted when he gave it to Brienne)

I am fine if Jon gives it to Jorah. Then Jon can wield Dawn which is what I always wanted. They showed it very close in Lyanna's scene for a reason..... (I doubt it is bc his father is Arthur)

[Cron]

13 hours ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

The problem is that D&D only knows how to write scenes, they have no clue how to write a story.  The reason the citadel didn't know was because they were doing a Brazil rip-off scene about beaucrats, and it would be funny in that scene if the officious and serious individual was ill-informed. 

It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense in the context of the story being told, because they are alwaysing willing to sacrifice story integrity if they can have their funny scenes.

 

I VERY strongly agree with what you wrote here, and could give many examples, especially since the show diverged heavily from (and/or moved beyond) the books.  I beileve many scenes were written for the sake of the scene, without almost any regard for the overall story, what it meant for the characters, or sometimes whether it even made much sense or not.

Why did Jon Snow have plot armor two feet thick at the Battle of the Bastards?  Cuz it made for an exciting and dramatic scene visually, without regard for other factors I just mentioned.

Arya was able to survive being stabbed repeatedly in the abdomen, and able to run through streets with such injury in a foot chase with Waif, and then fight and defeat Waif with such injury, cuz it made for good t.v., even though it was wildly unrealistic and VERY inconsistent with many other things in the larger story (recently, someone posted a list of characters who had died from very similar wounds or even much less.  It was quite a list, even I was pretty surprised, and I've been harping on this for a while).  Then, while still suffering from such extreme wounds, Arya confronted Jaqen moments later, pointing her sword at him, then, when done with that, smiled, turned and simply strolled away like she had never even been hurt at all.

There's more.  Arya made Frey pies cuz it made for "good t.v.," not cuz it made sense or was plausible, or b/c she is now mentally unbalanced or anything (To be clear, I do NOT believe Arya is now mentally unbalanced.  in my strong opinion, next season Arya will still be the Arya we know).  She did it cuz it made for shocking t.v., not cuz it told us something about who she was, or is, or is becoming.

I could go on.

One amusing side effect is all the massive speculation among fans (including me) trying to find ways to make sense of all this, on these boards and elsewhere.  As super intense fans, we dissect all this stuff, looking for meaning in it the way we look for meaning and FIND IT in GRRM's books, in which he carefully and painstakingly (I'm sure) packed dense meaning into individual words, sentences, and paragraphs of the books.  But most of the time in the show, in my opinion, we're looking for something that is simply not there, and can't really be made sense of, other than to say "They did it b/c they thought it would make a good scene on television, The End."

 

[Cron]

8 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I am fine if Jon gives it to Jorah. Then Jon can wield Dawn which is what I always wanted. They showed it very close in Lyanna's scene for a reason..... (I doubt it is bc his father is Arthur)

You could be right, I'm not disagreeing, just speculating...

...but maybe the reason they showed Dawn like that was simply to say "Hey, look at this incredibly famous sword, the most famous sword in Westeros.  We put a lot of time and thought into how it should look on-screen, and this is it, so feast your eyes on it!"

Also, it could have been just to make it crystal clear that Ned DID recover that sword, it was not just left layng on the ground at the Tower of Joy, which could be significant later if and when the sword shows up again (there have been LOTS of theories and speculation about what's hidden down in the Crypts of Winterfell, and this could easily be among the items there.  In fact, I think it probably is, but someone please correct me if there is contrary information out there about what happened to Dawn after the Tower of Joy battle.)

On the other hand, maybe there is some future connection to Jon specifically, a possibiilty you basically mention.

[Le Cygne]

On 11/22/2016 at 2:00 PM, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

The problem is that D&D only knows how to write scenes, they have no clue how to write a story.  The reason the citadel didn't know was because they were doing a Brazil rip-off scene about beaucrats, and it would be funny in that scene if the officious and serious individual was ill-informed. 

It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense in the context of the story being told, because they are alwaysing willing to sacrifice story integrity if they can have their funny scenes.

Yeah, they don't know how to write a story, but they don't even try. It's not that hard to add character development here and there, and add meaning here and there, something to make this a story, that will be remembered, something that elevates the human spirit, rather than dragging it down. The show is shocking moments with pockets of nothing in between.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

On 11/22/2016 at 5:00 PM, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

The problem is that D&D only knows how to write scenes, they have no clue how to write a story.  The reason the citadel didn't know was because they were doing a Brazil rip-off scene about beaucrats, and it would be funny in that scene if the officious and serious individual was ill-informed. 

It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense in the context of the story being told, because they are always willing to sacrifice story integrity if they can have their funny scenes.

I have to agree with that. For me, that's pretty clear in some of Jon/Sansa scenes. It's a good scene, but then, the next scene annuls all meaning of it, so it's actually nothing. I quite liked the scene where Jon and Sansa  talk, before the BOTB, because it's a conversation (FINALLY!), but then, when you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. Why is Sansa feeling left out when she always expressed her opinion freely in the past? Why is Sansa keeping the fact that she has the Vale Knights coming to her aid? Why does she never expresses her wishes to be the Lady of Winterfell/Wardeness/Queen in the North? This last one makes even more sense in the finale scenes. 

[Le Cygne]

14 hours ago, Alayne's Shadow. said:

It's a good scene, but then, the next scene annuls all meaning of it, so it's actually nothing.

Hope it's OK to isolate just this sentence, but I thought it was a good observation. It applies to most scenes.

[A Ghost of Someone]

16 hours ago, Alayne's Shadow. said:

I have to agree with that. For me, that's pretty clear in some of Jon/Sansa scenes. It's a good scene, but then, the next scene annuls all meaning of it, so it's actually nothing. I quite liked the scene where Jon and Sansa  talk, before the BOTB, because it's a conversation (FINALLY!), but then, when you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. Why is Sansa feeling left out when she always expressed her opinion freely in the past? Why is Sansa keeping the fact that she has the Vale Knights coming to her aid? Why does she never expresses her wishes to be the Lady of Winterfell/Wardeness/Queen in the North? This last one makes even more sense in the finale scenes. 

 

1 hour ago, Le Cygne said:

Hope it's OK to isolate just this sentence, but I thought it was a good observation. It applies to most scenes.

The show runners contradict what they claim to be showing constantly. Like Sansa making choices in Season 5 yet, if viewed and not listening to their "inside videos" we see and hear something different. Awkward family dinner etc. Season 6, yeah, she runs her mouth sort of speak freely, great but when asked what to do, she says "I don't know" while a whole army is coming and she is hiding that. It was like she was trying to get rid of Jon at the same time as Ramsay, then lying to his face about him being a Stark while being pissed she got passed over. They mess up so much that they show with what they show after it.

[DMC]

On 11/23/2016 at 4:13 AM, Cron said:

In fact, I think it probably is, but someone please correct me if there is contrary information out there about what happened to Dawn after the Tower of Joy battle.

Well, there's this from Catelyn II, AGOT:

Quote

They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea.

On Jon giving Jorah Longclaw:  Now, Brienne offering Oathkeeper to Jaime while failing to do so in the company of Sansa and/or Jon was definitely a yell-at-the-TV moment, but this doesn't bother me as much.  All we really know about Jeor's feelings on Jorah, show or books, is that Jeor was angry his son dishonored himself and his dying wish was for Jorah to join the Watch, presumably to regain his honor.  Jon offering Jorah the sword as a symbol/encouragement of that regained honor makes some sense.  I don't think Jeor would have a problem with it, and I certainly don't think it'd signify Jon betraying the Old Bear's wishes, if done in that spirit.  Frankly, thinking about it I like it as putting the cherry on top of Jorah's redemptive arc and Jon's role as the conduit between father and son.

[Cron]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Well, there's this from Catelyn II, AGOT:

On Jon giving Jorah Longclaw:  Now, Brienne offering Oathkeeper to Jaime while failing to do so in the company of Sansa and/or Jon was definitely a yell-at-the-TV moment, but this doesn't bother me as much.  All we really know about Jeor's feelings on Jorah, show or books, is that Jeor was angry his son dishonored himself and his dying wish was for Jorah to join the Watch, presumably to regain his honor.  Jon offering Jorah the sword as a symbol/encouragement of that regained honor makes some sense.  I don't think Jeor would have a problem with it, and I certainly don't think it'd signify Jon betraying the Old Bear's wishes, if done in that spirit.  Frankly, thinking about it I like it as putting the cherry on top of Jorah's redemptive arc and Jon's role as the conduit between father and son.

Good stuff.

Regarding Dawn:  Oh yeah, thanks, that helps us track the sword a little further. The sister would be Ashara Dayne, but she committed suicide. So where's the sword? Presumably being held by some unknown Dayne, I guess.  Kind of strange that the Dayne family has played such a tiny role (if any) since the end of Robert's Rebellion.  They just seem to have disappeared.

Regarding Jon, Jeor, Jorah and Longclaw:  Interesting.  I guess I could think of some ways it could happen that I would have less problem with than Jon simply handing it to Jorah and saying it's Jorah's by right.  I mean, Jorah IS a great fighter, and the Valyrian swords are highly valuable against the WW/Others, so it could make sense for Jon to say "I'm giving this to you cuz you're one of our best fighters."  I suppose I could see Jeor approving of that, since Jorah IS a great warrior and it's a smart move for a military commander (Jon) to give the best weapons to the best fighters.

But Jon does not have the "authority" to return Jorah to his place in the Mormont family in any sense, and if that's what Jon giving Jorah Longclaw represents, and that's all there is to it, then I'm against it..  Who knows though, maybe we're missing a critical piece of the puzzle.  Maybe Lyanna Mormont will be right there, Jon will offer it to her, and she'll say "No, give it to Jorah,he's our greatest warrior and on behalf of House Mormont, and b/c of his recent acts of heroism, I forgive him and welcome him home."  And then Jon gives Jorah the sword.  I'd be fine with that.

[Le Cygne]

Here's the latest trailer:

Seen on L7R:

- Jon with nothing.
- Arya with a face of "there may be someone to put a knife in the eye"
- Sansa with a face that is going to do something stupid.

I mean, same old

[Le Cygne]

On 11/27/2016 at 10:27 PM, A Ghost of Someone said:

The show runners contradict what they claim to be showing constantly.

Yeah, the characters are supposed to drive the story, but this is what happens when the characters are all no one. They don't care about anyone or anything, and if they did, they forgot.

 

[The Dragon Demands]

Cron, you're asking the wrong questions:

"They did it because they thought it was Good TV".

Yes...but...define "Good TV".  In this context.  What do they consider "Good TV"? 

 

[TheCasualObserver]

34 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Cron, you're asking the wrong questions:

"They did it because they thought it was Good TV".

Yes...but...define "Good TV".  In this context.  What do they consider "Good TV"? 

 

I assume their definition comes from a cinematic sensibility. The Battle of the Bastards was very cinematic, but made bugger all sense, either in terms of characterization or logistical possibility. 

The outlier is Troy, the 2004 film Benioff scripted. Troy had huge battles scenes, massive stars and an often remarked upon budget, but it was hampered by trite dialogue and an awkward amount of condensing the source material into a derivative plot. The ten year epic of the classic Iliad became a three day battle on a beach, and the Gods and their pivotal role in human lives was... completely removed.

The more I think about it, the closer the similarities get.  

[The Bear Who Knocks]

On 6/27/2016 at 1:59 AM, Ran said:

The topic of the thread is discussing things you dislike about the show. It is not a place to throw insults at one another or to act as if the normal rules of the forum do not apply.

Discussion of why people disliked something is permitted, but remember the topic at hand: this is not a debate thread, it's a discussion thread specifically about episode details or events that posters disliked. Posts that ignore this will be considered off-topic.