Petyr Targaryen

Definitive List of Plot Holes [SPOILERS]

188 posts in this topic

It's not overt but the hints are there, I'll have to re-read the Craster interactions for some quotes but it gets drilled in AFFC with the stories of Stark daughters being kidnapped by wildling leaders that there is Stark blood both sides of the wall. Craster is set up as being half way between the 7 Kingdoms & Wildlings, considered an outsider to the wildlings.

I think we need to seperate the visuals from the show with the story. The Wights look like that to look cool not much else, besides how can you judge age of what is essentially an alien race. I would also assume they have magic that would speed up the aging process.

There were Starks before Craster so no reason why the Nights King couldnt have used them and as I say the book makes it clear there is Stark blood both sides plus a long stream of them manning the wall. What Craster does is give the Night's King a steady supply of stronger than norm stark blood children & possible is one of the reasons the Nights King is strong enough to start attacking men. 

Jeor knowing about Craster giving his sons is show cannon only. Think the books are consistant with him being a skeptic of the walkers until the attack of one inside castle black in AGOT. 

Now it might not be just Stark blood, it could be the blood that gives greenseer powers like Bloodraven has, we know that runs in the Starks.

The long night was so long ago we dont know what happenned, Brandon the hero is suggested to be the first Stark. Did he need to have these magical propeties in his blood to do it, or did whatever happened to save the world give him this power (& maybe not just to him but to his companions & their decendants too).

Edited by RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

23 hours ago, RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon said:

Jeor knowing about Craster giving his sons is show cannon only.

Quote

 “He gives his sons to the wood.”
A long silence. Then: “Yes.” And “Yes,” the raven muttered, strutting. “Yes, yes, yes.”
“You knew?”
“Smallwood told me. Long ago. All the rangers know, though few will talk of it.”
“Did my uncle know?”
“All the rangers,” Mormont repeated. “You think I ought to stop him. Kill him if need be.” The Old Bear sighed. “Were it only that he wished to rid himself of some mouths, I’d gladly send Yoren or Conwys to collect the boys. We could raise them to the black and the Watch would be that much the stronger. But the wildlings serve crueler gods than you or I. These boys are Craster’s offerings. His prayers, if you will.”

(ACoK, Ch.23 Jon III)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Walda said:

 

(ACoK, Ch.23 Jon III)

Yes but it is clear that Jeor doesnt know they are being taken by wights. He thinks their deaths are an offering to the "crueler" gods of the Wildlings. It doesnt counter anything I've said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 4:21 PM, RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon said:

It's not overt but the hints are there, I'll have to re-read the Craster interactions for some quotes but it gets drilled in AFFC with the stories of Stark daughters being kidnapped by wildling leaders that there is Stark blood both sides of the wall. Craster is set up as being half way between the 7 Kingdoms & Wildlings, considered an outsider to the wildlings.

I think we need to seperate the visuals from the show with the story. The Wights look like that to look cool not much else, besides how can you judge age of what is essentially an alien race. I would also assume they have magic that would speed up the aging process.

There were Starks before Craster so no reason why the Nights King couldnt have used them and as I say the book makes it clear there is Stark blood both sides plus a long stream of them manning the wall. What Craster does is give the Night's King a steady supply of stronger than norm stark blood children & possible is one of the reasons the Nights King is strong enough to start attacking men. 

Jeor knowing about Craster giving his sons is show cannon only. Think the books are consistant with him being a skeptic of the walkers until the attack of one inside castle black in AGOT. 

Now it might not be just Stark blood, it could be the blood that gives greenseer powers like Bloodraven has, we know that runs in the Starks.

The long night was so long ago we dont know what happenned, Brandon the hero is suggested to be the first Stark. Did he need to have these magical propeties in his blood to do it, or did whatever happened to save the world give him this power (& maybe not just to him but to his companions & their decendants too).

What I meant is that when the long night happened how many starks existed? 10 to 20 at most right? So there couldn t be a large number of others if that was true. Now you can argue that the others have been colecting babies with stark blood over the years and now there are a lot of others. The problem is that the people from the time of the long night would have hunted and killed every stark in order to weaken the others and certainly wouldn t elect them as their kings.

What you can say is that the babies need to have the blood of the first men. That could make sense in the books and make it pointless to hunt down the starks, but again I am pretty sure that there are a lot of wildlings with that blood and the others could target their babies in the show.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Does Podrick know Tyrion's status as Dany's hand, and does he know Jon & Davos are heading to rendezvous? I know he's Brienne's squire now, but I imagine he'd like to say "hello," or something to that effect. It would be interesting to see how Pod would react and whether he'd vouch for him ... although, I guess this is indicative of the fact that they don't really care for his input? He's not a lord, but the lords of the North are very skeptical of any Lannister. Cersei, Tywin, and Jaimes actions/ reputations are what tainted the Lannister name. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Waif removing her fake faces both times that she came for Arya.  Why bother wearing other faces in the first place if she clearly wasn't concerned about witnesses to her crimes?

Edited by storm.131
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/07/2017 at 9:30 AM, RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon said:

The Wights need to have Stark blood. It is strongly hinted that Craster is a long lost Stark descendant. His babies not only have Stark blood but have been inbred a few generations so the strongest Stark blood around really. That is also why Benjen was almost turned into a Wight & how the CotF saved him. He's not going to have been killed straight away but taken to the Nights King for transformation. 

Are people still confused about this?

Wight = zombie. A body raised from the dead as a mindless soldier. Did Othor and all the other hundreds or thousands of wights all have Stark blood? Almost certainly not. There's no reason to think there's anything special about the people who became wights.

White Walker = Others = The guys who apparently control the wights. They don't seem to be mindless. They're the things that you seemingly need dragonglass or Valyrian steel to kill, and the things that take Craster's babies. It seems those babies are made into more White Walkers. A baby wight is probably a bit useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

Are people still confused about this?

Wight = zombie. A body raised from the dead as a mindless soldier. Did Othor and all the other hundreds or thousands of wights all have Stark blood? Almost certainly not. There's no reason to think there's anything special about the people who became wights.

White Walker = Others = The guys who apparently control the wights. They don't seem to be mindless. They're the things that you seemingly need dragonglass or Valyrian steel to kill, and the things that take Craster's babies. It seems those babies are made into more White Walkers. A baby wight is probably a bit useless.

Yes sorry, i always get the names the wrong way round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, divica said:

What I meant is that when the long night happened how many starks existed? 10 to 20 at most right? So there couldn t be a large number of others if that was true. Now you can argue that the others have been colecting babies with stark blood over the years and now there are a lot of others. The problem is that the people from the time of the long night would have hunted and killed every stark in order to weaken the others and certainly wouldn t elect them as their kings.

What you can say is that the babies need to have the blood of the first men. That could make sense in the books and make it pointless to hunt down the starks, but again I am pretty sure that there are a lot of wildlings with that blood and the others could target their babies in the show.

 

I hear you but what i am saying is it could be the events of the long night that made Stark blood have the greenseer or whatever is needed to be a white walker. It is clear the CotF made the walkers using their magic. So walkers could prob have been made from anyone so long as CotF are willing to do it. They arent willing anymore but there is magic left in the Stark's blood hence the ability to Warg. Night's King knows this so targets them.

All I'm saying is this isnt a plot hole it'd just information we havent learnt yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2017 at 11:17 PM, YoungGriff89 said:

The white walkers are generally not CGI.  Look up some of the behind the scenes stuff on YouTube.  I think the night king at hard home was CGI but other than that they've been guys in suits.  They're definitely finished with CGI where things like the glowing eyes are concerned.  

 You are totally correct regarding the WW. My bad!

I thought their skin was virtual textured, but it's actually prosthetic and virtual 'cold steam':

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/07/behind-scenes-visual-effects-game-of-thrones

Texturing, which I thought it was, takes a lot of time tuning and time:

http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/cgsfeatures/cgsfeaturespecial/the_top_ten_tips_of_texturing

Also, wights don't require as much CG effort as ppl think either. I maintain CG was not a reason for this plot hole.

Most of the show is already cgi, of course the dragons but also locations and sometimes nonmagic violence. It's about how streamlined each thing is. Stage 3 wights use green screen skins under regular costumes, the green mostly becomes black, and a little finishing touches.The more wights you see, the greater percentage of them are stage 3. When it comes to skeletons and walking dead, there are prewritten tools (code) that make it quicker and easier to employ a 'certain look'. Thry likely adjust from there but  I it's covered ground. So to speak. Mostly they are costumed with prosthetics EXCEPT in Hardhome when they fall of the cliff. Overall less effort than a lot of the dragon shots and the battles.

 

Maybe it's the prosthetics, that is some crazy skin, but the wights seem equally difficult to make with rubber and stuff. Maybe I'm wrong and production is the reason, but they definitely have the budget. If anything, it's how much time they have between seasons.

MTTP, the wights HAVE to be a massive army to fulfill the plot, they kept the WW minimal as necessary for plot I guess, wtvr the reason. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2017 at 5:27 PM, Raeslewolhn said:

 You are totally correct regarding the WW. My bad!

I thought their skin was virtual textured, but it's actually prosthetic and virtual 'cold steam':

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/07/behind-scenes-visual-effects-game-of-thrones

Texturing, which I thought it was, takes a lot of time tuning and time:

http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/cgsfeatures/cgsfeaturespecial/the_top_ten_tips_of_texturing

Also, wights don't require as much CG effort as ppl think either. I maintain CG was not a reason for this plot hole.

Most of the show is already cgi, of course the dragons but also locations and sometimes nonmagic violence. It's about how streamlined each thing is. Stage 3 wights use green screen skins under regular costumes, the green mostly becomes black, and a little finishing touches.The more wights you see, the greater percentage of them are stage 3. When it comes to skeletons and walking dead, there are prewritten tools (code) that make it quicker and easier to employ a 'certain look'. Thry likely adjust from there but  I it's covered ground. So to speak. Mostly they are costumed with prosthetics EXCEPT in Hardhome when they fall of the cliff. Overall less effort than a lot of the dragon shots and the battles.

 

Maybe it's the prosthetics, that is some crazy skin, but the wights seem equally difficult to make with rubber and stuff. Maybe I'm wrong and production is the reason, but they definitely have the budget. If anything, it's how much time they have between seasons.

MTTP, the wights HAVE to be a massive army to fulfill the plot, they kept the WW minimal as necessary for plot I guess, wtvr the reason. 

 

It's cool, I am just genuinely impressed with the prosthetics and practical make up on the show when they want to use it.  Speaking of which, I don't know if this is a plot hole or just an anachronism but should we address the complete change in appearance of the children of the forest from season four to six?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read through the whole thread, but didn't Jon claim that Aerys burnt Brandon alive? Pretty sure he was strangled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, YoungGriff89 said:

It's cool, I am just genuinely impressed with the prosthetics and practical make up on the show when they want to use it.  Speaking of which, I don't know if this is a plot hole or just an anachronism but should we address the complete change in appearance of the children of the forest from season four to six?

I know! It's really amazing. The entire show employs so many people and really gives them the opportunity to do some badass stuff with their resources and locations. I just found all the production Extras on Now from previous seasons and I'm watching them all lol. I wish they would do Revealed with S7  even tho they didn't portray the actors that well in S6 ones, it's cool from a vfx  and FX standpoint). 

I dont know if this is their reason but that S4 bit was a small scene, knowing they wouldn't have bran S5 anyway. The s6 CotF seem closer to my interpretation of the real ones. Mistaken for children, not actual chilren :) And it is art, after all, why stick to the lesser version if you have a chance to redesign it that's not too distracting ya know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/07/2017 at 5:43 AM, Petyr Targaryen said:

 

  1. Lord Commander Jeor Mormont sent Alliser Thorne to King Landing to lay the wight hand (that Ghost found in Season 1) at Joffrey's feet, but that never happened. Petyr Targaryen
  2. Melisandre removed her necklace to take a bath in Season 4, but did not transform. Petyr Targaryen
  3. Where in the world is Gendry? Petyr Targaryen
  4. The Northern Lords seem to not care whatsoever that Jon Snow deserted the Night's Watch. Petyr Targaryen
  5. Varys sends an assassin to kill Daenerys then later supports her claim. YoungGriff89
  6. Talisa Magyr was a member of a Volantene noble house killed in a Westerosi civil war with no consequences or outrage. YoungGriff89
  7. The Kingsguard that was sent to Dorne with Myrcella was AWOL when we see Myrcella again in Season 5. YoungGriff89

1.  Not plot hole.  Just because they said they would do something and we didn't see it happen, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  It's more lazy storytelling in my opinion.

2.  Definitely plot hole.  I also noticed there was no necklace peeking out of her cloak when she came to meet Dany on Dragonstone.  It usually sat high enough to be seen when she was wearing a cloak.  I guess she could have had the ruby somewhere else though.

3.  Not a plot hole.  Who cares where Gendry ended up?  He was a minor character who served a purpose and his part in the story was over.

4.  This is only a plot hole if the lords don't know that Jon was technically released from his vows because he was killed.  If they do know, it's not a plot hole.  

5.  Not a plot hole at all!  Varys sent assassins to appear to be on King Robert's side but he also made sure they would fail.

6.  Not a plot hole.  Talisa's family was noble but that doesn't necessarily mean they were powerful.

7.  Only a plot hole if they specifically said the King's Guards would stay with Myrcella in Dorne, but not if they just accompanied her on the journey and then returned to King's Landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/07/2017 at 10:27 AM, sweetsunray said:

Edmure Tully's whereabouts.

S6 at the siege of RR, Jaime says to Edmure that he'llsend him to Casterly Rock, with his child. Then in the S5 finale, Waldery Frey claims he's back in the Twin dungeons, and then in S7 it's as if he doesn't exist anymore: Arya doesn't get him out and Jaime doesn't worry about him either.

Walder said Edmure is "back in his cell".  He didn't say where the cell was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kaguya said:

Haven't read through the whole thread, but didn't Jon claim that Aerys burnt Brandon alive? Pretty sure he was strangled.

In the show universe Brandon was burnt like his father, not strangled like in the books.

Jon's claim is consistent (rare for the show lol) with Jaime in season 1 in the throne room talking to Ned about the Mad King burning Ned's father and brother alive in that same spot.

Edited by Gaz0680

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tywinelle said:

1.  Not plot hole.  Just because they said they would do something and we didn't see it happen, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  It's more lazy storytelling in my opinion.

2.  Definitely plot hole.  I also noticed there was no necklace peeking out of her cloak when she came to meet Dany on Dragonstone.  It usually sat high enough to be seen when she was wearing a cloak.  I guess she could have had the ruby somewhere else though.

3.  Not a plot hole.  Who cares where Gendry ended up?  He was a minor character who served a purpose and his part in the story was over.

4.  This is only a plot hole if the lords don't know that Jon was technically released from his vows because he was killed.  If they do know, it's not a plot hole.  

5.  Not a plot hole at all!  Varys sent assassins to appear to be on King Robert's side but he also made sure they would fail.

6.  Not a plot hole.  Talisa's family was noble but that doesn't necessarily mean they were powerful.

7.  Only a plot hole if they specifically said the King's Guards would stay with Myrcella in Dorne, but not if they just accompanied her on the journey and then returned to King's Landing.

Well, technically you can explain pretty much anything as lazy storytelling. For example, maybe Mel doesn't need necklace for her magic, maybe necklace just makes it easier but isn't necessary, theoretically that could explain it, so by your criteria it isn't a plot hole. But in reality, it's much more logical to assume that D&D didn't even think about it and that therefore any explanation you come up with is yours and not show's, and that pretty much means that it is a plot hole.

Also about Talisa, she could be lying for example, maybe she is like Tysha (in show universe, it seems that Tysha actually was a gold digging whore), but the fact that you can come up with some not too realistic explanation doesn't mean that D&D ever gave a thought about it even. They changed Jeyne to Talisa for no good reason at all, and they changed her entire backstory, and then they simply forgot about it as if she never was established as a Essoss noble.

D&D almost never follow up on anything, they never think about the consequences of what they write (especially of the changes they make), and that's why many of these and other points really are plot holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you really hate the show LOL

The point is, if you know something indisputably happened on the show and they contradicted it later on, it would be a plot hole.  If it was something vague and open to interpretation, it wouldn't be a plot hole.  It may be poorly written or ridiculously far fetched, but not all shoddy work can be called a "plot hole".

For example, Jon's parentage.  It was implied that he was the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna BUT no one actually straight out said it (yet), so if it turns out that Jon is not their son, technically it would not be a plot hole.

Edited by Tywinelle
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywinelle said:

Wow, you really hate the show LOL

Not really, I just find it embarrassingly stupid, which is not the same thing.

2 minutes ago, Tywinelle said:

The point is, if you know something indisputably happened in the show and they contradicted or ignored it later on, it is a plot hole.  If it is something vague and open to interpretation, it isn't.  It may be poorly expressed or written, ridiculously far fetched or unbelievable, but not all shoddy work is a "plot hole".

Again, what I'm saying is that by your definition nothing can ever be a plot hole. Theoretically you can come up with some explanation however stretched it may be, for literally anything. Even for contradictions. Just as example, the show can make seasons be of normal length all of a sudden, winter could last for three months, but even if they don't address that in the show, by your criteria it isn't a plot hole because there can always be some explanation and you can always put it on lazy writing. For example, you could say that they forgot to explain why the winter ended after only three months, but it isn't a plot hole because there is a possible explanation (and I'd disagree of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Theoretically you can come up with some explanation however stretched it may be, for literally anything.

Explaining away the ridiculous is not the same as a plot hole.

PS It's not "my definition".  Look it up.

Edited by Tywinelle
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now