Flashbacks confirmed

[Padraig]

TheSmilingKnight. :)

And thats fine because none can be sure it was because of childbirth and as long as they wonder

"As long as they wonder". Just to be clear. You are saying that it is ok to give a very big hint that Lyanna died in childbirth? Rather than keep things subtle?

I shouldn't have to say this but while the ToJ scene does not prove Lyanna had a child it is one of the leading reasons why some people came up with the theory in the first place.

I never said anything about being stabbed either. How about you actually read what i write?

*sigh* Somebody else mentioned stabbed. And yes, she could be sick but you have to ensure her sickness is consistent with where the blood is? If she died from TB, where would the blood be? The TV series will tell us a lot more. Its obvious. :) I honestly can't see where the confusion arises. (I know people don't think she will be covered from foot to toe in blood).

Im not sure what youre reading here or to whom or what youre actually replying. it seems to me your just inventing things for yourself and then replying to that.

That's really peculiar. I still believe the line you quoted is applicable. For i'm still not sure why some people insist on seeing Lyanna in a bloody bed when Venardhi's more subtle suggestion makes a very adequete alternative. :P

Widely?

Yes, you said the news was known to many others who were close to them. I'm not sure that is correct.

Because Jaime thinks that Ned should be grateful to him for Aerys' death, while Ned thinks that Jaime had no right to kill Aerys (and probably wanted to do it himself).

This is true but tSK was talking about the deaths of Brandon and Rickard. Indirectly those deaths did cause some antagonism between Ned and Jaime but I thought it was a strange thing to say. The real cause was Jaime actually killing Aerys as you say.

[Ser Greguh]

Personally I think the correct time for the Brandon Stark flashback will be as the opening to Episode 10, and doing it from Jaime's POV. Jaime has been taken captive, possibly add in a wound, being treated with Milk of the Poppy, and we get a good 2 minutes of Rickard Stark being cooked in his armor, of Brandon strangling himself as he watches on, and of Aerys laughing and gleefully micromanaging the whole affair. Jaime stands stoically to one side. Female VO: "Kingslayer." Smash cut to Aerys, lying in a pool of blood, Jaime standing over him, sword in hand. "Kingslayer." "Kingslayer." Smash cut to Robert, drunk, laughing, saying "Jaime Lannister. For the rest of your days men will call you Kingslayer." Female VO: "Kingslayer." He swims out of sleep. Catelyn stands over him on his sickbed: "Kingslayer." Jaime mutters: "...and what a King he was." Catelyn: "I have questions for you." Opening credits.

Flashbacks can be a useful tool, but I hold to my hope that they're used sparingly. Too much use and they come off as sloppy, lazy writing.

[The SmilingKnight]

Padraig:

If all people see is a bloody bed, like it is described briefly in the books - then no one can point and say "its from childbirth". There is absolutely no need to show blood on a specific spot anywhere.

Ser greguh: I recommend watching "Prestige" which is one big flashback over flashback. Or indeed "Memento" or "Godfather 2", etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

[Padraig]

If all people see is a bloody bed, like it is described briefly in the books

In the book it is simply described as a bed of blood. But visually what does that mean? Will the bed be covered with blood from top to bottom? Doubt it. Maybe its just the around the pillow? Around the foot?

This is what people mean. You can get away with "bed of blood" in a book but on screen we will learn more information. There is no doubting that.

Personally I think the correct time for the Brandon Stark flashback will be as the opening to Episode 10, and doing it from Jaime's POV

I'm not sure. That's very much like what happens in aCoK. People have talked about it been a Ned dream. But I can't recall right now was that supposition or whether the producers have told us that it will be a Ned dream? IMO it makes more sense to come from Ned's POV. Unless they do something very different from aCoK with Jaime.

[The SmilingKnight]

Visually it means most of the bed was covered in blood.

Maybe its just the around the pillow? Around the foot?

Thats just ridiculous.

[George Snow]

In the book it is simply described as a bed of blood. But visually what does that mean? Will the bed be covered with blood from top to bottom? Doubt it. Maybe its just the around the pillow? Around the foot?

This is what people mean. You can get away with "bed of blood" in a book but on screen we will learn more information. There is no doubting that.

That's my point, too.

Of course, they don't necessarily have to show us the "bed of blood" in the first flashback of the scene that they show. They can keep a tight shot, and just show the faces of Lyanna and Ned, with her saying, "Promise me." And then later on they can expound on the flashback, maybe from a Howland Reed PoV in the 6th or 7th season. I would think that this would be one of the scenes that GRRM had to give them some spoilers on, and also how much he wanted them to show now versus later. The problem with filming it all now, even if they only show part of it in season 1 is that the rest of the scene might make its way to fans of the books and spoil something that is yet to come.

GH

[Ser Greguh]

Ser greguh: I recommend watching "Prestige" which is one big flashback over flashback. Or indeed "Memento" or "Godfather 2", etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

I've seen those films and many, many more that use flashbacks, some very effectively, some not. The point stands: relying on flashbacks as a regular crutch to provide backstory often comes across as lazy storytelling. They are not in and of themselves a good thing. They fill a similar dramatic category to voice-over narration: yes, you can come up with a great many films and shows that use them, and to great effect, but the story all but has to be built around it for it to be effective.

[Padraig]

I'd agree with George Snow and Ser Greguh.

Visually it means most of the bed was covered in blood.

You wouldn't be able to tell me how most of the bed was covered in blood? :) What happened to cause such a horrible thing?

[Venardhi]

I've seen those films and many, many more that use flashbacks, some very effectively, some not. The point stands: relying on flashbacks as a regular crutch to provide backstory often comes across as lazy storytelling. They are not in and of themselves a good thing. They fill a similar dramatic category to voice-over narration: yes, you can come up with a great many films and shows that use them, and to great effect, but the story all but has to be built around it for it to be effective.

They are not in and of themselves a bad thing either. They are simply a tool of film-making and storytelling. We're talking a handful of minutes max, here or there, not Lost-style where the flashbacks can make up as much of the episode as the current events.

There is some information in the books that simply cannot be talked about between characters or shown in the present time. Flashbacks are they only way to get that information across on film.

You may as well say that flashbacks and narration and first-person perspectives are lazy writing in books.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

OK so let's picture it.

Lyanna is laying on a bed where "most of the bed was covered in blood."

For this to make any kind of sense, Lyanna will be bleeding from some part of her body. It does not make sense for her to be lying in a bed mostly covered in blood but not be bleeding/be covered in blood in the place that was previously bleeding.

Showing the part of her body from which the blood has come will reveal much more than the book has revealed about how Lyanna died. Therefore, they will not show it.

[The SmilingKnight]

Youre picturing it wrong, intentionally - and it shows.

If the bed is covered in blood, that means that sheets are covered in blood, which all together means she has been bleeding for some time - which gives you a "bed of blood" ie a bed so bloody its hard to tell from where the blood is exactly coming from - unless there is a specific reason to show the specific part of the body that is bleeding. Which there isnt.

Its a very brief scene in a nightmarish sequence where the cameras attention will be concentrating on Ned, maybe Lyannas face for a second, her hand and the words. There is no need or reason to show the bed from some aerial angle or some such nonsense.

Even so, even if all of that does indirectly point out viewers in the direction of R+L=J theory - it isnt a problem.

Thats exactly what ToJ scene does in the books and if it does the same in the series ITS NOT A PROBLEM.

btw. I earlier said "Smiling knight 1 : Westeros forums 0" which was an intentional exaggeration. There were quite a few other posters advocating the same or similar position as was mine so its actually more like:

Sanity, logic and reason 1 : the other guys 0.

[Infidel]

Right on, brother.

Its not as if there aren't filming strategies you've all seen a hundred million times to obscure just what exactly is going on in said bed. Do you think they only film in wide shots?

[Padraig]

Its a very brief scene in a nightmarish sequence where the cameras attention will be concentrating on Ned, maybe Lyannas face for a second, her hand and the words. There is no need or reason to show the bed from some aerial angle or some such nonsense.

:lol:

That's exactly what we have been saying all along.

tSK,its great to be able to state the obvious and use that to pretend you are the bastion of sanity, logic and reason. :worried:

There is some information in the books that simply cannot be talked about between characters or shown in the present time. Flashbacks are they only way to get that information across on film.

That's true as such. The only choice for the producers is whether some information needs to be shown.

[Blackfish Blues]

I agree with those such as George Snow, Ser Greguh and Venardhi (sorry if I forget someone) who argue for subtlety in the Lyanna/TOJ scene.

Animation might not be an HBO thing, but it worked wonderfully in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". Without going to those extremes of elegance, an abstract scene would be fine to describe Ned's duel with Dayne and Co., without the need to cast Dayne and Reed. It's a feverish vision, after all. Even a simple technique as blur might do the trick.

(though I'm still praying for Julian Sands or another enigmatic actor to be cast as Dayne)

Now, the scene of Brandon and Rickard's death. If it is a nightmare by Jaime, it makes sense that he superimposes Brandon to Ned (or, the actor playing Brandon is a completely different person than Sean Bean). I've already pointed out, on WiC and in the comments to the screencaps posted by Ran on Westeros, that in the scene, on the left, one can perceive the figure of a white knight turning his back to the action.Could that be the way Jaime views himself?

(the above is total speculation, of course.)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Personally I'm still almost certain its Bean playing Brandon in that photo (if it is indeed the flashback scene). I really like the idea of it being skewed by Jaime's memory and POV, very interesting concept, though the majority of viewers may just find it confusing.

[Padraig]

Now, the scene of Brandon and Rickard's death. If it is a nightmare by Jaime, it makes sense that he superimposes Brandon to Ned (or, the actor playing Brandon is a completely different person than Sean Bean).

Ran has confirmed that it is Ned's nightmare though. Not that Jaime would have nightmares about Brandon's death anyhow. :)

While animation could work fine, i'd be shocked to see it.

[Gertrude]

Sanity, logic and reason 1 : the other guys 0.

You're such a joy.

[The SmilingKnight]

You're such a joy.

:leer: :drunk: :laugh:

[sting129]

Ran has confirmed that it is Ned's nightmare though. Not that Jaime would have nightmares about Brandon's death anyhow. :)

While animation could work fine, i'd be shocked to see it.

Two things just don't make sense, if it is indeed Ned's nightmare.

1) As far as I recall, Ned wasn't there. Jaime was. The way Jaime told the story to Catelyn, the causes of Brandon's and Rickard's deaths weren't widely known. How would Ned visualize a scene he knew nothing of? He knew they were murdered, that's all. This is important for point #2.

2) Jaime diagramming the scene for Catelyn packs a punch, because it shows that Jaime wasn't so bad a guy. It seems to me, that if Ned knew the whole time that Brandon strangled himself trying to save his father who was burning alive, then he wouldn't hold such animosity towards Jaime. Why would he? Jaime killed the king who roasted Ned's father and killed his brother. But since Ned DOES think so little of Jaime, there's no way he knows the true story.

Having Ned dream about that scene makes absolutely no sense.

[Scion of Valyria]

Ned knew. I imagine seeing their bodies would tell him all he needed to, if noone just flat out told him.

Just because they will show it in season one doesn't mean they can't use it again with Jaime. Perhaps Jaime's role isn't even shown in Ned's nightmare.