Biggest Dropped Ball in Season 6 (S6 spoilers)

[House_Tony_Stark]

On 7/28/2016 at 2:34 AM, Lord Lannister said:

And that second bolding makes this entire issue a circular argument. Jon had the right of it. Screw the Night's Watch. They killed him. They killed Jeor Mormont. They're nothing more than a band of criminal conscripts exiled to the edge of the world. There's a damn good reason no one is sending their sons willingly to the Wall as it was once upon a time. The show did address this point by the way in a conversation between Jon and Edd which was interrupted by Sansa's arrival at Castle Black.

In my opinion, the Nights watch should be disbanded anyway. The Wildlings are no longer a threat and the 7 Kingdoms are not united right now. I personally would just recreate it to keep the same name but become a actual northern house that accepts criminals and volunteers into permanent military service. But also allow them to have wives after serving for a certain amount of time.

Not allowing them to have kids is the reason they are in the current situation where most of the Wall's castle's are abandoned and Castle Black only has a few hundred men if that. When they lose men they are not being replaced fast enough.

[House_Tony_Stark]

1 hour ago, Ser Ronan Storm said:

The poor Northern Lords are just the silliest chaps on this show. Conveniently ignoring Night's Watch desertions and Jon's bastardy, and also rushing to king a man who displays poor judgement at every turn. His suicide charge at Ramsay that his own men had to bail him out of likely cost more of their lives than if he'd held back and stuck to their original plan. He pissed so many people off as Lord Commander that he got himself killed. Those are definitely leadership qualities I want my king to have.

Again, if you don't like the Nordic culture of the North just say that. Jon died, and vows are done. There is no law saying that an illegitimate child can't rule.

And poor judgement at every turn? Did he display poor judgement when he saved the Nights watch from falling to the Wildlings? Did he display poor judgement when he choose to save those same people from becoming undead soldiers?

And who cares about their plan lol that was his little brother. Only a heartless monster would have not tried to save him, and every man on that battlefield knew they had no chance of winning that battle. They only did it out of a sense of honor to the Starks.

You don't like a man who has a sense of honor? Let me guess you prefer someone like Danny who just kills everyone to get what she wants and fight none of her own battles.

[Adam_Up_Bxtch]

27 minutes ago, House_Tony_Stark said:

In my opinion, the Nights watch should be disbanded anyway. The Wildlings are no longer a threat and the 7 Kingdoms are not united right now. I personally would just recreate it to keep the same name but become a actual northern house that accepts criminals and volunteers into permanent military service. But also allow them to have wives after serving for a certain amount of time.

Not allowing them to have kids is the reason they are in the current situation where most of the Wall's castle's are abandoned and Castle Black only has a few hundred men if that. When they lose men they are not being replaced fast enough.

The basis for why they father no children or take no wives is because like Aemon said "Love is the death of duty" if the situation on the wall looked dire, half the men with wives and children there would probably just say "fuck it" and leave heading south to keep their family safe, if half of them have no wives or children, then they really have no reason to live so they'd die fighting to keep the wall secure.

 

Though half of them being criminals is another major problem. Even with no family half of them are killers and thieves and would abandon the wall in a heartbeat if the Walkers were able to get past it.

 

A way they could actually do this though is if they have a contingency plan in place. And if a member of the nights watch dies their wife and kids on the wall are taken in by a southern house to help care for them and help raise the children to honor the father's service to the realm.

[House_Tony_Stark]

43 minutes ago, Adam_Up_Bxtch said:

The basis for why they father no children or take no wives is because like Aemon said "Love is the death of duty" if the situation on the wall looked dire, half the men with wives and children there would probably just say "fuck it" and leave heading south to keep their family safe, if half of them have no wives or children, then they really have no reason to live so they'd die fighting to keep the wall secure.

 

Though half of them being criminals is another major problem. Even with no family half of them are killers and thieves and would abandon the wall in a heartbeat if the Walkers were able to get past it.

 

A way they could actually do this though is if they have a contingency plan in place. And if a member of the nights watch dies their wife and kids on the wall are taken in by a southern house to help care for them and help raise the children to honor the father's service to the realm.

I understand the basis but it literally contradicts every single Kingdom in Westeros that has ever come under attack and in real life. Men typically do not run and abandon their home. Especially in a society like this.....I think they would be more inclined to protect their women and children by not allowing anyone to harm them getting past the wall.

I don't agree with most of them abandoning the Wall if the WW came unless they just literally had no chance to win. They didn't start running when the huge Wildlilng army attacked because they had no where to run to. Even if you let them have families same rules apply, they are forever bound to the wall. If they were ever really concerned for their families then they could just request to send them to Winterfell or Last Hearth.

But again, I can see how the no families thing was good at the time of the founding of the Nights Watch. They had thousands of soldiers but over time they did not have men to replace them because not many wanted to volunteer knowing they could not have children. If you remove that clause I think a lot more people would volunteer to join that were not criminals

[Ser Ronan Storm]

3 hours ago, House_Tony_Stark said:

Again, if you don't like the Nordic culture of the North just say that. Jon died, and vows are done. There is no law saying that an illegitimate child can't rule.

And poor judgement at every turn? Did he display poor judgement when he saved the Nights watch from falling to the Wildlings? Did he display poor judgement when he choose to save those same people from becoming undead soldiers?

And who cares about their plan lol that was his little brother. Only a heartless monster would have not tried to save him, and every man on that battlefield knew they had no chance of winning that battle. They only did it out of a sense of honor to the Starks.

You don't like a man who has a sense of honor? Let me guess you prefer someone like Danny who just kills everyone to get what she wants and fight none of her own battles.

Try to get some perspective here. I was assuming the viewpoint of the Northmen, who, due to not being very fleshed out in the TV show, seem to be acting out of character in leaps and bounds this season. Please stop assuming that I'm debating whether or not Jon Snow is a deserter. I know he is not; he died and thus technically fulfilled his oath. The point of my discussion is that the rest of the North doesn't seem aware of just what this technicality is, or if they do, its a conversation that happened off-screen. As another poster mentioned above, Jon still hasn't taken his shirt off to show Sansa* or anyone outside of Davos, Mel, Night's Watch and Wildlings his multiple stab wounds.

*Though it kinda seems like he and Sansa told each other everything off-screen. Who knows? Maybe she's just chill with it.

My point is that it's odd for the show runners/writers to avoid this inevitable reveal, because the alternative is letting the Northmen assume that Jon is a deserter, and deserters are supposed to be punished by death. Also, we do not yet know what the "old gods" religion teaches regarding people who die and come back to life. Some of the Wildings are starting to view Jon as a messiah figure now, but I am willing to bet if the Northmen learn of this tale, at least some of them have to be creeped out by it. Returning from death isn't all that natural, you know.

You don't seem like you'd be a very good military tactician lol. Throwing away his home-ground advantage because his brother died was a stupid move. He still could have galloped back to his men, but he charged forward, alone. It was a decision purely governed by emotion. The Mad King liked to govern emotionally too. Sansa had warned him that if Ramsay truly had Rickon, then Rickon was as good as dead. At every turn, she proved that she would've made a better military commander. She would've waited until they had more men/until Littlefinger arrived, she would've avoided Ramsay's trap. Jon still knows very, very little. And regarding his time as Lord Commander, he made the humanitarian decision to save as many Wildlings as he could, even though it alienated him from his men, from many Northmen as well, and directly contributed to his own assassination. He refused to distance himself from the men who killed him, trusting blindly as opposed to sending Ser Alliser and Lil' Brutus to another fort (or better yet, South to round up new recruits). Ned trusted blindly too, as did Robb. Time and again, the Stark family has put their faith in the honor of other men and it's come back to murder them.

To wrap this up, from a Northman's perspective, Jon Snow is a bastard (if there is no law preventing bastards from ruling as kings, then how come we've never heard of them? Even Roose had to get the Crown to legitimize Ramsay in order to have him marry Sansa Stark; the North would not accept Ned's heir marrying a bastard). It's uncharacteristic of the North to suddenly shrug off their adherence to tradition, especially when a trueborn child of Stark blood is sitting right beside Jon at the high table. Many in the North still view Jon as a deserter of the Night's Watch because he hasn't been open about how he is now released from that oath (or, if this conversation has happened off-screen, then being undead ain't no thing). Many Northern and Southern lords are still opposed to Jon's decision to let Wildings come through the Wall. Lord Royce begins the coronation scene by denouncing the Wildings, yet almost magically, he is among those shouting "King in the North" at the end of the scene.

I don't have a problem with honor, except for the when the people behind the show create so many inconsistencies for the sake of having "honorable" characters.

[Lockjaw of House Boltagon]

I was more bothered by Jon's nonexistent change in personality after coming back from the dead. That shit should change people, like, dramatically, but he was like, Welp, just got back from a walk in the park, let's pick up where I left things. He remained the same old wet mop, only with more Sansa. 

Eh, I guess it could've been worse: He could've returned as a mute zombie hellbent on revenge. 

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Everything about the North post RW has been stupid, we had a subplot back in S4 about Locke going to NW to look for Bran because Roose is all "OMFG if the North finds out a Stark is alive they are going to revolt because they hate us and love them", then in S5 Roose base's his decision to have Sansa marry Ramsay on "OMFG if we marry a Stark it will stop future revolt because they hate us and love them" then when push comes to shove they sit out the Stannis fight *when they don't in the books* because he "doesn't have a Stark" but then in S6 after all the build up with two Starks asking them for help they do nothing.

[Ser Ronan Storm]

28 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Everything about the North post RW has been stupid, we had a subplot back in S4 about Locke going to NW to look for Bran because Roose is all "OMFG if the North finds out a Stark is alive they are going to revolt because they hate us and love them", then in S5 Roose base's his decision to have Sansa marry Ramsay on "OMFG if we marry a Stark it will stop future revolt because they hate us and love them" then when push comes to shove they sit out the Stannis fight *when they don't in the books* because he "doesn't have a Stark" but then in S6 after all the build up with two Starks asking them for help they do nothing.

^This. While I enjoyed the bump in screen time the North has gotten since the Red Wedding, it's all been wasted on Emo Snow, Midget Mutineers, Sam the Charisma Black Hole and Ramsay's Super Sexy Sadism Show. I would much rather have gotten the political intrigue of the Northern nobility struggling to come to terms with the power vacuum left by the Starks, and the alliances and betrayals and conspiracies that then ensued.

Even though the Smalljon's handing over of Rickon and the murder of Shaggydog earns him a spot of the cruelest of the seven hells, I was still hoping that in the battle, he would turn against Ramsay. The whole point of the North is that they're mostly honorable people and the Boltons took their power through treachery (and the surviving Northmen know what treacherous shits they are)...but apparently a mutiny was too much for the writers and the budget. We had a straight good guys vs. bad guys fight, and while it was some of the best film making I've ever seen, story-wise it was quite dull, especially Littlefinger's predictable last-minute save.

[NutBurz]

This notion that the battle of bastards is a good vs evil thing comes strictly from your romantic perception of honor. People on Bolton´s side were only looking for what they perceived to be their own interests.

[House_Tony_Stark]

On 7/29/2016 at 3:19 PM, Ser Ronan Storm said:

Try to get some perspective here. I was assuming the viewpoint of the Northmen, who, due to not being very fleshed out in the TV show, seem to be acting out of character in leaps and bounds this season. Please stop assuming that I'm debating whether or not Jon Snow is a deserter. I know he is not; he died and thus technically fulfilled his oath. The point of my discussion is that the rest of the North doesn't seem aware of just what this technicality is, or if they do, its a conversation that happened off-screen. As another poster mentioned above, Jon still hasn't taken his shirt off to show Sansa* or anyone outside of Davos, Mel, Night's Watch and Wildlings his multiple stab wounds.

*Though it kinda seems like he and Sansa told each other everything off-screen. Who knows? Maybe she's just chill with it.

My point is that it's odd for the show runners/writers to avoid this inevitable reveal, because the alternative is letting the Northmen assume that Jon is a deserter, and deserters are supposed to be punished by death. Also, we do not yet know what the "old gods" religion teaches regarding people who die and come back to life. Some of the Wildings are starting to view Jon as a messiah figure now, but I am willing to bet if the Northmen learn of this tale, at least some of them have to be creeped out by it. Returning from death isn't all that natural, you know.

You don't seem like you'd be a very good military tactician lol. Throwing away his home-ground advantage because his brother died was a stupid move. He still could have galloped back to his men, but he charged forward, alone. It was a decision purely governed by emotion. The Mad King liked to govern emotionally too. Sansa had warned him that if Ramsay truly had Rickon, then Rickon was as good as dead. At every turn, she proved that she would've made a better military commander. She would've waited until they had more men/until Littlefinger arrived, she would've avoided Ramsay's trap. Jon still knows very, very little. And regarding his time as Lord Commander, he made the humanitarian decision to save as many Wildlings as he could, even though it alienated him from his men, from many Northmen as well, and directly contributed to his own assassination. He refused to distance himself from the men who killed him, trusting blindly as opposed to sending Ser Alliser and Lil' Brutus to another fort (or better yet, South to round up new recruits). Ned trusted blindly too, as did Robb. Time and again, the Stark family has put their faith in the honor of other men and it's come back to murder them.

To wrap this up, from a Northman's perspective, Jon Snow is a bastard (if there is no law preventing bastards from ruling as kings, then how come we've never heard of them? Even Roose had to get the Crown to legitimize Ramsay in order to have him marry Sansa Stark; the North would not accept Ned's heir marrying a bastard). It's uncharacteristic of the North to suddenly shrug off their adherence to tradition, especially when a trueborn child of Stark blood is sitting right beside Jon at the high table. Many in the North still view Jon as a deserter of the Night's Watch because he hasn't been open about how he is now released from that oath (or, if this conversation has happened off-screen, then being undead ain't no thing). Many Northern and Southern lords are still opposed to Jon's decision to let Wildings come through the Wall. Lord Royce begins the coronation scene by denouncing the Wildings, yet almost magically, he is among those shouting "King in the North" at the end of the scene.

I don't have a problem with honor, except for the when the people behind the show create so many inconsistencies for the sake of having "honorable" characters.

I'll separate my responses in numbers. 

1. I understand where you are coming from but you also can't assert that your view of the situation is logical. Who made up the majority of Jon's army? Wildlings, and what do soldiers do before a battle? They drink, party, and talk about things. They did not show it on the show because it's logically implied. The Wildlings saw Jon Snow come back to life, the Wildlings fought beside Northmen, so the Northmen may ask some of them "Why are you guys serving someone who was sworn to fight you?" then BAM!!!! They tell those soldiers about how Jon risked his life for them and then got killed by his own men. And then they go back and tell other people what they heard. That's how news spreads in a society like this, there is no need to make a huge announcement. Also be aware that not everyone even know or cared that the previous Lord Commander was dead (Source the show when the smartest people in the world didn't know). It's a null point really, if someone wanted to know all they would need to do was ask. 

2. Have you served in the military or fought in a battle before? It's very easy to say how someone should act when your typing on a keyboard. Let's just hope you never have to experience the feeling but when someone close to you is threatened and there is something you can do most people will do it without even thinking about the consequence to themselves. And if you have to watch that person die right before you it will either send you into rage or despair, no one just witnesses something like that and continues on with business. Lady Sansa was able to sit back and watch because there was nothing she could do. She is no warrior and she can't save anyone, her play was to look out for herself. And if you want to criticize someone then criticize Davos and the men, they all knew the plan and they all CHOOSE to charge in behind Jon. Because yet again, you can draw up all the plans you want none of them really expected to survive that battle. The enemy had a much larger, much better equipped army, that also had a castle to fall back to. 

3. How exactly do you know many in the north still view Jon as a deserter in the show? And how is the north shrugging their tradition? I'll give you a cookie if you can prove me wrong on this point. Name one single female Warden of the North or Queen of the North. The North like the Iron Islands is a patriarchal society where people would rather go to the left if if the option is a girl. Most of the seven Kingdoms are like this, the only way women rise to power in this show is by killing everyone in their path. And I'm not engaging in a moral debate, I'm just providing you the facts based on lore. Power nearly always goes to the eldest male, and in that situation Jon was the oldest male of Stark blood available, bastard or not. 

4. Do you know why they were opposed to the Wildlings? Because they literally were very bad and mean people to the North. They would constantly go around the wall and raid the area around Last Hearth. And steal food and women, that's enough to make anyone hate you lol. But the Wildlings put their lives on the line for the man that saved everyone from the tyranny of Ramsey Bolton. It's like a co-worker you may not like someone but you learn to tolerate them when you are under the same employer (Jon). Because at the end of the day you are now working for the same goal. 

 

[House_Tony_Stark]

15 hours ago, NutBurz said:

This notion that the battle of bastards is a good vs evil thing comes strictly from your romantic perception of honor. People on Bolton´s side were only looking for what they perceived to be their own interests.

This, I think the Bolton's were faced with a very tough situation. As good as Rob was doing in the war with around 15,000 men he was eventually going to fail. He could win all the small battles he wanted to but he would never be able to siege a city like Kings Landing. When the Karstarks left his army was cut in half and the Bolton's went for self preservation. 

The Bolton's played the cards they were dealt and lost. 

[Le Cygne]

22 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Everything about the North post RW has been stupid, we had a subplot back in S4 about Locke going to NW to look for Bran because Roose is all "OMFG if the North finds out a Stark is alive they are going to revolt because they hate us and love them", then in S5 Roose base's his decision to have Sansa marry Ramsay on "OMFG if we marry a Stark it will stop future revolt because they hate us and love them" then when push comes to shove they sit out the Stannis fight *when they don't in the books* because he "doesn't have a Stark" but then in S6 after all the build up with two Starks asking them for help they do nothing.

And some back Ramsay when they don't in the books. The show just kept compounding the mistake they made.

[StoneColdJorahMormont]

23 hours ago, Lyin' Ned said:

I was more bothered by Jon's nonexistent change in personality after coming back from the dead. That shit should change people, like, dramatically, but he was like, Welp, just got back from a walk in the park, let's pick up where I left things. He remained the same old wet mop, only with more Sansa. 

Eh, I guess it could've been worse: He could've returned as a mute zombie hellbent on revenge. 

But it never changed Beric's personality when he came back, yes he mentioned he feels less with every revival but he hasn't changed all that drastically if at all, so one revival of Jon going by that of Beric should not make all that much difference.

The mountains revival was by some other means and I would imagine ungodly similar to Frankenstein's monster, and abomination.

[Lockjaw of House Boltagon]

12 hours ago, StoneColdJorahMormont said:

But it never changed Beric's personality when he came back, yes he mentioned he feels less with every revival but he hasn't changed all that drastically if at all, so one revival of Jon going by that of Beric should not make all that much difference.

The mountains revival was by some other means and I would imagine ungodly similar to Frankenstein's monster, and abomination.

We barely saw Beric before he was resurrected so we really don't know what his personality was like before, but I'd argue that even the changes he suffered, while not overly dramatic, were still far bigger than Jon's. 

[Ruhail]

On July 30, 2016 at 10:30 AM, NutBurz said:

This notion that the battle of bastards is a good vs evil thing comes strictly from your romantic perception of honor. People on Bolton´s side were only looking for what they perceived to be their own interests.

Utter nonsense. It was all contrived just to have a pointless Ramsay Vs. Jon battle, which explains where all the budget went.

[The Knight in Motley]

We really can't create 'well this obviously happened in the background' scenarios to explain what happens in the show unless they are directly referenced in the show, due to how the writers have supported the plot.  Too much of the plot requires the obvious not happening:  No one asking questions, non-speaking roles being fully behind bizarre leadership choices.  Rules should be bent but not broken, and D&D have taken an entire 'break the wheel, but the cart still gets there' approach. 

 

[littleRickon]

I agree that this is a big-ass dropped ball right there, but I still feel it is more of a consequence than a cause. Jon Snow not being labeled a deserter and not ever explaining his "I served one life, that's all I swore" logic to anyone is just a companion of the bigger "the show brought Jon back from death and then never cared about that" arc.

I really don't understand from within the show why they made him die and then come back. If it is only to release him from his NW vows, there would have been different routes to go. Mostly it seemes now it was to create a shock in the season finale and then another by bringing him back. Why they didn't explore any of the consequences of those completely unusual and thought-to-be-impossible events is beyond me. Every conversation Jon has should turn around how the flying f he came back to life, what that means for him, what that means for everyone. Lady Mormont should have asked. The Glovers should have called him a liar about that. At the very least the northman should have acknolegded him when pronouncing him king. The UNDEAD wolf he is, not the white. 

It should have been dominant - and it should have been good TV. I want to know the feelings of the people in this world who are talking to a dead guy. Can you imagine a show like breaking bad doing something of this magnitude and then just completely ignoring it afterwards? GoT has always been about a fantasy world where the fantasy is not commonplace - where dragons and white walkers are judged to be tales for children by the most knowlegable characters. Where seeing a shadow baby born changed a man forever. Yet the north doesn't care they are following a zombie. It was like "ah, the red player rolled a 20 on the resurrection spell, nice!"

I don't want to show bash too much. Season 6 had some problems, and a lot of brilliant scenes. The last two episodes were awesome (9 more for the technical aspects, 10 for the plot and characters). Yet the ignoring of their biggest plot point in the north was a downer for me - but far from the biggest. So to answer OPs question: the biggest ball dropped was definitely Arya in Braavos, with the climax being her getting stabbed in the belly, seeing the knife being turned, her falling into a dirty river, with all the worlds bacteria waiting to infect her open wound and her subsequent walking around the city and being healed by a hobby doctor and some good sleep. Everything Arya after that felt pointless, because I saw that girl get stabbed to death and it just didn't do anything.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

8 hours ago, littleRickon said:

I really don't understand from within the show why they made him die and then come back. If it is only to release him from his NW vows, there would have been different routes to go. Mostly it seemes now it was to create a shock in the season finale and then another by bringing him back. Why they didn't explore any of the consequences of those completely unusual and thought-to-be-impossible events is beyond me. Every conversation Jon has should turn around how the flying f he came back to life, what that means for him, what that means for everyone.

I guess to me one parallel is Dany after the Season 1 finale.  

The girl literally walks into a raging inferno and survives naked and covered in dragons.  It's literally mythological and impossible to believe.  Yet it happened.  However there are only like a few dozen people who witnessed it.  Those people believe, but how do you even start talking others about it in a way anyone else would understand?  For that reason, we never saw a conversation about it in books or show with anyone Dany met for the next 4 seasons.  And ok, she had the title - the unburnt - but that was it.  Most people who heard it, probably assumed it was exaggerations.  

Same goes for Jon.  A few people know the legend of what happened is actually true.  A few believe without firsthand knowledge (Sansa most likely).  But most people would discard it out of hand as wildling superstition or exaggeration because it's so implausible.  Also there's no way that Jon, if he has a lick of sense, is going to try to argue with Mormont or Glover or Bolton or really anyone that "oh actually I really died and came back to life so you shouldn't consider me a deserter".  Why in the 7 hells would they believe him with how self-serving that sounds?  Lifting his shirt you could hand-wave off as only badly wounded, and only his closest allies will back up his story.  It can only damage his reputation to try such a thing.  

[littleRickon]

On 8/2/2016 at 9:09 PM, A spoon of knife and fork said:

I guess to me one parallel is Dany after the Season 1 finale.  

The girl literally walks into a raging inferno and survives naked and covered in dragons.  It's literally mythological and impossible to believe.  Yet it happened.  However there are only like a few dozen people who witnessed it.  Those people believe, but how do you even start talking others about it in a way anyone else would understand?  For that reason, we never saw a conversation about it in books or show with anyone Dany met for the next 4 seasons.  And ok, she had the title - the unburnt - but that was it.  Most people who heard it, probably assumed it was exaggerations.  

 

nice catch with the parallel. I still think though that for Dany that whole thing played a much bigger role to her plot. And there were conversations about it. Jorah the Explorah talks about how he will never forget that day, and so on. She also did not just step out of the fire unburnt, but with dragons. And that certainly became the main theme of her arc. Mother of dragons blah blah. Even Tywin talks about the dragons - even if just to announce his disbelief.

I felt the Dany moment was handled fine in both show and books. It was a literal wonder, an impossibility, and it had a lot of fallout and people reacted to it and it changed the world. Jon's resurrection, on the show, lacked that impact for me. We just get a quick reference that the wildlings now see him as a "God", but that's about it. He quits the NW because he's technically served for life, but doesn't have to explain that to anyone. The North either know about his death and just aren't curious enough about resurrection to ask about it, or they don't know and just don't care he deserted. And it's not just the North - even the characters around him don't really react to it. Does Sansa know? Does she care? Not on screen. Davos, who told everybody over and over that Stannis was the one true king because he had a sense for duty, doesn't mention it to anyone when advertising for Jon. Melisandre never talks to anyone about how she didn't think that she had any powers left but still resurrected this guy, obviously making him AA reborn. Everybody is just so "meh!" about it. For all the show's done with it, the resurrection could have been replaced by a simple desertion of Jon and the North tolerating it because of some invented precedence a la "Lord Commander Usayne Bolton was allowed to quit the NWs 2000 years ago when blah-blah-blah happened".

I guess what I'm saying is when you bring out a freaking resurrection in a show that sees itself as grounded fantasy, then you better make a big deal about it.

[NutBurz]

I personally think that, in Jon´s head, the White Walker issue takes precedence to his vows, and that would be his explanation to anyone who didn´t know/hear about him returning from the dead. Because that´s clearly a very stupid reason to claim out loud. You let people say it, you confirm it when people ask, but you don´t use it as an argument for anything. Jon never really bothers to publicly delcare to the Night´s Watch that he´s leaving based on this technicality, he just blurts it when his closest friend in the Wall asks for an explanation and he doesn´t even say it very loudly.

 

I do agree that the White Walker issue should have been better exposed, how it goes from Jon´s speech to a clear idea in the Northman´s head that there are mythical zombies coming, because that´s basically the one source of Jon´s legitimacy that would override his duties to the NW in the Northman´s head, it isn´t really the Battle for Winterfell.